Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 10, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show

46:41

Ep. 362 - “Queer” Is Not A Bad Word

The Left tries to equate "queer" with "the 'n-word.'" Then, the NYT defames everyone from Dave Rubin to Milton Friedman, a radical feminist admits abortion is murder, and a 13-year-old pro-life activist gets booed for saying abortion is murder. Date: 6-10-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Is queer a bad word?
	The mainstream media and big tech are now equating the word queer with the n-word.
	We will explain why there is no comparison between the two terms.
	Then, the New York Times publishes the most defamatory, fact-free piece in the gray lady's long and sordid history.
	We will pick it apart point by point.
	A radical feminist admits abortion is murder, a 13-year-old pro-life activist gets booed for saying abortion is murder, and President Trump wins big with Mexico.
	I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
	So much to get to today.
	We've got to talk about all those awful, terrible bigots that the New York Times wrote about.
	Those awful bigots like Dave Rubin or Phil DeFranco or Milton Friedman.
	We will also analyze the left's new campaign to censor conservatives.
	But first, if you are carrying around revolving debt, that means that you are not paying off your credit card every month, and you could be paying thousands in interest every year that you don't have to.
	Some of my friends have done this.
	It's very stupid.
	Don't do it.
	Don't carry around these high-interest credit card rates when you could go to Lending Club and consolidate your debt or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment.
	It's just smart.
	It's just not being a total dummy with your money.
	Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control of their finances with affordable fixed rate personal loans.
	No trips to a bank, no high interest credit cards.
	I refuse to have credit card debt now.
	I don't...
	I'm perfectly fine having other sorts of debt, but I will not carry around this high-interest credit card debt, and you shouldn't either.
	Go to LendingClub.com, tell them about yourself, how much you want to borrow, pick the terms that are right for you.
	If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in as little as a few days.
	This is like millennial proof.
	You don't even have to move.
	It just gets deposited.
	That's why it's the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35 billion in loans issued.
	Go to LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Check your rate in minutes.
	Borrow up to $40,000.
	Lendingclub.com slash Knowles.
	All loans made by WebBank member FDIC. Equal housing lender.
	I have got to start off the show today with a quick point that is probably going to get this episode kicked off of YouTube and maybe get me arrested and thrown in jail by the left-wing speech police, but that is the problem itself, so I will just say it.
	Queer is not a bad word.
	It's not.
	It's a perfectly fine word.
	It's a word that's been around for a very long time, and it's perfectly fine.
	The left right now is trying to equate the word queer with the N-word.
	And this is absolutely absurd.
	So it's absurd for a few reasons.
	The first and most obvious is that I can say the word queer.
	I can't say the N-word.
	When I'm referring to the N-word, I have to say the N-word.
	So right off the bat, we see these are not exactly similar circumstances.
	Now, the mainstream media are trying to change that right now.
	I've noticed in the last few days, news networks are bleeping the word queer.
	Because the left's campaign to get this word banned is working.
	But they are not similar at all.
	Another reason that the word queer is not like the N-word is that the word queer is a very old word.
	It has very broad meaning far beyond the narrow application to gay people.
	The word queer is 500 years old.
	It means strange or odd.
	The reason that it is used to describe gay people is because gay people have sexual practices that are strange or odd.
	Just by definition, they are not like most people's sexual practices, like 97 or 98% of the population.
	If people are doing something that only 2 or 3% of the population are doing, by definition, that's a little unusual, at least.
	That's where the word queer comes from.
	Now, in recent years, the word queer has been used to refer to gay people with both a positive connotation and a negative connotation.
	This is also like the word gay, by the way.
	Even when we say gay people, the word gay has only been used to refer to gay people for the last 50 years.
	And what does gay mean?
	Gay means happy.
	That's what it meant.
	Now the word almost exclusively is referring to people who are homosexual.
	Queer has a lot of usages for a very long time.
	The N-word does not.
	The N-word is only a slur for black people.
	We don't even really know the history of the N-word or the etymology of it.
	Some people erroneously think that it derives from the word negro.
	It doesn't.
	There's no evidence of that.
	Or they think it derives from the word niggardly.
	It does not.
	They're also not related.
	Now presumably it does derive from words that, or it is at least related to words that are associated with blackness.
	So, Negro, Noir, Niger, Nigeria, there's a country, Nigeria.
	It at least probably has some relation to those words, but we don't really know where it derives from.
	we do know that the N-word, hard R, itself is only used for centuries as a negative slur for black people.
	The word queer has a zillion applications.
	It's a generic word.
	Another reason why queer is not like the N-word is that queer is used by gay people themselves to refer to themselves.
	If the word queer is a hateful slur, then the acronym LGBTQ is also a hateful slur.
	The Q stands for queer.
	It also now, in later years, it's also been used to refer to questioning.
	Like, you don't know if you're gay or straight or whatever.
	But the Q still stands for queer.
	Now, one argument against this is they'll say, well, the left will observe black people have taken the N-word and reappropriated it for themselves.
