Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - New ICE Car Attack Video ! Twitter/X Space

Jan. 10, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:45:22

New ICE Car Attack Video ! Twitter/X Space

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Evening, evening.
	Good evening.
	Welcome to Friday Night Live.
	What I'll be the 9th of January 2026.
	Wow, still sci-fi.
	All right.
	So we're going to do the Minneapolis ICE shooting a little bit more.
	I'm happy to take your questions, comments, issues.
	Let's try and keep it focused on this.
	If you have law enforcement experience, happy to hear.
	Now, an acquaintance of mine who was in law enforcement for many years has told me the following.
	He says, hey, buddy, the ICE shooting is going off the rails.
	I've heard them claim ICE has no police powers.
	There was no threat.
	She was fleeing, et cetera, et cetera.
	And I got this at 1.10 in the morning today, so 17 hours ago.
	This is what he says.
	One, ICE officers absolutely have law enforcement authority over U.S. citizens when citizens obstruct federal duties, block federal vehicles, resist lawful commands, or assault federal officers.
	That authority is grounded in federal statute, not immigration slaves.
	Two, there is no legal right to escape a lawful detention by using a vehicle, even if a detention related challenged violent resistance or vehicular flight is not retroactively justified.
	Do not be a street lawyer.
	you are arrested, then get thee to a lawyer.
	Okay.
	Yeah, sorry, just started checking something.
	So, yeah, get to a lawyer and don't try and argue with the cop.
	The cop is not a lawyer.
	The cop is going to do what he or she perceives to be his or her duty and all of that.
	All right.
	Three, deadly force, this would be on the part of the police officer or law enforcement official, is not prohibited merely because a subject is fleeing.
	When a flight itself constitutes a felony or uses a deadly weapon, such as a vehicle directed at an officer, deadly force may be lawful.
	It's one thing to say, well, I'm fleeing and I'm running away.
	Now, maybe you can get away with that and so on.
	The problem is if you try to push, like let's say you're at the top of, you know, every movie they have these stupid square spiral staircases, which is their big, ooping arty shot, right?
	So if you're at the top of one of those big spiral staircases and you shove an officer to flee, you've now assaulted the officer.
	And if he falls, he's probably going to die.
	So you are not just fleeing.
	You're not just fleeing.
	Four, he says, vehicles are deadly weapons under settled case law.
	Once an officer is struck or recently perceived imminent impact, the threat is no longer speculative.
	Five, officers are not required to retreat or step aside and hope for the best.
	Courts evaluate use of force based on the officer's perception at the moment of threat, not slow motion video analysis after the fact.
	Claims that federal officers were masked men with no authority or that deadly force can never be used during flight are inaccurate and inconsistent with Supreme Court and federal appellate precedent.
	ICE officers are federal law enforcement officers with authority to detain or arrest any person, including U.S. citizens who obstruct federal duties or assault officers.
	18 U.S.C. 111.
	Legal clarification, deadly force is not prohibited simply because a suspect is fleeing.
	The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that deadly force may be reasonable when flight itself poses a serious risk to officers or others, including dangerous vehicle use.
	So you got to just think about it for a moment.
	If someone has gunned a car, and we've seen, we're going to talk about the video.
	I'm not going to play it.
	We're going to talk about the video that just got released today.
	I mean, it's not even damning.
	It's case closed, as far as I can tell.
	I'm not an expert, but it's what I see.
	So if you have, let's say, two people who are taunting the police officers, mocking the police officers, and refusing to obey lawful orders, and then gunning their car at a police officer, you've just crossed into no man's land.
	Not just because it's a lesbian wedding, but you have just crossed into no man's land.
	So now you're in a situation of desperation.
	So you're gunning your car at a police officer.
	I mean, I know he's an ICE agent, Miss State Police Officer, and you're gunning your car at a federal law enforcement officer.
	So, and now you've hit the officer, right?
	Now what?
	Well, you have, I guess, two women.
	I think the other woman, her wife, the victim's wife, got in the car and said, drive, drive, which was completely stupid, obviously completely stupid.
	That's an incitement to violence, I think.
	Obviously, I don't know, but I think it'll be all determined in a court of law.
	But now you have two hysterical women, not just because they're women, but because they have now escalated from being pouty social justice warriors who are kind of annoying to dangerous felons on the run.
	I mean, Thelman Louise did not end well.
	So that is important.
	Dangerous vehicle use.
	If you're willing, we just think it through, right?
	If a driver is willing to ram a cop with her car, what will she not do?
	Hmm?
	Ramming a cop with your car is just about the most retarded and destructive thing that you can do.
	What else might she do should she be on the run, right?
	She's going to drive carelessly.
	She's going to drive crazy.
	She's going to not have any particular restraint.
	Now they're going to be on the run and they're going to implicate others.
	They could take hostages.
	They could go completely nuts.
	So you are not allowed to just assault.
	And, oh, off you go.
	We'll just catch you later, right?
	They're going to switch cars.
	They're going to drive.
	Again, it said take hostage.
	Who knows?
	Who knows?
	Nobody knows.
	But that's sort of the entire point of the situation.
	Relevant cases.
	Scott V. Harris, 2007, Plumhoff versus Rickard, 2014.
	Mullinox versus Luna, 2015.
	Courts also do not require officers to retreat or rely on slow-motion video analysis.
	That is a police officer whom I know.
	So the latest ICE shooting video released today, January 9th, 2026, is a 47-second cell phone video filmed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross, providing his perspective during the fatal encounter with 37-year-old Rene Nicole Good in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
	This raw handheld footage first obtained by Alpha News and widely shared and boosted by Trump administration figures, including JD Vance and other DHS officials, captures the tense sequence leading up to the shooting.
	It includes audible dialogue from Good, her wife, Rebecca or Becca Good, who confronts the agent while filming, and agents, along with background sounds like traffic, possible honking, and post-shooting exclamations.
	So the video starts with Ross exiting his vehicle, the policeman, and approaching Good's Maroon Honda SUV, stopped perpendicular to the street, blocking traffic.
	By the by, maybe just because I grew up as a total brokey, like totally broke, I talked about this in my personal finances show a couple of days ago.
	I'm really kind of fascinated.
	Maybe you don't have this fascination, but I do.
	Where'd you get your money from?
	This woman is out there in the day.
	She's not at work.
	She's got three kids.
	I've heard tells she's lost custody of two of them, but I'm not, I haven't verified that.
	And they have a Honda SUV, which goes anywhere from $15,000 up to $40,000.
	Like, I don't know about you guys, but when I was broke, I couldn't afford a car, insurance, license fees, gas, maintenance.
	I couldn't afford what seemed to me fairly top-tier cell phones.
	I don't know.
	Where's the money coming from?
	And now her husband died, but I don't think it was a life insurance thing for various reasons.
	I could be wrong, obviously, could be wrong.
	But I'm always fascinated.
	Like, where the hell do people get their money from?
	Not working?
	What are you living on?
	Anyway, so Officer Ross holds up his phone to film while approaching.
	As Ross walks past or around the driver's side, Good's window is down and she looks directly at him, appearing calm, smiling in some descriptions.
	Renee Nicole Goode calmly says to the agent, that's fine, dude.
	I'm not mad at you.
	Variations in reports include extensions like, it's okay, or I'm not mad.
	She may add something like, show your face, or similar in reflections or context, but the core is her reassuring tone.
	And of course, the guy's got his mask on.
	Why does he have his mask on?
	Because people are getting doxxed by these agitators, these fucking Bolsheviks.
	Not her, but the agitators as a whole.
	Ross continues filming the license plate vehicle without verbal response.
	A woman, identified as Goode's wife, Rebecca Good, approaching and filming him, confronts him.
	Rebecca Goode, taunting, confrontational while following him.
	That's okay.
	We don't change our plates every morning.
	Just so you know, it'll be the same plate when you come to talk to us later.
	Implying persistence or sarcasm about ISIS tactics.
	Now, I suppose they change license plates so that they can't be tracked.
	And that means that these guys are, I assume, activists who've been trained on how to avoid detection or follow-up visits or anything like that.
	So, Rebecca Good, the wife of the shopwoman, she adds, you want to come at us?
	You want to come at us?
	Repeated twice in some accounts.
	Then, I say, go get yourself some lunch, big boy, or some similar dismissive taunt.
	Now, I'm just going to tell it to you straight.
	I really don't care at this point in my career who I piss off, but I'm just going to tell it to you straight.
	And you look, tell me on the chat.
	Tell me on the chat.
	Am I wrong?
	Tell me, I'll correct myself if I'm wrong.
	So, growing up as a boy, did you or did you not know for a simple absolute fact like gravity and sunlight that if you verbally abuse,
	trash talk and taunt another boy, you are likely to get punched in the face if you go up to some guy, especially if he's bigger and stronger and call his mother a whore what's going to happen?
	You're going to get punched in the face.
	They say, oh, yes, but you have free speech.
	It's like, yes, yes, you do have free speech, and you should be able to say that stuff and not get punched in the face.
	But you can't.
	Hey, I should be able to stand outside in full sunlight for more than 12 minutes without exploding, but I'm half Irish and half German, so that's not really an option.
	Now, there's trash talk that's kind of funny in sports and so on, but if you seriously, if you go up to a guy and you say, your little sister is the town prostitute, why does your little sister wear hoop earrings so she has some place to insert her stilettos?
	You're going to get punched.
	You're going to get thrown down.