	So, in the same way, gay people are reappropriating the word queer.
	Again, this argument totally breaks down.
	Because it's not just gay people who are using the word queer for themselves or some derivation, like you don't have the hard R, they'll just say quea or something in rap songs.
	No, that's not how it works.
	Everybody refers to gay people as queer.
	Politicians who are gay or straight or whatever all refer to the LGBTQ community.
	Corporations refer to the LGBTQ community.
	The government refers to the LGBTQ community.
	So it's not just that it's a term that only I can use, but you can't use it, and that's No.
	It's used by everybody.
	Now, could you imagine a politician referring to the N-word community?
	Could you imagine a government office saying, listen, we just want to welcome all of the N-word community here.
	You'd have a riot.
	You'd have riots in the streets.
	How about in academia?
	The word queer is used regularly in scholarship.
	There's a famous book called Queering Elementary Education.
	Could you imagine a book called n-wording elementary education?
	Probably would not be allowed on Amazon for very long, but you can get queering elementary education on Amazon.
	Academic journals regularly refer to queer times or queering.
	Could you imagine n-word times or n-wording?
	There are whole academic departments at universities around this country called queer studies.
	Now, it's true.
	There are similarly disciplines called African-American studies or Africana studies or black studies.
	There are no departments called N-word studies.
	Something tells me there would be some lawsuits against that university if they had those departments.
	There's no comparison whatsoever.
	The left, however, is insisting that there is one.
	They're trying to get this word banned.
	They're trying to not get it banned from the left using it.
	The left is still allowed to use it on television or on YouTube or in the popular culture.
	It's just conservatives who are no longer allowed to use it, which is obviously absurd.
	Now we're saying that the only way that you can ascertain if someone is publicly allowed to use a word is if you can predict And read their minds and understand the motivations that they have and their thoughts about all of these various sexual questions.
	Then we can determine who's allowed to use the word queer and who's not.
	That's crazy.
	But let's just say, I'll take it even further, let's say for a second that the word queer did primarily have a negative connotation.
	It doesn't.
	We just had Pride Parade yesterday.
	Queer word everywhere.
	LGBTQ. It's on every building.
	It's on every business.
	So it does not primarily have a negative connotation.
	But let's say that it did.
	What that means, then, is that what the leftist censors want is for us as a society to no longer be able to come to our own moral conclusions about certain sexual acts.
	What that means is that now you can't go on YouTube and say, I approve of certain sexual acts but I disapprove of other sexual acts.
	I have a view of sexual morality that says you can do this and that but you can't do this and that.
	What this means is that now on YouTube...
	If a priest or a rabbi or an imam went on and made a YouTube video in which they expressed their orthodox views about sexual morality, their views that have been held for at least 1400 if not 2000 or more years, That would be hate speech.
	That would be banned.
	They would be deplatformed.
	They would be kicked off of YouTube.
	And if the left gets their way, they would be banned from polite society for expressing the orthodox and traditional views of every major world religion.
	Anybody who holds orthodox views in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, any of these things, the left wants to censor you from polite society.
	You can't say that.
	Well, some people say, okay, what if...
	The priest and the rabbi and the imam, they can go on YouTube, they can discuss their certainly terrible views of sexual morality, but they have to do it in a respectful way.
	How can they do that?
	If someone's going to go on YouTube and say, I think you're going to go to hell if you keep doing this thing, that's not respectful.
	What if a rabbi goes on YouTube and he quotes Leviticus?
	Major book of the Bible, which refers to homosexual acts as an abomination.
	Regardless of your views of sex or gay sex or whatever, do you think that a rabbi should be banned from YouTube for reading the Bible?
	That is the conclusion of what they are trying to do.
	This is radical.
	What they're trying to do, this is what they always do, they have this radical idea that now if you quote a book from the Bible or if you disagree with the very, very recent modern leftist orthodoxy about sexual morality, if you disagree with what has only become a mainstream view in the last 10 years or so, that you are radical, you're crazy, you're radicalized, that's what the left is saying.
	But that idea that they're saying is itself a totally radical idea.
	You're saying that even Barack Obama's view of sexuality while he was president, which said that marriage is between a man and a woman, Even that view is radical, bigoted, hateful, should be deplatformed, shouldn't be allowed in polite society.
	That is the true radicalism.
	And what the left always does, because they project and they invert reality, is the left is saying, no, no, you, who hold the views that everyone has held for the entire history of civilization, you are really the radical one.
	It's a complete lie.
	The New York Times shows this explicitly in the most dishonest, ridiculous, I mean, actually funny article that they have published in my lifetime.
	They published it over the weekend.
	It was the main story on the New York Times homepage.
	This obviously took a long time to put together.
	It's called The Making of a YouTube Radical, and they're using it in conjunction with Fox.com and in conjunction with YouTube and Google themselves to censor conservatives on the Internet.
	We'll get to that in a second, but first, Let me tell you why I look so good.