	Oh, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
	That's nice in theory, but this is what boys talk about.
	If you are told a serious secret by a guy who swears you to secrecy and you tell someone, you're also quite likely to get punched.
	I told you to shut up, boom, right?
	So it's not the same for girls.
	Girls can say stuff and they won't get hit.
	Girls can run their mouth, girls can taunt, girls can verbally abuse, and they're just not going to face the same consequences.
	A boy can say stuff to another boy, he's going to get punched.
	Or worse, a girl can say whatever she wants and never faces any consequences, at least directly.
	Right, maybe there'll be reputational stuff and stuff like that.
	But come on, tell me I'm wrong.
	Is it wrong that I wish that they would?
	Well, it doesn't really matter.
	I'm describing the world as it is.
	And I know that this audience is far too intelligent to get confused by this, but there do seem to be a few people on the fine old social media platforms who think that when I describe something, I'm somehow endorsing it.
	Hey, kids, don't put a ballet dress on that pit bull and try and ride him like a little pony because you might lose an arm.
	Don't do that because pit bulls are pretty aggressive.
	They're bred for violence.
	Like, well, anyway, they're bred for violence.
	I'm not endorsing pit bulls chewing on people.
	I'm just saying, don't do it.
	Now, it is true that you have the free speech to say the most appalling, taunting, aggressive, frankly, in the boys' world, punchable shit to police officers.
	You can do that.
	You have free speech.
	They shouldn't react in an aggressive manner.
	And you know what else?
	You, you should be able to walk down the street at 2 o'clock in the morning of the worst fucking neighborhood on the planet with a clear plastic bag full of $100 bills and be totally fine.
	You should be able to leave your wallet on a bench in Central Park for two weeks.
	Come back.
	It's there.
	I did the should.
	I don't know what what should is.
	Should is a word for weak people to try and get resources.
	Like, fair, right?
	You should be able to go into a biker bar dressed in a tutu and pretend to kiss the biggest guy with a face tattoo.
	You should be able to do that.
	It should be fine.
	But don't because we live in the actual real world.
	So why is taunting the officers a bad idea?
	Well, yeah, I get free speech and all of that.
	Because you're signaling your absolute hostility and lack of respect to the officers.
	Right?
	Officers are just human beings in costume and they're well trained.
	I get all of that.
	But if, like if you, if an officer comes up, right, let's just take the scenario, right?
	An officer comes up and you're like, oh, is there a problem, officer?
	You put your hands, you're like 10 and 2, I think I said 10 and 4 the other day, 10 and 2 on the steering wheel.
	Is there anything I can do for you?
	How can I help you, officer?
	What seems to be the problem?
	And he's like, give me a license and registration.
	You say, I'm just going to go over to the glove box.
	Is that okay?
	And you're polite and right.
	And then let's say, because if you've ever leaned over, maybe you hit the gas or whatever and the car revs, right?
	Is he going to pull out his gun?
	No, he's going to be like, whoa, foot off the gas, bro.
	I'm like, oh, I'm so sorry, right?
	But if you are insulting and taunting and whatever, and then you don't ask the officer for permission, you lunge over to your glove box, you've already signaled that you intend not to comply, that you hold him in contempt, and you're willing to trash talk him, which means that the response is going to be probably, probably, I'm not saying anything about, I don't know what Russ thought and whatever, they'll all come out in the court if there is.
	But if you verbally trash talk and insult and abuse people, then let's say that she was just, oh, just trying to drive away, which is, you're not allowed to and it's, it's dangerous and stupid.
	But if they had been perfectly polite and the car had lunged forward, it would be less likely.
	but if they've already said, come and get me, and you know, you're the equivalent, whatever it's going to be, you're a racist Nazi or something, then the cops know that they're in a situation of aggression.
	And then when there are unexpected events, like a car lunging forward, they're going to.
	So look, ladies, if you want to go and put yourself out in the world as if you're a man, you better learn the fuck from men's experience.
	which is don't run your mouth when you're in a dangerous situation.
	Don't do it.
	Because the fact that you've run your mouth as a girl, as a young woman, as a woman, the fact that you've run your mouth in the past is not an indication of how it's going to go.
	You ran your mouth in the past because you have the protection of being a woman in generally female situations.
	A woman can run her mouth at her boyfriend or her husband because she knows that if he hits her, which you shouldn't do, then he's going to jail and she wins everything.
	She gets half the house.
	So you have a massive umbrella of protection by being a woman.
	Right.
	But you're going to need to start listening to men if you want to put yourself in a semi-combat situation like driving an SUV and a policeman.
	Do not trash talk the cops.
	You have the right to do so.
	It's free speech.
	Just like I have the right to go and call someone's mother a wharsong, a horse, a whore.
	But it's going to be a response.
	You are showing your absolute negative, bad, hostile intent.
	And that's going to be a big problem.
	So, so Rebecca Good, the wife, you want to come at us?
	You want to come at us?
	I say, go get yourself some lunch, big boy, or some similar dismissive taunt.
	Another ICE agent approaches Good's vehicle and orders her out.
	Other ICE agent loudly, get out of the fucking car.
	Right.
	Right.
	So when people have signaled their hostile intent and they're interfering with law enforcement, I don't know what he meant by get out of the fucking car, but I assume he means you're under arrest.
	Now, the reason that you want people to get out of the car is because that way you can see if they have weapons.
	They could have something by the side of the, right, in the centerpiece, that big black void where everything falls down between the side.
	They could have something in the glove box.
	They could have something in the little cubby in the door.
	They could have a weapon on them, right?
	So you want them to get out of the car if you're going to arrest them, especially if they've already expressed hostility.
	Good appears to briefly reverse or adjust, then turns the steering wheel, reports describe it as turning away from the agent in some analysis or forward in others, and the vehicle begins moving.
	Agent Ross or nearby explains in surprise, whoa!
	Three gunshots ring out in rapid succession.
	The camera shakes or jerks upward, losing clear view of the impact.
	The SUV accelerates forward, crashes into parked cars or a pole, audible impact, post-shooting, Ross is heard muttering, fucking bitch.
	Now, I've also seen people on X and other places, because it really is an idiot whirlpool when this kind of stuff comes in.
	Now, look, please understand.
	I'm not a guy who goes into these kinds of things.
	I'm not talking from a lot of experience.
	Yes, I've been in some very dangerous situations over the course of my life.
	I worked with a lot of heavy machinery up north and almost got killed on at least two occasions.
	And I went, of course, to Hong Kong in 2019 and walked right into the tear gas and all that kind of stuff.
	And so I've been in some dangerous situations, but not hair trigger should I shoot or not shoot situation.
	So just understand, I'm not speaking from any big kind of, well, look at me, SEAL Team 6 staff is not a thing.
	But I have been in dangerous situations where you've had to think really quickly.
	It's astonishing how fast this goes, like when your adrenaline goes up, when you can feel the aggression coming, right?
	Because from what I saw, the woman, the woman who wasn't shot, the wife, gets into the car and says, drive, drive!
	And of course, if she, I mean, that saying seems pretty abusive.
	If you get into the car, there's a cop in front of, and he's crossing in front.
	He's not, I don't think he's standing there like, whoa.
	And you say, drive, and there's a cop in front.
	And she reflexively, like, why would you reflexively do something that someone tells you to do unless you've been in an abusive situation in the past?
	Don't know.
	I don't know.
	But if someone I doesn't know, if someone I don't know yells at me to do something, I'm not going to do it.
	But why would you automatically drive, hit the gas, right?
	If it's been an abusive relationship, that would make sense.
	And I can't imagine that a relationship where you're both out there taunting cops trying to do their job.
	I can't imagine that's a particularly healthy relationship.
	I also know that lesbian relationships have by far the highest rates of domestic violence of any relationship combination.
	It's not proof, but it would fit with the circumstances.
	So people are saying, well, the first shot, well, that might be justified, but the second and third shots, and it's like, oh, my God.
	Oh, my God.
	The 6,000-pound car full of explosives, because it's got gas in it, right?
	Is leaping at you.
	It hits you.
	The shot was through the front windshield, not through the side, so the danger wasn't passed.
	Does anyone think in that literal split second that you're going to shoot once, not knowing if you've hit, right?
	I mean, it's pretty hard to see her through the windshield.
	You can see her smiling, though, and making eye contact with the officer as far as I can see.
	So it sure as shit looks like she knew he was there, saw him, and was not scared or panicked or frightened, but gave that kind of shit-eating grin that is uniquely aggressive.
	So does anyone really think that you shoot through that windshield in the glare, in the panic, in the moment, and then just what?
	Oh, let me stop shooting and evaluate what's going on and see what's happened.
	You can't do that.
	I'm not an expert in use of force doctrine, but my understanding is you shoot Sandra Mass until the threat is neutralized.
	Oh, I'm going to shoot.
	Oh, maybe I've wounded him a little blah, You don't do that.
	Because people who are willing to attack cops are willing to do anything.
	And if you've just winged her, you might make her more angry.
	If you haven't hit her at all, you might have made her even more angry because you've escalated the situation with a bullet, of course.
	So again, not being an expert, although I've read a little bit, I'm far from an expert.
	But my understanding is you shoot until the threat is neutralized.
	So three shots in rapid succession.
	The idea, just, you know, one guy was talking about, well, you know, the first shot maybe, but not the others.
	And it's like, I looked him up and he's like, he does social media and marketing.
	Ooh, with your experience in typing, oh, maybe you get a little carpal tunnel.
	Why don't you tell me how a trained officer of the law is supposed to react to a giant car being driven at him by an activist lunatic?
	Having known, and well, first of all, this guy has been dragged behind a car six months before when he was trying to make an arrest.
	He was dragged and got 33 stitches and got his leg mangled and all of that.
	And also there's been over 100 attacks on ICE by cars, by cars, right?
	Because this is what the Bolsheviks do.
	This is what the hard left does, right?
	Is they'll put women in the front lines so that they get their martyrs and they get their sympathy and so on.
	I do not, hey, if you're doing something that a man is supposed to do, if you're going to put yourself in aggressive, violent, dangerous situations, to me, I no longer view you as female.
	Like, the deal was, we'll protect you.
	Don't go in the front lines.
	They just don't, like, we'll protect you.
	Just don't go in the front lines.
	That's all.
	It's all we're asking.
	But if you go in the front lines, I'm not viewing you as a female anymore because you're doing what men traditionally have done, which is fine.
	So the footage is graphic, of course, this gunshots, profanity, tense exclamations, provides a close-up, shaky perspective.
	Though it doesn't clearly show physical contact between the vehicle and the agent, but I think what looks clear to me is that he was hit.
	But you see, here's the thing: from a moral standpoint, I can't, I can't judge this from a legal standpoint.
	I'm not a lawyer, obviously.
	But from a moral standpoint, it makes absolutely no difference as to whether you are hit or nearly hit.
	I'll give you an example.
	Let's say someone is shooting at you.
	Can you shoot back?
	Does it matter if they've hit you or it just went, whoa, right past your ear and they're reloading?
	Does that really make a difference if they hit you or they nearly hit you?
	Not really.
	From a moral standpoint, it would make absolutely no difference.
	So if someone punches at you and you jerk back and then they're reaching up to punch you again, does it matter?
	I don't know.
	Hit or nearly hit.
	I don't know.
	From a moral standpoint, it doesn't make any sense, right?
	I just want to just double-check this because I did watch this a bunch of times.
	Just want to check on the wife shouting, drive, drive.
	Yes.
	Renee Nicole Good's wife is heard shouting phrases urging her to drive in the newly released 40-second cell phone video filmed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.
	Multiple verified news reports describe the audio as including her yelling variations like, drive, baby, drive, or drive, drive, or drive, drive, drive, or drive, baby, drive, drive.
	This occurs in the final moments as Renee briefly reverses the SUV, then turns the wheel and begins accelerating forward or attempting to drive away, depending on interpretation.
	So that seems pretty clear.
	Is that an incitement to violence?
	Andrew Branca show says, claim federal officers do not have the authority to make an arrest outside of their agency's narrow area of jurisdiction.
	For example, ICE can only arrest for immigration offenses.
	Reality, out of bullshit.
	Federal officers can enforce any federal law, including making arrests, and certainly may investigate any effort to impede them in the lawful execution of their duties.
	Somebody wrote: In the video, there's a dead giveaway when the agent goes to check their license plate.
	We don't change our license plates every morning, says the woman, meaning they've been following and harassing these guys for days.
	Let me just get, if there's anything else that I bookmarked but wanted to mention.
	So, what I will say as well is that if you know people, God help you.
	God help you if you know people.
	And those people got it wrong.
	Oh, she was panicked.
	No, video is that she's not panicked.
	Right.
	Oh, it was a mistake.
	No, they were definitely following and taunting and so on.
	And they were activists, right?
	Because I think from what I've read, I don't know for sure, but she seems to have lost custody of two of her kids.
	The last kid ended up going to the super woke charter school, and I'm sure that they got all kinds of whipped up into an anti-ice frenzy, right?
	And I'm just going to check and see if there is.
	No, there is no verified evidence that Renee Nicole Good lost custody of her children.
	Right.
	Okay, so it doesn't look like older two children are living with their biological father, common in divorce situations, no evidence of forced loss of custody.
	Youngest child living with Renee and Rebecca at the time of her death, now in Rebecca's care with potential future custody proceedings possible due to family dynamics.
	Okay, got it.
	Oh, because I thought that one of her exes was dead.
	Okay, so, oh, so there are two relationships.
	So Renee Nicole Good's ex-husband, the father of her two older children, ages 15 and 12, did not die young.
	He's alive and has spoken to reporters about her following the incident.
	So first ex-husband, unnamed in most reports for privacy reasons, living in Colorado, father of her two older children, now teenagers.
	He has given interviews, blah, blah, blah.
	Clearly alive.
	There we go.
	Okay, so second husband, Timothy Ray Macklin, an Air Force veteran, stand-up comedian, and podcast co-host with Good, father of her youngest child, a six-year-old son.
	He died in 2023 at the age of 36, which is relatively young.
	Okay, so I got it.
	So one of the exes was his.
	I've heard reports of the death of suicide.
	I have doubts.
	No, there's no.
	They did say passed away, did not specify the cause of death.
	So generally, if somebody dies of heart disease, there's a mention and usually requests for donation to deal with heart disease and so on.
	So he passed away.
	The obituary published by Hillside Chapel in Oregon City, Oregon, described him as a loving son, devoted brother, and nurturing father who passed away but does not specify the cause of death.
	A common practice in many obituaries, especially when sensitive suicide overdates other private matters, to respect family privacy.
	Now, of course, if he did commit suicide, this is why I said earlier that I doubt that there's insurance money because, first of all, leftists don't really do insurance.
	And secondly, if he did kill himself, then you don't get insurance if you kill yourself because it has to be something unexpected and outside of your control.
	So listen, if you have people in your life who got this stuff wrong, and I'm pretty good at this stuff after having done it for 20 years, obviously not perfect, but pretty good.
	I haven't had to retract anything significant from what I posted yesterday, which was tentative and so on, right?
	And I told people, like, do not imagine you can commune with the dead and understanding, understand her thoughts.
	Right.
	So the young woman's, I guess, 37, not that young.
	The middle-aged woman's death, nothing legal, as far as I can imagine, nothing legal can hang on her state of mind.
	Because you cannot tell the state of mind of someone after they're dead.
	Now, unless they leave extensive documentation, they got a diary or whatever it is, right?
	Or they record some video.
	But she made the decision.
	She's relatively friendly and we're not mad at you, blah, blah, blah.
	Not too, too hostile, recognizing, oh, I'm fighting a system, not a person.
	The other woman, her wife, Rebecca or Becca, very hostile, very taunting.
	And I mean, to me, repulsive.
	It's just a personality type that it's like nails on a blackboard.
	To me, that's just a personal observation.
	It doesn't really mean anything.
	But, you know, it really matters who you spend time with.
	So the shot woman, hard to tell, certainly not overtly hostile and so on.
	But Rebecca, her wife, absolutely hostile.
	And then drive, drive, drive, like screaming her into making a terrible decision.
	Like it really matters who you spend time with in this life.
	Do not spend time with dysfunctional people who drag you into pathetic, useless, hostile confrontations with cops.
	Because the other thing too, like you don't know who you're dealing with.
	This is the other thing too.
	Like do not use violence and except in self-defense.
	And in particular, do not escalate violence with strangers because you don't know.
	Right.
	So let's say some guy, his whole life growing up, his father would beat the shit out of him and say, you're just a piece of shit.
	And boom, boom, you're just a piece of shit.
	And it's now that phrase is imprinted in his brain like a trigger, like a Manchurian candidate, like an MK Ultra, like a hypnotic thing, like a trigger word.
	And let's say you get into some verbal confrontation with the guy.
	You don't know his history.
	He's just some guy.
	And then you say, back off, you piece of shit.
	And then, should you be able to say it?
	Yeah, of course.
	Say what you want.
	But there are consequences.
	It's the old thing.
	This is going to sound ridiculous, but hopefully it makes some sense.
	For once.
	But when I was throughout my childhood, I didn't even get a car until I was in my 30s or no, late 20s, late 20s.
	So for like 20 years, I biked everywhere when the bus wasn't available.
	When I was in, you know, and when I was, sometimes I couldn't even afford the bus.
	So I just bike.
	I used to bike over an hour and a quarter to get to work and back.
	I biked when I was doing my graduate course.
	I was paying 275 bucks a month for rent and utilities.
	And I lived on giant vats of pasta and on two-for-one subway deals.
	And I couldn't afford a car, couldn't even really afford the bus.
	It was actually a pretty good time.
	I don't mind being broke.
	But the point of that is that when you are a bicyclist, you have to give way.
	Why?
	Because you're a bike.
	Because you're a bike.
	And there's times when you say, I'm totally in the right.
	What does it matter?
	You're going to get creamed.
	Some car runs over you.
	You're probably dead.
	Doesn't matter if you're in the right.
	Well, I'm in the right.
	So maybe there was a lot of just decades of riding bikes and recognizing that you really have to check to see that the driver sees you, that he's going to like, even if you have the right of way, there's no point going forward if the guy's playing video games with his feet and not keeping his eye on the road.
	Because, you know, some like I drive like everybody's drunk and texting and having a seizure because you don't.
	I mean, people get, they just broke up with their girlfriend.
	Their ears are ringing.
	They just got the worst news.
	They're driving to the hospital.
	They're totally distracted.
	Like people can be bad drivers.
	And we've all done it from time to time.
	But recognize being in the right, who cares?
	Who cares?
	What matters is being alive.
	And this idea of who's in the right and this, that, and the other does not.
	It's not how the world works.
	Well, I have the right to.