	I'm feeling a little proud of my nice baby smooth face today because of Dollar Shave Club.
	Because Dollar Shave Club has everything that I need to look, feel, and smell my best.
	You might have seen, I put out a video, or a picture rather, on Friday of me licking a cake that says taxation is theft and I was shirtless and I was just, you might think, Michael, how does your skin get so smooth?
	How do you look so, mmm, like a little snack?
	Well, the answer is Dollar Shave Club.
	I never have to go to the store because Dollar Shave Club sends me everything I need right to my door.
	Also, they keep me fully stocked on what I use so that I don't run out.
	I don't even need to think about it, which is the key because I don't think about these things.
	So before Dollar Shave, I would be using whatever razor I had, reusable or something, and I would shave with it until it was just a perfectly rusted piece of metal.
	And I don't know, I'd be like ducking tetanus every time I shaved.
	Now Dollar Shave, I don't need to think about that.
	They have everything you need to get ready, no matter what you're getting ready for.
	They have you covered head to toe, from your hair to your skin, to your face.
	And whatever product you want, I mean, they have got it and they automatically keep you stocked up.
	You determine what you want, when you want it, so you're not going to get overloaded with stuff you don't need.
	It shows up right at your door from once a month to once every six weeks.
	Plus, they have their handsome discount, which means the more you buy, the more you save.
	Right now, they've got a bunch of starter sets that you can try for just $5, like the Oral Care Kit.
	You can get the starter set for $5 right now.
	Go to dollarshave.com slash covfefe, C-O-V-F-E-F-E. That is dollarshave.com, dollarshaveclub.com slash covfefe, C-O-V-F-E-F-E. It is fabulous, and you're going to love it.
	This New York Times article, the most dishonest tripe, I don't know that there was an honest word in the article, It's called The Making of a YouTube Radical by Kevin Roos, a fake journalist.
	I'm just going to pick it apart point by point.
	I can't even give you just the broad overview.
	Every paragraph is a lie.
	So it starts out on the, it was on mobile, it was on the website, lots of photos.
	And it was all of these awful people, these radicals.
	Do you know who the radicals were?
	Ben Shapiro, probably the most mainstream conservative voice in the country.
	Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Dave Rubin, who is amiable to a fault.
	Dave Rubin's whole show is he has people who have different points of view on, and then they discuss them.
	Dave Rubin radically presenting both sides and taking the center of an argument.
	You know who else?
	Phil DeFranco.
	I don't even think that guy's conservative.
	And then, this is my favorite one, of all these pictures.
	Because they mix them in with people who are maybe a little racist, maybe a little bigoted, maybe you've never heard of, or really extreme.
	And then, in the middle of it, is Milton Friedman.
	Milton Friedman, probably the most famous economist of the 20th century.
	He's just a guy who supports free markets and free economics.
	And he's like a grandfatherly figure who won a Nobel Prize.
	This is Milton Friedman.
	This is radical, according to the New York Times.
	Look at this lead pencil.
	There's not a single person in the world who could make this pencil.
	Remarkable statement?
	Not at all.
	The wood from which it's made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the state of Washington.
	To cut down that tree, it took a saw.
	To make the saw, it took steel.
	To make the steel, it took iron ore.
	This black center, we call it lead, but it's really graphite, compressed graphite.
	I'm not sure where it comes from, but I think it comes from some mines in South America.
	This red top up here, the eraser, bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree isn't even native.
	It was imported from South America by some businessmen with the help of the British government.
	This brass ferro, I haven't the slightest idea where it came from, or the yellow paint, or the paint that made the black lines, or the glue that holds it together.
	Literally thousands of people cooperated to make this pencil.
	Okay, David Duke.
	All right, Richard Spencer, calm down with your description of how different peoples around the world can cooperate in free markets to produce goods at a relatively low price for consumers around the world.
	All right, calm down there.
	Mr.
	Adolph?
	Gosh, that's a radical, according to the New York Times.
	That was my favorite one.
	All of them were ridiculous, but that was my favorite one.
	How does it begin?
	You see the makings of a YouTube radical.
	The story begins with all these pictures.
	You scroll through and it says, Caleb Kane was a college dropout looking for direction.
	He turned to YouTube.
	You scroll up.
	Soon he was pulled into a far-right universe, watching thousands of videos filled with conspiracy theories, misogyny, and racism.
	Yeah, that's how I would describe Milton Friedman.
	Conspiracy theories, misogyny, and racism.
	Because he talked about the color of the pencil.
	I guess that's racist.
	Then the final line, I was brainwashed.
	And here you see the point of the article.
	From the very beginning, what the New York Times is trying to tell you, what the whole left is trying to tell you, is that we don't really have any choice.
	We don't really have free will.
	We don't really have the ability to watch whatever we want on the Internet.
	See, that's what the Internet does.
	It lets you watch whatever you want.
	It's not like the old mainstream media that keeps people out.
	They're gatekeepers.