	Yeah, I mean, you have the right to go to a drug-addled Black Panther rap party and scream the N-word at the top of your lungs.
	You have that rights.
	I don't recommend doing it.
	I think it's a horrible thing to do.
	But technically, you have free speech.
	It may not be the best evening.
	It probably will be quite memorable for as long as your memory lasts.
	And it's like, but you have the right to, it's like, so this right stuff, I don't, I have no respect for it.
	I have no, I could have the right of way.
	You know, like you ever have this where you're at a four-way stop, right?
	You're at a four-way stop, you're driving, and some cars just coming in real fast.
	What do you do?
	If you're a good driver, you wait and see if they stop.
	So I have the right of way.
	I was here first.
	It's like, that doesn't help you much if you get T-boned.
	Right?
	You ever have this where you're at an intersection, some car's coming and they have the signal on.
	And you think, oh, okay, well, it's fine for me to cross the intersection because they have their signal on.
	Yeah, like you've never left your signal on too long, right?
	So I say this to my daughter.
	Wait for him to slow down and not just a little bit.
	I don't care if it takes another five or 10 seconds.
	You know what really takes a lot of time is recovering from an accident.
	That takes a lot of time, not five or 10 seconds.
	So, and she's like, but I have the right of way.
	And it's like, yeah, that doesn't, that's nice.
	That's nice.
	It doesn't really matter when it comes to the realities of the world.
	I would love to know where this comes from, this money, all this money comes from.
	Her wife said she's a disabled vet, so the money is coming from the taxpayers.
	Well, because, you know, apparently all the disabled vets are on disability, right?
	Crazy.
	So if you have people in your life who got it wrong, who jumped to conclusions and said, oh, she was scared.
	She didn't understand.
	She this, she that, or whatever, right?
	Well, they're just wrong.
	Now, I don't know about you, but I consider this perfectly legitimate and perfectly essential to your actual self-protection.
	And if you want to chat about this, feel free to dial in.
	But it is perfectly legitimate.
	So when people get things wrong, it is one of the most foundational acts of love and affection and self-protection, which are all wrapped in together.
	When people get things wrong, you say, oh, you got it wrong.
	Yeah, you got it wrong.
	You got it wrong.
	And you want to see, you really, really, really want to see how they react.
	People who can't admit fault will shred your fucking soul into atoms.
	They really will.
	People who can't admit fault are narcissistic, abusive, selfish, vile, superior, manipulative.
	They'll gaslight you because I can't tell you I have absolutely zero respect.
	In fact, bottomless, bottom of Dante's inferno, bowels of Hades contempt for people who cannot admit when they are wrong.
	You do not exist to people who cannot admit that they're wrong.
	Reality does not exist for people who cannot admit that they're wrong.
	All that admits to them, all that exists to them, is their own ego and vanity.
	And we can say, well, you know, but as a child, they were punished for this.
	I get all of that.
	And we all have our trauma.
	We all have our childhoods and so on.
	I don't care.
	I'll give people until their early 20s.
	By 23, 24, 25, you're a half decade plus as an adult.
	You got to deal with it.
	I cannot stand people who cannot admit when they are wrong.
	So this, like COVID, although this is more clear, is a great, great way to check for sanity in those around you.
	People who cannot admit when they're wrong are demonic.
	They will destroy you.
	I'm not kidding about this.
	They will absolutely destroy your happiness, your confidence, your self-esteem.
	Come on.
	Tell me I'm wrong.
	Tell me I'm wrong.
	I'll get your comments in just a sec, right?
	But tell me I'm wrong.
	Ever been around people who just can't admit that they're wrong?
	They are sunlight to a vampire.
	They just can't do it.
	They will destroy your reality.
	They will destroy your happiness.
	They will destroy your security, your trust in yourself.
	They cannot admit fault.
	They cannot admit that they're wrong.
	Even when clear evidence, right?
	So people say, she didn't hit him.
	Then there's a video of her hitting him.
	Well, it wasn't much of a hit.
	It's like, nope, that's not what you said.
	It's not what you said.
	Well, ICE can't arrest.
	Yep, they can.
	You're wrong.
	Can you admit that you're wrong?
	See, people who can't admit that they're wrong never have to bother being right, right?
	So one of the reasons I double and triple check things.
	You know, I still obviously don't get it perfect.
	I'm trying to try my best.
	But one of the reasons I double and double check and triple check everything is it's not much fun to admit when you're wrong.
	I mean, I get it wrong, right?
	And because it's not much fun to admit when you're wrong, you try to get things right.
	But people who never have to admit that they're wrong, they never have to work to be right.
	They can just say whatever they want and move on.
	But it's important to hold people's feet to the fire metaphorically, right?
	Get them to admit that they're wrong.
	So if you've had people who've been spouting off about this and they'd be wrong, you don't have to be hostile.
	Come and get me, big boy.
	You don't have to be hostile, but just be absolute and clear.
	You got it wrong.
	You jump to conclusions and you got it wrong.
	What does it matter?
	It's like, no, it matters.
	It matters because I need to know if you can admit when you get things wrong.
	Because if you can't admit when you get things wrong, we don't have a relationship.
	You cannot have a relationship with the right fighters, people who just will never give up, will always defend themselves, will shift the goalpost, gaslight, manipulate, lie, falsify, spread rumors.
	Like they just, they can't, it's, it's, it's the most contemptible behavior because it is the fountainhead by which so many other sins come pouring forth into the world.
	So this is a perfect opportunity, people.
	Online, offline, I don't care.
	Both.
	You see someone who got it wrong, say, oh, did you correct?
	Like, you got it wrong.
	Did you correct?
	Did you correct this?
	Don't have the people in...
	I'm telling you, man, do what you want.
	I'm just telling you.
	Your misery will be measured, distilled, and defined by the number of right fighters you have in your life, the people who just can't admit when they're wrong.
	All right.
	Let me get your questions.
	I'm also happy to take calls.
	I know it's a bit of a floppole of information.
	All right.
	Boom, boom, boom.
	I should have a million dollars in my bank account.
	I should.
	I should.
	Thelman Louise joins Pretty Woman and Eat Prey Love as a demonic movie.
	Yes, demonic movies women.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Quite right.
	Quite right.
	Yeah, light on, license out, courteous, deferential.
	It's not complicated.
	Yeah, I mean, I've had indirect.
	I mean, once in this show, I was interrogated in my own home by a cop for this for this very show.
	Not this very show tonight, but yeah, just bring out the evidence and talk, and it was all solved.
	Trash talking beforehand signals bad intent, good point.
	Yeah, thank you.
	Kay says, I saw someone post about how we were witnessing a psychosexual drama where bored women want to be thrown around by big strong men.
	100% agree.
	Maybe.
	I never really thought about this.
	Steph, any chance?
	We will see mainstream media banned for radicalizing women to launch their cars into police officers.
	No.
	Because the left likes it.
	If it was a black man, there would already have been riots.
	Yeah.
	Maybe, yeah.
	I remember when Steph heroically launched himself towards the tanks in Hong Kong after saying to my wife, I'll be safe, honey.
	Ooh, danger.
	Were they following the ICE agents beforehand?
	I don't know.
	I mean, I'm sure GPS will come out if they're using it or whatever it is, but yeah.
	Yeah, she knew what she was doing.
	You can see it on her face.
	Yeah.
	I think so.
	Yeah, again, I don't want to, right?
	Hi, Steph.
	If you're free this Sunday, there is a showing of the movie Hate Speech and a Canadian documentary about the past few years with cancel culture.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	Yeah, it's like the people who say, oh, the police should shoot someone in the leg to stop someone.
	It's like, if you've got to see these videos, and if you guys don't have questions, comments, I'll do this.
	We did some research on a bunch of work journalists who put through police training and shot everyone.
	But it's shocking how quickly this stuff can happen.
	So, oh, he only had a knife.
	Like, if somebody is 20 feet away from you, they can throw the knife.
	They can close quarters really quickly while you're trying to get your gun out.
	You can get stabbed five times before you can draw your next breath.
	Like, it's crazy.
	You can kind of see these videos online of just what happens to cops with somebody fairly far away, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	I think it was in Florida.
	There was a guy injured three police officers and they cornered him.
	I think he was resisting arrest and they shot him 64 times.
	And the reporter said, Well, why did you shoot him 64 times?
	He said, Well, we ran out of bullets in Canadian law.
	It does, unfortunately, but from a moral standpoint, not at all.
	Yeah, I'm just talking about morals.
	I'm not talking about the law because I'm not the law.
	Someone says, I can't explain how nice it is waking up each day knowing the left is losing a little more every passing hour.
	When the Greenland deal is made, the tears from the EU will be so sweet I might get diabetes.
	Hello, best.
	Also, if you're on Rumble, there's a tip jar.
	Of course, you can, of course, tip me at freedoman.com/slash donate.
	Somebody says, Really enjoy the truth about video.
	Such a good format.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	I'm going to check those numbers to see if it's worth doing again.
	Really enjoying this bike riding comparison.
	Yeah, that's why they call it defensive driving.
	Yes, there's no point being in the right and being in the morgue.
	I'm in the right.
	Right?
	The longer you drive, the more you see people blow stop signs and stop lights new drivers may never have noticed.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Aye, that thought is on fire.
	Ooh, I'm on fire.
	People who can't admit they're wrong are weak.
	Oh, no, they're bullies.
	I mean, of course, they're weak, but they're bullies.
	50% of the population, I don't think that's true.