	No, on the Internet, you can see whatever you want.
	Their thesis is, no, you can't.
	You really have no choice.
	You're just brainwashed.
	You're brainwashed by yourself.
	You have brainwashed yourself with YouTube helping you along.
	It's not about free will.
	It's all about the all-powerful algorithm.
	Capital A. This is essential to the leftist argument that YouTube has to censor conservatives.
	They say it's not about the viewers.
	It's not even about the content creators on YouTube.
	Carlos Maza from Vox.com was saying that.
	He said, look, of course I want Steven Crowder censored.
	But it's not really about Steven Crowder.
	It's about the algorithm.
	So they're trying to get YouTube to do this algorithm.
	The work of leftists to censor their opponents.
	So the author of this, this guy Kevin Roos, what do we know about him?
	Well, we found out through a simple Twitter search.
	He's friends with Carlos Maza.
	At least he knows him.
	They've interacted before months and months ago.
	He had tweeted out something about how he'd been working for a long time, for months on an article.
	Carlos Maza thanked him in February for all the work that he's done.
	And then Kevin Roos liked the Carlos Maza tweet.
	These guys know each other.
	They're interacting with one another online.
	Then they open up this story.
	I mean, the timing is a little suspect, too.
	Carlos Maza from Vox.com launches his crusade on conservatives to get them kicked off of YouTube on May 30th, two days before Pride Month.
	Then, not three, four days later, a little longer, I guess a week later, the New York Times publishes this major piece.
	This piece took a lot longer than a week to produce.
	Obviously, there was some communication going on here as YouTube is ramping it up.
	This is an all-on assault, not just at the beginning of Pride Month, but more importantly, at the beginning of the 2012-20 election cycle.
	So, the New York Times piece begins.
	The common thread...
	Found in many of these stories of radicalization on YouTube and its recommendation algorithm, the software that determines which videos appear on users' homepages and inside the UpNext sidebar next to a video that is playing.
	The algorithm is responsible for more than 70% of all time spent on the site.
	Because what does the algorithm do?
	It recommends similar videos.
	This makes perfect sense.
	If you're watching a video of Milton Friedman, maybe you want to watch another video of Milton Friedman.
	I'm sure, well now they've probably changed it, but I'm sure if you're watching a video of this show, it'll probably recommend some other stuff that I've done.
	Why?
	Because you're obviously interested in what I'm doing, and so you want to see more of it.
	Or maybe similar things.
	I mean, that's just natural.
	And they're saying, this is terrible.
	So this is the setup.
	What YouTube is doing is they need to change the algorithm to suppress the right-wing material before 2020, before we get another Republican election.
	I mean, that's, I think, the long game of all of this.
	The piece goes on.
	They're talking about this kid, this kid, Caleb Kane, who says he was radicalized, right-wing radical because of YouTube.
	And this took place over the series of three years, 2016, 2017, into 2018.
	And he just became more and more right-wing, and he became a total radical.
	So what did he do?
	Well, this is what the New York Times says.
	If alienation was one ingredient in Mr.
	Cain's radicalization and persuasive partisans like Stefan Molyneux, a YouTube creator, were another, the third was a series of product decisions YouTube made starting back in 2012.
	In March of that year, YouTube's engineers made an update to the site's recommendations algorithm.
	For years, the algorithm had been programmed to maximize views by showing users videos they were likely to click on.
	So they're saying this is some nefarious thing.
	No, what is really happening is YouTube is giving people more of what they want to see.
	Should YouTube be giving people stuff that they don't want to see?
	Should it be like you go to a restaurant and you say, I really like clam chowder.
	And they say, oh, perfect.
	Here's a taco bowl.
	I'm sure you'll say, no, I really like this clam chowder.
	Say, yeah, but you can't have any more of that.
	No, of course, businesses want to cater to what you want.
	I mean, they want the customer to be happy.
	The customer's always right.
	New York Times goes on.
	By the night of November 8th, 2016, this is my favorite paragraph in the whole thing, Mr.
	Cain's transformation was complete.
	He spent much of the night watching clips of Ms.
	Clinton's supporters crying after the election was called in Mr.
	Trump's favor.
	His YouTube viewing history shows that at 1.41 a.m., just before bed, he turned on a live stream hosted by Stephen Crowder with the title, Trump Wins!
	So on election night, this kid, this radical, he started out, he was kind of a moderate liberal guy.
	On election night, he was watching videos titled Trump Wins on the night that Trump won.
	That's the big, that's the radicalization, is that on a night when most of America voted in Donald Trump, he was celebrating that the guy who won the presidency won the presidency because he was watching videos about it.
	He might not even have been celebrating it.
	He was just watching videos about it.
	Still doesn't seem very radical, does it?
	No, of course not.
	It's all just this ambiance.
	It's all the pictures, the graphics.
	The word is radical in the title.
	So what actually happened to this guy?
	The New York Times, as always, like 20 paragraphs in, they give away the whole story.
	And they show that actually what they're saying happened is the opposite of what actually happened.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	But first, speaking of great stories, code names, deception, gadgets.
	This might seem like something out of the movies, but these are just some of the essential components of being a spy.
	We've got a lot of spies around in the world.
	Attorney General Barr was talking about this the other day.
	Every country has spies, and most spies are ordinary, forgettable people, which makes them all the more dangerous.
	What does it really take to be a spy?
	Every week, the ParCast Original Espionage tells the stories of the world's most incredible undercover missions and how these covert operations succeeded or sometimes failed.
	Find out the real-world spy tactics required to impersonate, exploit, and infiltrate the most confidential places in the world.
	You are going to be fascinated by the story of FBI official Mark Felt.
	Does that name ring a bell?
	Maybe not.
	Mark Felt was the anonymous FBI informant who went by the name Deep Throat.
	He gave the crucial information to the Washington Post that led to President Nixon's resignation over Watergate.
	There are episodes on British codebreaker Alan Turing as well as triple agent Henry Derricore, am I pronouncing that correctly?
	They're out right now.
	It's really, really cool.
	Because we all have the idea of spy movies and what it's like.
	The real-life stories are more interesting than the movies.
	Search for and subscribe to Espionage wherever you listen to podcasts.
	Search Espionage or visit Parcast.com slash Espionage to listen now.
	So you're reading this New York Times story and you think, the guy doesn't sound very radical at all.
	So far, the story is just about a guy who finds some right-wing videos on YouTube and he watches them.
	Right?
	So does it get any more radical than that?
	Are we going to actually get what the New York Times is promising?
	Well, listen to what they write.
	One channel, run by Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist magazine American Renaissance, posted videos with titles like Refugee Invasion is European Suicide.
	Others posted clips of interviews with white supremacists like Richard Spencer and David Duke.
	Mr.
	Cain never bought into the far-right's most extreme views, like Holocaust denial or the need for a white ethnostate, he said.
	Still, far-right ideology bled into his daily life.
	He began referring to himself as a trad-con, a traditional conservative, committed to old-fashioned gender norms.
	He dated an evangelical Christian woman, and he fought with his liberal friends.
	By the way, that last part isn't even true.
	He disagreed with his liberal friends.
	He didn't fight with them.
	What are they saying actually happened?
	They're saying, on the right-wing YouTube, there are people who are vicious, vile, racist, neo-Nazis.
	Caleb Cain never listened to any of them or really believed them at all.
	But they exist.
	Well, I thought the article was about the making of a radical.
	You said this was about the making of a YouTube radical.
	And then you describe some views that actually are radical...
	Right before you say that the kid never believed any of them.
	The most radical thing that this kid did, according to the New York Times' own reporting, is he referred to himself as a traditional conservative.
	That's it, guys.
	That's it.
	When they use the term the alt-right conservative, On the left, when they use that term, they're just talking about you and me.
	They're just talking about anybody who believes that the genders are different.
	That's what they said.
	They said he started to believe in gender norms.
	Oh, he believes that men and women are different?
	Okay.
	And then he disagreed with his liberal friends.
	Oh, the guy who has conservative viewpoints disagreed with people who have different viewpoints, okay?
	And, this is the most shocking thing of all, he dated a Christian girl.
	He dated a Christian girl.
	That's the radicalization.
	Is that a guy in 2019 in America dated a Christian girl and called himself a conservative.
	That's the most extreme thing in the whole article.
	I don't know how many...
	This is a very long article.
	Do you see what they do?
	They say, look at all these awful people.
	David Duke, Richard Spencer, probably Adolf Hitler himself.
	Yeah, this guy never listened to any of them.
	But they're there.
	And then he dated a Christian girl.
	That's what makes him radical.
	So, it goes on.
	He says, in 2018, nearly four years after Mr. Cain had begun watching right-wing YouTube videos, a new kind of video began appearing in his recommendations.
	These videos were made by left-wing creators.
	Okay.
	So it starts in 2016.
	He's watching right-wing videos.
	And then a couple years later, he starts watching left-wing videos.
	Now, why did the left-wing video pop up?
	I guess maybe they changed the algorithm, or he was just searching for titles that brought up some left-wing videos, and he started watching them.
	Maybe the videos kind of looked a little similar to the right-wing videos.
	And then he became a left-winger.
	Notice how they take all the human agency out of it.
	It's not that in 2016 he started watching right-wing videos and he started to think of himself as more conservative and then in 2018 he started to watch more left-wing videos and then he started to think of himself as more liberal.
	That's not what happened because he's not allowed to have any thought.
	People don't have any agency or free will.
	What really happened is the algorithm, the secret, all-powerful algorithm was controlling him and brainwashing him and moving his mind.
	That's obviously...
	Not how human beings work.
	That's not how knowledge works.
	And then, then they say, they're quoting Caleb Cain now, the kid.