	I think that's unfair.
	Way.
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	Let me ask you this: of the percentage of the people that you've known, professionally, personally, family, friends, whatever, right?
	Girlfriends, friends of girlfriends, of the people you've known in your life that you've had more than just a passing interaction with, what percentage of people, when they're wrong, say, ooh, I'm so sorry, I did get that wrong.
	Let me put out the correction.
	I do apologize.
	Here's what I'm going to do to make sure I don't get it wrong in the future.
	Like, what percentage of people admit openly and not by being cornered, but they, oh, I found out this was wrong.
	I wanted to come and blah, blah, blah.
	Right?
	Oh, they will do anything, pay any price, cut off any limb just to not admit that they're wrong.
	It's demonic.
	Yeah, it's demonic.
	It's vanity, right?
	It's the sin of pride.
	I can't be wrong.
	I am perfect.
	No.
	No, you're not God.
	I have, oh yeah, James says, I have very close personal experience with somebody who can't admit that he's wrong.
	Sorry, blur it out for a moment there for me.
	It's not Steph, the guy I work with, it's father.
	Yeah.
	Very happy to see you're back.
	You're a breath of fresh air.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	I can relate to this.
	I've tried to debate a co-worker on politics.
	It's wild the tactics people who can't admit they're wrong will do.
	I feel the soul shredding.
	Oh, yeah, it is just horrendous.
	So, as far as the percentage of people who can't admit that they're wrong, like 80%, wow, one out of five people can admit that they're wrong.
	Good for you, man.
	You live in a pretty healthy clan.
	Somebody says, I saw a video where someone got shot three times, fell, then got up and continued charming.
	Charming.
	Self-defense experts have said that a knife is more dangerous than a gun at short range.
	Yeah, I think that's true.
	Do the rumblers even tip or donate?
	Well, I've just found out.
	All right.
	Steph, I have a question about a tweet you made.
	You were responding to someone and said, paraphrasing, don't dictators violate the non-aggression principle.
	And that same logic doesn't America.
	So what happened in Venezuela happened to Trump?
	I don't know what you mean here.
	Can you elaborate a bit if you can?
	I don't know what's unclear about that.
	So let me ask you this.
	Do you think that the dictator of North Korea, North Korea is of course the world's biggest open-air torture prison camp?
	Do you think that he violates the non-aggression principle?
	Now, of course, all governments violate the non-aggression principle, but there's differences of degree.
	So Trump is not a dictator.
	Maduro was a dictator.
	I mean, he banned guns.
	He stole a bunch of property, billions of dollars worth of property from corporations and so on, raised taxes and so on.
	And so that's not right.
	So Trump is not a dictator in that way.
	And Maduro and those are.
	So I'm not really sure.
	I'm not.
	I don't know.
	I don't know if you're playing dumb, maybe trying to get me in trouble, whatever, but no.
	It's different.
	In my life, I can count those people who can admit that they're wrong on the fingers of one hand.
	I'm not going to show you the two fingers that I would use to count those people.
	All right.
	About 25 to 30% increasing as I move in better circles.
	Wow.
	So between a quarter and a third of people can admit that they're wrong.
	That's great.
	So in a family gathering of 20 people, there's like four or five, well, there's five or seven who can admit that they're wrong.
	That's really cool.
	Kay says, it's embarrassing to admit, but I don't like have any have ever admitted they're wrong.
	Ooh, I'm afraid you're wrong in your formulation of that sentence.
	It's embarrassing to admit, but I don't like any have ever admitted they are wrong.
	I have spent most of my life trying to help people see they are wrong.
	Huge waste of life.
	Oh, absolutely.
	for sure.
	Thank you for the tip.
	Kev Prager frequently talks about appreciating being corrected.
	Keep, keep, keep typing.
	You'll get it right.
	I have those things too where I, oh, this is correcting this.
	Oh, this is correcting this.
	Oh, this is correcting this.
	And you just get that Daisy chain of doom.
	All right.
	So I wanted to mention something here.
	And I want to talk about the Reverend Jarret Maupin.
	Mopin.
	Or Maupin.
	If you are not of the Francois persuasion.
	Reverend Jarrett Maupin, a civil rights activist in Phoenix, Arizona, had been a vocal critic of police use of force.
	Maupin led protests following the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man Rumaine Brisbane by Phoenix police, I think of police big giant flaming wings, in December 2014.
	In response to his criticisms, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office invited him to participate in a use of force training session using realistic scenarios to simulate the split-second decisions officers base.
	Now, how do you think that went?
	Oh, it's just easy.
	Shoot him in the leg.
	Don't shoot him if you're out of hindsight.
	This is a fundamental question of empathy, right?
	People who have a split second to make a decision and you say, well, but I can watch the video five times slowed down and from different angles and so on, that's just not having any empathy to the person who's actually in the process of making that decision.
	Accompanied by Fox 10 reporter Troy Hayden, Maupin went through three force-on-force scenarios while equipped with a holster training weapon.
	First scenario, Maupin responded to a report of a suspicious man casing cars in a parking lot.
	Now, because I am street-wise with my homefellows from back in the day, 17th century, I think, casing cars refers to looking for cars that you can easily break into, casing the joint.
	The joint refers not to Adam Kokesh, but also to a place you could steal from.
	So, responded to reports of a suspicious man casing cars in a parking lot.
	Approached, questioned the man, and perceived a threat when the suspect moved behind a vehicle and hit.
	Maupin fired, killing the unarmed suspect.
	Quote, right?
	Second scenario: Maupin dealt with two men fighting.
	One became confrontational and the other rushed towards him aggressively.
	Feeling threatened, Maupin shot and killed the unarmed man.
	Third scenario: Maupin confronted a possible burglar on the street.
	He got the suspect on the ground and checked for weapons without firing, though the suspect turned out to have a concealed knife.
	After the exercises, Maupin expressed that the experience profoundly changed his perspective.
	He admitted he hadn't fully understood the speed and pressure of these situations, which unfold in just 10 to 15 seconds.
	He emphasized the importance of complying with police orders to avoid escalation and planned to share this message with his community, advising people to comply now, complain later.
	You can look at the video Activist Critical of the Police undergoes use of four scenarios, Fox 10 News, on YouTube.
	All right.
	Numero.
	Exhibit A. Exhibit A. Exhibit A. Let me just see if there's any here.
	My son is telling me about his computer game and multitasking.
	You're cheating on philosophy?
	False deceptive.
	All right.
	No, good.
	Enjoy.
	Do your parenting.
	Where do you think the inability to admit being wrong stems from?
	It stems usually, well, originally it stems from being punished for admitting fault.
	Like, so you're raised by people who are right fighters and you can't admit fault.
	So if you say, in a dysfunctional family, if you admit fault, right, then you're forever the person who can't be right ever again.
	Right.
	So if you, I'm certain about this.
	Are you certain about this?
	Oh, you know what?
	I was wrong.
	I thought I was certain about this.
	Then anytime you ever say anything that you're certain about, what is the dysfunctional family?
	Oh, are you as certain as this as you were certain about that one time two years ago when you were totally wrong?
	Right.
	So you just, you can't, you just can't admit fault because it's weaponized against you.
	And then you become an asshole, you do it to others, and then you're done, right?
	Okay, he says, parents that don't admit they are wrong and bully you for having preferences.
	Parents that don't admit they are wrong and bully you for having preferences or needs.
	When debating this incident, my friend said, Oh, wow, you would really do well in Trump's dictatorship.
	This Nazi narcissist just wanted an excuse to kill someone.
	I felt sad for seeing it so different.
	You felt sad.
	I'm not sure I understand.
	If you reach between your legs and cup, do you feel a giant Ken Doll void?
	Or do you actually have some balls down there?
	You ever get your T levels checked?
	Are they positive or negative?
	Are you lowering the testosterone of people around you and giving them all their hair back and removing their body hair?
	Why on earth would you be friends with someone like this?
	You absolute lunatic.
	This summer like this is going to be very dangerous to have in your life, guaranteed.
	Guaranteed.
	It's not a friend.
	This is a psycho, right?
	This is a propagandized, extremely dangerous psycho.
	Do not be.
	Do not.
	I mean, you can call it what you want.
	Just don't call it a friendship.
	Maybe you're really sad and lonely and you have to make do with the scraps of psychos that litter the bottom refuse of the human vat, but it's not a friend.
	It's not a friend.
	Somebody says, I don't think I've ever had someone tell me they were wrong about something freely.
	I've done it for both my own conscience, but also tactically to get the horde off me temporarily.
	In that situation, the other person seemed to revel in it from their high chair.
	I won't do that again with people like that.
	The other time I did it, I was very in the wrong and of course corrected about three seconds after that bad behavior.
	I still forgot about how I responded after behaving like that.
	Yeah, for sure.
	What can I even say to that?
	They seem to have drunk the corporate media Kool-Aid.
	No, they're just a hateful person with no sense of empathy or curiosity.
	All right, federal agents training with reporters 2021.
	In July 2021, reporters participated in a six-hour use of force training session.
	Boy, that would be a long live stream.
	Hosted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives.
	Also known as a fantastic party in the South.
	ATF agents at a police facility in Randolph, the reindeer, Massachusetts.
	No, that's Rudolph.
	The session included legal briefings on standards like reasonable force under Supreme Court rulings and simulator scenarios where participants used a projected handgun to respond to threats.
	Reporters fired excessively, often continuing to shoot after the suspect was down.
	One fired six additional times.
	This was attributed to physiological responses like tunnel vision, fight or flat adrenaline, and delayed reaction times, factors that can lead to multiple rounds being fired rapidly, up to five per second, right?
	Right?
	It's our hunter instincts, right?
	Some lion is charging at you.
	You keep attacking until the lion is in the dirt.
	Participants gained insight into the gap between public perceptions influenced by TV depictions of single-shot stops and reality where threats can escalate in a quarter of a second.
	They emphasized evaluating incidents from the officer's real-time knowledge rather than hindsight, fostering greater understanding of police stress.
	Let's go to Shasta.
	Shastafari and Shasta County Activists Training 2015.
	Members of the Shasta County Citizens Advocating Respect, or SC CAR, civil rights group formerly known, okay, papa, oh, formerly known as Shasta County Citizens Against Racism, underwent a three-hour police use of force training in Reading, California, led by Sergeant Casey Bokovich and other officers.
	That's a great cop name.
	The group had been critical of local policing and the session aimed to build understanding through education rather than live fire drills.
	They reviewed penal codes, case law, examples Graham versus Connor, dash cam videos of real confrontations, including canine deployments and vehicle takedowns, and no-shoot simulator role plays.
	Participants didn't shoot suspects as the focus was on decision-making under stress.
	One had a pulse of 135 beats per minute.
	But they critiqued responses and explored de-escalation challenges, like arresting a resistant 130-pound person.
	130-pound person?
	That's just like my left testicle.
	That's not even an adult.
	Oh, wait, that's much more than my wife weighs.
	Okay, never mind.
	Perspective shift.
	So activists like Reverend Ann Carrin noted the incredible risk officers face and advocated giving them the benefit of the doubt.
	Celeste Dresner, what is this, a coven, expressed more compassion for the harder-than-thought choices in deadly force situations, moving from media-fueled skepticism to empathy.
	Let's do two more.
	Report of Don Champion simulator experience of 2020, sorry, 2012.
	Seven News reporter Don Champion, we are the participated in a shoot-don't shoot simulator training with Denver Police, guided by TI Training's Todd Brown, to experience the life or death decisions officers make.
	In one, he interviewed a suspicious man and felt the urge to draw his weapon.
	In another dark warehouse break-in, he shot a man who pulled out what appeared to be a gun, but it was a staple gun.
	A replay variant showed the same setup with the real gun, underscoring the need for constant vigilance in compressed timeframes.
	Champion highlighted how simulators reveal the rapid pace of threats with Denver officers training annually on this to refine instincts.
	2017, reporters and officials at Boynton Beach Police Training, reporters, city officials, and the Boynton Beach mayor sounds like a giant Bouncy Castle, joined a use of force training at the Boynton Beach Police Department in Florida, involving chaotic, noisy scenarios with bulletproof vests and simulated guns to mimic high-stress environments.
	One reporter shot a man who had discarded his gun and then fired at an unarmed person later, regretting the intensity.
	The mayor shot in perceived self-defense.
	A Palm Beach Post reporter fired 13 times amid flashing lights and confrontation as shown in playback.
	Participants called it eye-opening, well, not for the dead people, and lifelike, again, not for the dead people, noting it would shape their future reporting on officer-involved shootings by providing context on decision-making under pressure.
	And James, great research.
	If you could put the links to those, you can review them at your leisure.
	But of course, you don't have any leisure because you're far too busy making money to donate to freedommate.com/slash donate.
	All right, let's see what else we got.
	Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum, bum.
	He's an old childhood friend.
	I want to save him.
	You can't save him.
	You cannot save him.
	Go look up Yuri Besminov and what it means to be disillusioned to be broken.
	No amount of contrary information will save him.
	He's broken.
	How large are your testes?
	Well, if I not that I have a word, but if I wanted to show them on screen, I'd have to be on Mars.
	That's just not a fisheye lens.
	People seem to be tearing the ICE situation as if it's a road rage incident.
	I don't know what that means.
	Tearing?
	Please check your spelling.
	Treating, treating.
	A road rage incident.
	All right.
	Ideologically captured.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Don't try to save anyone.
	Run for your life.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	So there's a whole Scott Adams who's on his last legs and I massively sympathize with and it's very sad.
	He's probably not going to make it for very long or very much further.
	But yeah, he's put a whole list together and there's lots of lists of these hoaxes, right?
	Democrat hoaxes.
	So, you know, just talk to people about hoaxes.
	Oh, did Trump call neo-Nazis very fine people?
	Oh, yes.
	Okay, here's a video.
	I mean, they did this at the 2020 election.
	They just played the video.
	Doesn't matter.
	If people reject reality, you do not exist to them.
	Reality does not exist to them.
	They are in a narcissistic dream of their own demonic vanity.
	And honestly, stay the fuck away from them.
	You can't make them sane.
	They'll just make you crazier.
	Like if you put smart kids into a class with dumb kids, the dumb kids don't get smarter, but the smart kids get dumber.
	So, don't do it.
	All right.
	If you have any other questions, comments, happy to hear.
	A couple of little tip bits for you.
	Sleeping less than seven hours shortens life expectancy more than physical activity in the U.S. Only obesity and smoking are worse.
	Only obesity and smoking are worse.
	Get your sleep.
	Get your shut eye.
	So do you want to know how bad the Met Police are in London?
	A police officer ran a grooming gang operation and they knew about it.
	Oh, I love this one.
	I love this one.
	It's just a little bit of fun.
	Be all in it.
	So, Janelle Kumu.
	Boy, that's a moonface.
	She wrote, this is typical things on social media.
	Instagram, look at my new boyfriend.
	Twitter.
	I can't get a boyfriend.
	Reddit.
	My I'm a 21-year-old female.
	Boyfriend, 53-year-old male, forbids me from going into the basement and has a sock drawer full of missing women's driver's licenses.
	Am I the asshole for being uncomfortable?
	The wedding is in three hours.
	That is very good.
	Chris Rock video, Hanoff to get your ass kicked by the police.
	Always.
	Always.
	Great.
	Alex Tabrock wrote: Tyranny of the complainers.
	Increasingly, public institutions seem to exist to manage the obsessions of a tiny number of neurotic and possibly malicious complainers.
	Yeah, that's very sad.
	This was ah more.
	Not Leslie and Morgan.
	Let me just slither you into my canal of eeriness.
	I can't click on my iPhone.
	There we go.
	What's on your mind, my friend?
	Sprachenji up, mutant the down.
	Mike check.
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Hey, Stefan.
	So I read your universally preferable behavior book.
	Really great book.
	Thank you.
	I would like to understand and agree with your argument.
	However, I'm having some difficulty following the argument.
	So I think this is easiest to see in the discussion of rape, how the principle of don't rape follows as a universally preferable behavior.
	So I will attempt to summarize your argument, and you can please correct me.
	So you start by assuming in order to reach a contradiction that one should rape.
	No, hang on.
	Sorry.
	A proof that's based on an assumption is not much of a proof.
	It's like saying my business plan, okay, assume we make money.
	It's like, no, no, no.
	So assumptions don't really work.
	So I'm sorry, I don't mean to nitpick about the word, but it's kind of important.
	So can you try it again without using the word assumption?
	Because I work very hard to not have assumptions in the book.
	Oh, so I was taking it as a proof by contradiction, right?
	You, you know, if you assume something and derive a contradiction from that assumption.
	Okay, got it.
	So I think I misunderstood, and that's on me.
	I think I understand what you mean.
	So if we assume that somebody makes the argument that rape is universally preferable behavior, does it lead to a self-contradiction?
	Is that well, yeah.
	So I'm attempting to summarize your argument.
	So like if we if we were to say that that uh one should rape, then um no, no, it's not hang on.
	UPP is not one.
	UPP is rape is universally preferable behavior.
	Okay, right.
	So if it is, then there is a situation where, you know, one, not people can't do the right thing.
	You know, if you're right, you got two men in a room, they can't both be raping each other at the same time.
	Okay, hey.
	So that's physically true, but what about logically?
	So imagine this scenario.
	You're a cop, not an ICE agent, you're just a cop, right?
	And you get a frantic call from a woman who says, I'm being raped.
	Right.
	And you go there and there's a man there and he's kind of confused and you say to the woman, is this the man who's raping you?
	And she said, yes, but I want him to.
	I want him to rape me.
	Is that a crime?
	Well, what she's saying can't be true.
	So it seems like she is committing some kind of crime there.
	Well, okay, but it's not, the crime is not rape.
	So rape, by definition, is asymmetrical.
	It's one person who wants to have sexual activity and the other person who very much does not want to have sexual activity.
	And so rape cannot be universally preferable behavior because it cannot be preferred by all people at all times.
	Because if we say that rape is universally preferable behavior, then rape as a category ceases to exist because it means everybody wants to have sex and have sex put on them.
	They want to both have sex and be on the delivery and the receiving end of sex.
	And if you want to have sex, it's not rape.
	So it's like theft.
	If you say theft is universally preferable behavior, then everybody must want to steal and be stolen from.
	But if you want your property taken away from you, it's not theft.
	So the only way that theft can exist and rape and murder and assault can exist as categories is if they're asymmetrical.
	Therefore, they cannot be universally preferable.
	In other words, one person wants it, the other person desperately doesn't.
	It can't be universalized.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	So up to this point, I understand and agree with your argument.
	So the conclusion up to this point is that it is not UPB that you should rape.
	No, it's not that it's, well, I mean, you're right.