	I just kept watching more and more of that content, sympathizing and empathizing with the left-wing creator, and also seeing that, wow, she really knows what she's talking about, Mr.
	Cain said.
	There is nothing newsworthy about this at all.
	What that guy just said is, I took in some information and thought about it and it changed my mind and then I took in other information and then I changed my mind again.
	There is nothing newsworthy about changing your mind.
	People do that all the time.
	And then they talk about his new life.
	So I guess they say he's been radicalized and then I guess he's come out of the radicalization.
	We've never seen any radicalization in the whole article, but that's what they say.
	Then at the end they say, What is most surprising about Mr.
	Kane's new life, his new left-wing life, on the surface is how similar it feels to the old one.
	He still watches dozens of YouTube videos every day and hangs on the words of his favorite creators.
	It is still difficult, at times, to tell where the YouTube algorithm stops and his personality begins.
	No, it's not.
	It's not difficult to decide that.
	You have no respect for this guy, obviously, and you have no respect for anyone else, New York Times, so you think that they don't have any brains in their head, that they're just robots, zombies, being controlled by YouTube.
	But it's not difficult to figure out where someone's personality ends and where YouTube begins.
	What they think and say and do is their personality, and the videos they watch are the videos they watch.
	Or the books that they read.
	We...
	We all learn from what we see and what we hear and what we observe.
	So this, they're saying YouTube is special and different because there are videos.
	And you can learn things from videos.
	Okay, what if he read a book?
	Let's say he read a book from Milton Friedman, for instance.
	Let's say he read a book on Friedman's economics.
	And then he thought, hmm, I agree with this Milton Friedman guy.
	I think he's got good economic views.
	Would you say that books are now the path to radicalization, the library, the making of a library radical?
	No, of course not.
	We learn.
	That's what we do.
	The New York Times is pretending that the YouTube algorithm is the first magical device ever to influence how people think.
	Everything influences how we think.
	Conversations influence how we think.
	Observations, movies, events, critical thinking.
	It's not the algorithm either.
	It's not the order of the books on the bookshelf in the library.
	It's the content.
	That's what changes how we think.
	Content is thought-provoking.
	And the last paragraph of this stupid article gives away the whole game.
	They write, they're quoting Caleb Cain here, YouTube is the place to put out a message, he said, but I've learned now that you can't go to YouTube and think that you're getting some kind of education because you're not.
	What?
	What are you getting then?
	What if you watch a college lecture on YouTube?
	You're not getting an education?
	What if you learn something that you didn't know before?
	You're not getting an education?
	What if Sweet Little Elisa does this all the time?
	You go on YouTube and you look up a new recipe, how to make some new meal.
	And then you learn how to make it and then you cook it.
	That's an education.
	What if you look up some...
	Academic question.
	Obviously you're getting an education.
	But this is what the left has to do.
	They're saying, this is not about education.
	It's only about entertainment.
	See, this is critical to the argument that YouTube should censor conservatives.
	Because even the left, if these guys were really being honest and they said we want to censor ideas that we disagree with because we can't refute them with argument, even the left probably doesn't want to say that they want to do that.
	They at least pretend to oppose academic censorship, censorship in the name of ideas.
	So what the left has to do is pretend that YouTube is just sort of entertainment.
	They have to pretend that it's just sort of right-wingers being provocateurs.
	They always use this term to refer to right-wingers, provocateurs or radicals or fringe or whatever.
	Because what they need to say is that right-wing commentators and speakers, they're not dealing in ideas.
	They're not engaging in arguments.
	They're just interested in shock value.
	And there is nothing new about this argument.
	This argument, which the New York Times thinks is brand new, Carlos Maza, YouTube, they all think it's brand new.
	They've been making this for 50 years.
	We'll tell you what the argument is in a second.
	But first, I have got to go to dailywire.com.
	Get off of YouTube.
	We're probably already off of YouTube because I use the word queer, so we're probably already off there anyway.
	Go to Daily Wire.
	Ten bucks a month, hundred dollars for an annual membership.
	You get me.
	You get the Andrew Klavan show.
	You get the Ben Shapiro show.
	You get the Matt Walsh show.
	You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
	That's coming up on Thursday.
	You get to ask questions backstage.
	You get Another Kingdom and you get Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	Mmm, that's good.
	Mmm.
	Oh, that's radical.
	That's totally rad, dude.
	That's a totally radical drink today out of the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
	Go get yours before you drown.
	We'll be right back.
	A major leftist intellectual, Lionel Trilling, made the argument, quote, As if to say, there's no reason to engage with these conservative ideas.
	Get them off of YouTube.
	Get them out of the public square.
	He even said it more directly.
	He said that conservatives don't express themselves in ideas, But in quote, irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.
	He said that in 1969.
	How many decades later, they say the same thing.
	They say, oh, these people talking on YouTube.
	These people are not dealing in ideas.
	They kind of resemble ideas, but they're not.
	They're wicked.
	They're awful.
	They're dangerous.
	We have to get rid of them.
	They've been using this argument for half a century to silence conservatives.
	They're going to use it for half a century more.
	Ironically, this is the best part of the New York Times article, this stupid article.
	The arguments that they present undercut the thesis of the article.
	The thesis of the article is that this guy was radicalized to become a right-wing radical.
	He started out left-wing, then he became right-wing.
	Actually, though, This guy's own YouTube searches, which he gave to the New York Times to write this article, show exactly the opposite.
	He started out watching far right-wing videos, and then he ended up watching left-wing videos.
	If he was radicalized in any direction, he was radicalized to the left.
	The New York Times admits this.
	They say he started out watching far-right videos by people like Stéphane Molyneux in 2016.
	Who is Stéphane Molyneux?
	He's a libertarian guy.
	He is an extreme libertarian.
	He calls himself an anarcho-capitalist.
	So, yeah, he does have extreme viewpoints.
	Started out in 2016.
	Then he moved on to the intellectual—well, then he moved on to Crowder.
	So Crowder, a more mainstream figure than Stéphane Molyneux.
	Then he moves on to the intellectual dark web, specifically people like Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan.
	So he's moving—Dave Rubin is a liberal.
	I mean, he's a self-described liberal.
	He's a centrist guy.
	Joe Rogan is sort of center-left guy.
	So he's moving to the left, and then he lands on left-wing videos by 2018.
	So, I mean, we say this all the time with the left.
	The left gets everything exactly backwards.
	They're saying the guy was radicalized to the right.
	He actually was radicalized to the left.
	All of the movement of his searches goes to the left.
	And, of course, there aren't really any radicals in the whole bunch.
	Ben Shapiro, Phil DeFranco, Milton Friedman, no radicals at all.
	Also, he was never radicalized.
	They say that he rejected Nazism.
	They admit that in the article.
	He didn't do anything.
	He didn't believe anything out of the ordinary.
	The most extreme thing he believed is that he was a traditional conservative.
	It is not only a worthless article because, first of all, it conveys nothing newsworthy, it lies about its thesis, and it defames virtually everybody that it mentions.
	It is wholly without merit except that it will be used to advance the left-wing agenda to censor conservatives.
	One of the great things about YouTube that accidentally this article sort of shows is that you can see both sides of an argument.
	For now.
	I mean, as we are speaking right now, YouTube is getting rid of that.
	They are stopping you from seeing both sides of the argument.
	But this was one of the advantages of YouTube, is you could just see, kind of get all sorts of ideas and then form your own conclusion.
	And this became pretty apparent over the weekend.
	There was a video of an abortion supporter, and she was this radical feminist named Sophie Lewis, and she put out a video explaining the logical arguments, the extreme arguments, but the logical arguments for abortion.
	In the past, the strategies that our side has tended to use have included a kind of seeding of ground to our enemies.
	We tend to say that abortion is indeed Very bad.
	But.
	Or we say, luckily, it's not killing.
	Luckily, it's just a healthcare right.
	We have very little to lose at the moment when it comes to abortion.
	And I'm interested in winning radically.
	And I wonder if we could think about defending abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work.
	Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognize how controversial this is, a form of killing.
	It is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend.
	I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist.
	I've got to give her a lot of credit.
	This is a totally honest argument.
	Thank you for making the honest argument, Sophie Lewis, because that's it.
	It's obviously a form of killing, and the argument for abortion is that...
	You can justify that killing because the comfort of the mother is more important than the life of the baby.
	That's the argument.
	And so it is killing.
	It is a human life.
	It is an individual human life.
	And you're going to do it.
	And if you want abortion, you have to accept that.
	And you have to say it's worth killing human life.
	And she's so good at this, actually.
	She takes the argument to its logical conclusion, which is that it's not just about when life begins, but if you accept that argument for killing babies based on your own Personal or social preferences, then you should be able to kill people at the end of their lives as well.
	And she makes that argument in the same breath.
	I see the forms of making and unmaking each other as sort of continuous processes.
	The other end of the spectrum is the process of learning how to die well and hold each other and let each other go at the end of our lives as well as at the beginning.
	Die well.
	Let each other die well.
	Let go, which is obviously referring to as euthanasia, so-called.
	Assisted suicide.
	Death with dignity, they call it, where you kill old people and you let old people kill themselves.
	And as a society...
	You create a lot of incentives for old people to kill themselves.
	But sure, if you agree with the argument for abortion that human life does not have some intrinsic value, then of course you would agree with the argument for assisted suicide at the end of your life.
	She makes that honest argument.
	You could go to YouTube, watch that argument.
	And then, you could watch another argument.
	There was a girl, an amazing girl, Addison Woosley, 13 years old, went up at the Raleigh City Council and made an impassioned and utterly coherent argument against abortion.
	I'm here to ask you to make abortion illegal at Raleigh.
	Abortion should be illegal because it's murder.
	The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another without justification and often with attending battles.