	It's not UPB.
	It cannot be UPB.
	Not, I mean, I know I've used that phraseology, but to be even more emphatic, it is impossible.
	It cannot be that rape, theft, assault, and murder can ever be UPB.
	Right, correct.
	So now we get to what I think is the next step in your argument, which is you say, you know, therefore it is UPB to not rape.
	Is that right?
	Well, not raping would be a subset of not initiating the use of force.
	So it is logically, it creates no logical contradictions for not initiating the use of force to be universally preferable behavior.
	Everyone can do it.
	Like there's no logical contradiction.
	It is not asymmetrical because everybody is pursuing the same thing rather than pursuing opposite things, like wanting to keep and give up their property.
	So it is logically consistent to say that respect for persons and property are UPB.
	Okay, so I agree that it's consistent, but I think you're also arguing that it is necessarily UPB.
	Is that correct?
	I'm not sure what you mean by necessarily in this context.
	So I'm taking you in this section as saying that, you know, it follows, like, sort of logically, that one should not rape, we should not rape, because any other conclusion would lead to a contradiction.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	So universally preferable behavior cannot be win-lose by definition, right?
	It's like saying that I want a league of sports teams and everyone has to win every game.
	Well, no, the whole point of a sports league is around robin, like some people have to win and some people have to lose.
	So if we look at theft, thou shalt steal, everybody must steal and be stolen from.
	Everyone must want to steal and be stolen from is a logical contradiction.
	The opposite of stealing is respecting property rights.
	Is it logically self-contradictory to say property right, everybody should respect property rights?
	Nope.
	It's perfectly logically consistent.
	Everybody can achieve it.
	So because it can be theoretically achieved and does not involve self-contradiction, it is the good.
	Okay, so I guess my feeling, Stefan, is there might be some other possibilities that were not accounted for in this argument.
	Like just to give like a weird one, like maybe we could say you should not rape somebody taller than you.
	You should always and only rape people shorter than you.
	And maybe that wouldn't lead to a contradiction.
	Well, no, because that would be a contradiction.
	So is a human being defined by height?
	No, let's say no.
	I'm not sure what that is.
	Oh, that's not a let's say no.
	Is a short person as much of a human being as a tall person?
	Well, yes.
	Okay.
	So it wouldn't make much sense to say, and I'm not accusing you of not making sense.
	I'm just giving you the sort of counter argument.
	And I appreciate the questions.
	They're really good.
	So if we were to say we have a universal theory of ethics that applies to human beings, because morality applies to human beings, then we cannot then create arbitrary distinctions between those human beings.
	So if I say a lizard is defined as cold-blooded, gives birth to eggs, not live, young, or whatever it is, a definition of a lizard, right?
	And if I say the color of a lizard is irrelevant as to whether it is a lizard or not, in other words, lizards can be just about any color, right?
	So the definition of a lizard is not dependent upon its color.
	And then if I were to say the definition of a lizard is not dependent on its color, but blue lizards are the opposite of lizards, or blue lizards are not in the category lizards, that's a contradictory statement.
	To say the color of a lizard does not determine whether it's a lizard or not, but the blue lizards are not lizards.
	Does that make sense?
	Like that, that wouldn't be logical, right?
	Right.
	You can't, you know, define lizards one way and then, you know, exclude some things that meet the definition.
	Right.
	So if we say UPB applies to all human beings, we can't create separate categories for tall and short human beings because the height of a human being is not relevant to whether it is a human being or not.
	Interesting.
	Is this like an argument from parsimony?
	No, it's just a logical argument.
	If you say a human being, if you say a lizard is defined by X and not color, then you can't create opposite categories within lizarddom based on color.
	And if you say a human being is a human being regardless of height, then you can't say, well, here's universal moral rules for human beings, which are the opposite based on height.
	The tall person can rape the short person.
	I don't know.
	Isn't it the same rule for everyone?
	You can rape the shorter people and not the taller people?
	No, it's not the same rule for everyone because you've got taller and shorter people with opposite rules.
	The taller people can rape, the shorter people can't.
	Plus, it is contradictory as well because a taller person raping a shorter person, like there's always somebody shorter in the world, right?
	So let's say you've got the tall person, the medium person, and the short, right?
	The grande, the latte, whatever it is, right?
	So you've got tall, medium, and short.
	So the tall person can rape the medium person, but the medium person can also rape the short person.
	Can the tall person rape the medium person at the same time as the medium person is raping the short person?
	Well, no, that's obviously physically awkward and kind of impossible, right?
	And because height is not essential to humanity, and UPB, the U in UPB, replies describes all humanity.
	It refers to all humanity.
	That's the U in UPB.
	So we can't say the height of a human being is irrelevant to their humanness.
	UPB applies to all human beings, but taller and shorter human beings have opposite rules.
	That's not logical.
	Okay, okay.
	I think this is like helping me to understand how you're applying these ideas.
	I guess like I said, hang on, hang on.
	It's not how I'm applying the ideas.
	It's what makes sense logically.
	It's not just me, my personal, well, I like to, if we change this angle or whatever.
	It is logically not possible.
	It is a logical contradiction to say UPB applies to all human beings, but tall and short human beings have opposite moral rules.
	Okay.
	So, Stefan, to be honest, I'm not convinced that it does follow by logic.
	Okay, no problem.
	Hang on.
	Sorry, start interesting.
	No, no, let's.
	So I'll try again, right?
	So let me ask you this.
	If I'm a physicist and I say all matter has the property of gravity, right?
	I say all matter has the property of gravity, right?
	But carbon atoms possess anti-gravity.
	You can see that's a contradiction, right?
	Can a thing not have gravity and anti-gravity?
	No.
	Nope.
	Okay.
	I mean, so the, you know, sorry, the word anti to me does not suggest logical negation.
	No, no, hang on.
	Okay.
	I mean, if I say all matter has gravity except carbon has no gravity, is that logically contradictory?
	That is a contradiction.
	Fantastic.
	Okay.
	So if I say that all matter has gravity and I say carbon has no gravity, why is that a contradiction?
	It's because carbon is matter.
	Right.
	So I've got a category called matter, and I cannot create arbitrary opposite categories within a larger category.
	That is like, think of the big circle, right?
	We've got the big circle called matter, and we've got a little circle called carbon.
	And I say in the big circle of which carbon is one inside, all has gravity, but carbon, which is inside the circle of all matter has gravity, has no gravity.
	So in the same way, if I say UPB applies to all human beings, then I've got a big thing.
	And then I say, ah, but there's taller people that the opposite rule applies to.
	exactly the same logical problem.
	So, you know, if you say, you know, all humans must not rape, and, you know, Jerry over there, he can rape, like, that is a logical contradiction.
	Right.
	I'm with you there.
	But I think the core issue for me with the rape argument is if you say, you know, it could not be that we should rape, it does not follow from that that, you know, do not rape is the UPB.
	You know, it could be that neither of these things is the UPB.
	There's this third alternative of neither of the above that doesn't seem to be ruled out to me in your argument.
	Hang on.
	So if I say all people should not rape, and then you say it's illogical to say that Gerald over there should rape, right?
	Then what's the difference between Gerald as a category and taller as a category?
	They're both just subsets of humanity that would violate the general rule by being granted a magical exception.
	Well, it's just a different general rule.
	And this, I think, is the issue.
	There's all kinds of general rules that could, logically speaking, be UPB.
	And I think you prematurely rule out the vast majority of them.
	Did we or did we not just resolve the taller and shorter one?
	Well, like, not to my satisfaction.
	Okay, we can go over the argument again if you want, because if you don't follow the… See, I'll tell you the issue that I'm having, right?
	So the issue that I'm having is you're a smart guy, right?
	Sure.
	I have a master's in philosophy.
	I specialized in logic.
	Beautiful.
	Okay.
	So you're a smart guy.
	So with UPB, the challenge is, I'm not saying this is true for you, but having debated this for almost 20 years, the challenge is emotional, right?
	I actually want to agree with you, Stefan.
	Like, I like all of your conclusions.
	I want your arguments to work.
	Okay.
	So then help me understand.
	We just went through the taller, shorter one, right?
	We did go through it, yes.
	Okay.
	Where is the logical error that is saying UPB applies to all human beings?
	The height of a human being does not define a human being.
	Therefore, height has no relevance to UPB.
	Well, yeah, I don't see how that last therefore gets in there.
	I think there could be some other premise that is suppressed in this argument.
	Okay, let's just do it again because it seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
	And it's obviously, certainly could be the case.
	All right.
	So if UPB applies to all human beings and height is irrelevant to the definition of a human being, then you can't create opposite categories for human beings based on height any more than if I say color is irrelevant to being a lizard, I can't create opposite rules for lizards, for blue lizards, because height is irrelevant and color is irrelevant.
	Does that make sense?
	I guess for me, the rules that a thing follows, you know, could potentially anything about the thing could be relevant to what those rules are.
	I don't know what that means.
	Well, like, you know, there are rules that apply to all matter, but there could also be rules that apply to carbon specifically.
	Yes, but they can't contradict the rules that apply to all matter.
	I mean, so it's like saying taller guys need longer pants.
	Okay, yeah, taller guys need longer pants.
	But the height still doesn't affect whether they're human beings or not.
	So, of course, there are things that apply to carbon specifically, for sure.
	But if you have a rule that applies to all matter and carbon is composed of matter, that rule cannot be made the opposite for carbon.
	Well, right.
	Yeah.