	When mothers choose to slaughter their innocent babies, they already have fingerprints, noses, they can recognize their mom's voice, they can hiccup, and their heart is beating.
	On ultrasounds, the baby tries to move away from the disturbing instruments they use to kill the baby.
	The baby's mouth opens wide and screen to be killed.
	These babies are alive.
	They feel being killed.
	It hurts them and there's nothing they can do about it.
	There's no way around it.
	Abortion is murder.
	So why is it?
	If an infant is destroyed before birth, there's no problem.
	But until after birth, it's considered a brutal murder.
	These babies aren't its or fetuses.
	They are human beings and they deserve to get the same human rights as any other person.
	Beautiful argument, brilliant argument.
	I'm often uncomfortable with very young political activists because they don't really know much of what they're talking about and they sound like when David Hogg opens his mouth, he's always totally incoherent talking about gun control.
	She's making a coherent argument.
	Even if you disagree with the argument, by the way, she's making, or you reject the premises or whatever, she's making a very articulate, very impassioned, obviously, very coherent argument.
	And the people in that room were very disrespectful to her when she takes that argument to its logical conclusion.
	People say that abortion should be the mom's choice.
	It's her body.
	But what about the baby's choice?
	The baby's body is in the mom's body.
	Abortion reminds me of slavery.
	I always said that we're going to say they're not a copy and they can do whatever they want.
	That's how moms say about their babies.
	My hope is that in a few years we'll look back at abortion and think, that was so cruel.
	I can't believe we did that.
	Just tell y'all about slavery.
	The question is, who will you be?
	The slave owner?
	The man down in the white's only side on the water fountain?
	Rosa Parks or Abraham Lincoln?
	Who are you going to be?
	Make a choice.
	My choice is made.
	I'm here today standing up for what's right.
	I'm here today speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
	Are you choosing to be like the plantation worker flocking to a little black child?
	Or are you going to protest people?
	No!
	Don! Don! Don!
	Only a dog!
	No!
	She can't talk about plantation workers!
	Don!
	She can't talk about anybody!
	No!
	That is a powerful video.
	That's a powerful segment.
	She makes the argument.
	It's like slavery.
	And we will be judged by our future generations.
	And who will you be?
	Will you be the plantation owner, the guy whipping the slave, or will you be on the side of justice?
	And ironically, or I guess maybe not ironically, maybe we should expect this, the 13-year-old girl who's standing up for moral clarity is behaving like an adult.
	And all those so-called adults in the room screaming like children, you're a baby!
	No, screaming, we can't hear this, we can't...
	No, trying to drown her out.
	This is what YouTube is doing.
	This is what the left is doing.
	This is what the mainstream media are doing.
	What they're trying to do is stop you from seeing both sides.
	That was what YouTube did.
	All YouTube ever did, the great achievement of YouTube, was present both sides.
	Because there weren't gatekeepers in the early days, and so you couldn't shut up the conservatives.
	And people were presented with both sides, and guess what?
	They found the conservative arguments pretty compelling.
	If you saw those two arguments, the pro-abortion woman and that 13-year-old little girl, a fairly famous radical feminist and a 13-year-old little girl, totally obscure.
	They both presented their arguments for abortion.
	Which are you going to find more compelling?
	Obviously, it's that little girl's.
	And it's why YouTube and the New York Times and Vox.com and the whole mainstream media have to be like those shouting idiots in the rally city council hall, trying to scream them down, trying to censor them, trying to shut them up.
	They can't let you hear both sides because if you do, you will side with the right.
	Uppercase R and lowercase R.
	Wish we could get to the Trump-Mexico deal because it was absolutely fabulous.
	I'll give you a little preview so that we can get to it tomorrow and how the mainstream media are totally lying about this.
	But the little preview is this was an unmitigated win for Donald Trump after negotiating, after threatening tariffs, after we heard the trade war was going to destroy the global economy.
	President Trump reached a deal.
	Mexico made major concessions to fight illegal immigration on their own southern border.
	It is a total win.
	It totally vindicates the use of tariff threats in negotiations.
	It vindicates the use of tariff threats as the U.S. deals with China, which is a much more important negotiation, and the mainstream media are furious about it.
	We'll try to get to that tomorrow to explain how the mainstream media are trying to spin it and why it just ain't so.
	So tune in for that.
	In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
	This is The Michael Knowles Show.
	Show.
	I'll see you then.
	The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner.
	Executive producer, Jeremy Boring.
	Senior producer, Jonathan Hay.
	Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
	And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
	Edited by Danny D'Amico.
	Audio is mixed by Dylan Case.
	Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
	And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.
	The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
	Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
	Today on the Matt Wall Show, we're going to talk about the left's increasingly disturbing and grotesque efforts to normalize pedophilia.
	We are headed to a very dark place in this culture, and I think we need to discuss it.
	Also, a Democratic presidential candidate reaches the most extreme levels of pandering imaginable, and a feminist presents what I think is the only honest argument for abortion that you will ever hear.

▲