	Whatever rule applies to all matter, that rule applies to all matter.
	So if we have UPB, which applies to all humans, height is not something that allows you to create an opposite exception because height is not relevant to the definition of a human being.
	Sure, but it could be relevant to the definition of the rule.
	I don't follow that.
	Sorry.
	Well, like, you know, so you have these statements, like, you know, for all human beings, thus and such is true.
	They should do this.
	They should not do that.
	All the UPB statements are of that form.
	You're universally quantifying over human beings, but you're also allowed to have conditionals within those quantified statements.
	You could say, you know, for all human beings, if they are facing an imminent deadly threat, then they can shoot the threat, right?
	So that's bro.
	Bro.
	Are you aware that you just completely moved the goalposts?
	No.
	Because you started with taller and shorter, right?
	Yep.
	Did we dispose of taller and shorter?
	No, not to my satisfaction.
	I'm not sure if you're not.
	Okay, then you're not following.
	Then I don't know what your education is because you've already agreed.
	That's just a vanity thing.
	This is like, actually, we're just talking about you can't admit that you're wrong.
	You're wrong.
	And look, it's good.
	It's good to be wrong because if the moral theory is valid, then we can save humanity.
	But it's good to be wrong because there's no difference between the blue of a lizard and the height of a human being.
	And you've agreed with all of those.
	You said you can't create a magical exception for Gerald because Gerald is still a human being.
	And I say, well, that applies to short and tall too.
	So either you can admit that you, and not that you're wrong, like you asked a question and have answered it.
	Because you're not wrong.
	But if I've asked a question and you stepped through the logic in two or three different scenarios and examples now, right?
	The lizard, the Gerald, the carbon atom, we've stepped through this.
	If you can't grasp it, you need to go away and think about it.
	But I've absolutely proven it.
	You've accepted the proof.
	You're just having trouble with it.
	And that's fine.
	Look, it takes a while to get UPB through your skin, but I'm not going to continue with this resistance stuff as if I haven't proven the, as if I haven't answered your question.
	Well, thank you for your time.
	You're very welcome.
	I appreciate it.
	And thank you for the questions.
	I appreciate those questions as well.
	And I hope you'll keep studying it.
	It is a very tricky thing to get UPB through your skin, but yeah, that's that you cannot have a general rule for humanity and say, I'm going to create an opposite rule for tall or short people, because it is a general rule for humanity.
	It would be like saying, well, all humanity is carbon-based life forms, except for tall people who are silicon-based.
	Like that just doesn't make any sense, right?
	If it's a silicon-based life form, it's not a human being.
	And being a tall person doesn't mean that you have opposite properties from every other human being.
	But no, great questions, great comments.
	I really do appreciate that.
	And, oh, yes, that's right.
	Oh, that is right.
	I am coming up.
	I'm coming out.
	I'm coming out into the world, my friends.
	I am coming out.
	Let me just get the web site because put your makeup on.
	Do your hair up pretty.
	I'll meet you in March in Atlantic City.
	All right.
	Let me just see what we got going on here.
	So you want to go to Word War Debate, W-O-R-D.
	Like World War Debate, but Word War Debate.
	In March, I will be going out for my first public debate in, well, quite a long time down the road.
	And not only will I be going out for a debate, but also I will be doing a meet and greet, chatting, hanging around.
	And I suppose theoretically, you might even be able to meet my family.
	They start tomorrow.
	And there is going to be a debate, Anna Kasparian versus H. Pearl Davies, Pearly Things with a Z on YouTube.
	And I hope that you will check that out.
	You can get regular tickets, VIP tickets.
	But I will be going on in March, I think, 28th.
	But go to Word War Debate, and I will be debating Jay Dyer, a fascinating intellectual that I've had a conversation with once before, and we are going to be throwing down.
	We are going to be throwing down.
	So go to Word War Debate.
	You can do join the arena.
	And if you want to get in there, you can sign up for a wide variety of updates.
	You can follow them on Instagram, on X, on YouTube, and Rumble, and all kinds of great stuff.
	So yeah, it'll be March 28th for sure.
	I can't remember if the debate is on the 27th or the 28th, but you should follow them and you should plan to be in Atlantic City in late March.
	I'm going to be out meeting with people, all kinds of great stuff.
	I hope that you will come out and see me.
	See me.
	All right, let's get to your last comments.
	Americandebunk.com.
	Yeah, that's a good hoax list for sure.
	What do you think is going on in Iran?
	I assume that the protesters are being funded to overthrow the mullahs.
	I'm planning a family trip along the Alaskan Highway.
	Have you done it?
	Do you have any thoughts?
	No, I don't.
	I have visited Alaska once, but not on that, right?
	Steph, I have a request you should definitely do more truth about.
	Love the last one you did.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	I wanted to say how hyped I was when I saw New Truth About Post-It.
	Appreciate it.
	Chris says, the left are people who post, who boost, sorry, who boost their own egos by being morally superior to others, and it is critical to their identity.
	Trying to set them straight with facts is an attack to them.
	Demoralized.
	That's the word I'm thinking of from Yuri Bezmanov.
	Bless you, Stephan audience.
	Thank you, Jay.
	I appreciate that.
	UPB is like the New Testament.
	Third book, I guess.
	People need to do more algebra.
	I think that helps with logic a lot.
	Well, the funny thing is, too, I think you're right, Kay, but what helped me a lot with logic, of course, was computer programming.
	I programmed for decades, and you simply can't get away with logical contradictions.
	What makes it wrong is asymmetrical ones.
	Theft cannot be universally preferable behavior.
	You cannot want to be stolen and be stolen.
	You cannot want to steal and be stolen from at the same time, I think.
	Yeah.
	Well, the whole concept, if you want to have your property taken from you, it's not theft.
	God bless you all, agnostics, atheists, and gnostics all, sending you good vibes.
	Good, good, good.
	Remember not to drive at police.
	This guy is painful.
	Well, it's funny, you know, because, and listen, I mean, people like to resist.
	They like to test.
	They like to push back.
	I have no problem with that.
	I think it's great.
	It's fine.
	UPB, I know it stands.
	I mean, it's been almost 20 years and I've had everybody in their dark run and they can't win.
	We can only win the truth.
	So I wouldn't say that the caller was painful, but I am very aware when somebody has admitted things but won't admit them, right?
	When you've proven something and they won't admit it.
	So that's fine.
	Sometimes it takes a while, right?
	Yeah, that logically follows.
	You can easily see a logical contradiction in that example.
	Kay says, how is this hard to understand?
	Sorry, I feel crazy listening to this kind of stuff.
	I'm triggered, LOL.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	And the thing is, when people say it's not been proven to my satisfaction, then they're talking about an emotional standard.
	It's emotional.
	And okay, fine, have your emotional standard, but let's not pretend it's logic.
	He's squiggling away from saying facts.
	God, I'm so glad you're back.
	Thank you.
	He's saying the truth is up to his satisfaction, not an objective standard of logic.
	I'd like to know if this guy has ever done any manual work in his life.
	I think this is one such case where an individual is meandering in the abstract without connection to reality.
	He keeps shooting out ink like an octopus.
	When brought to a logical conclusion, he word salads and puts things into question.
	Yes, and that's why Steph might ask questions about the person's history, like family relations, to see if there's past experiences, learned behavior that interferes with logical reasoning.
	Well, I did do that.
	So I said to the caller, and again, I appreciate the caller calling in.
	I enjoyed the conversation because it's also, I think, helpful to see when it's worth continuing a conversation, when it's worth not continuing a conversation.
	But I did say, look, there's emotional barriers to learning UPB.
	He's like, no, no, no, I have no emotional barriers.
	It's like, okay, well, then there's nothing to talk about as far as that goes, right?
	I think he's talking about changing rules in the context of a game or something.
	Yeah, but that's not how logic works, right?
	As you know, right?
	Great show.
	Free domain remains timeless in its purity and simplicity of presentation.
	P.S.
	I was wrong.
	I've been wrong.
	I was on a wrong spree so extensive last year.
	I stacked up as a wronger manjaro.
	Oh, he stacked up a wronger manjaro?
	Wrong germanjaro?
	The emotional barriers are real.
	Absolutely am.
	I can relate to getting UPB through my skin.
	I still struggle with it at times.
	My next book I'll be reading is UPB, or in this case, rereading.
	Again, essentialphilosophy.com.
	Just do.
	Yeah, but what about tall lizards?
	I had to change color because it was otherwise too close, right?
	Oh, see, I changed color.
	Like a lizard.
	I did not see a question above World War Debate.
	Yeah, WorldWarDebate.com.
	Yeah, for sure.
	Not to be mean, lovely.
	He asked and props for daring to ask things live.
	Yeah, it's great.
	All right.
	I think there's a lot of, quote, smart people with endless, quote, education who literally don't have a self-dialogue or can't just sit with thoughts or a thought and come to their own rational conclusions.
	People want to king of the heat game with Steph and go mad in the process.
	Yeah.
	I want to listen to this, but I got to hear your the truth about the ice shooting.
	I miss your step-by-step no-fuckery takes.
	Thanks, Eddie.
	I appreciate that.
	I'm not convinced that the caller was a good faith arguer.
	Well, he'll go back and he'll think about it.
	And if he'll come back, I don't think so, but we'll see.
	Topic.
	We don't have the topic nailed down as yet.
	Yes, he did move the goalposts and did not accept the logical conclusions even after assenting all the way to the conclusion.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Anna versus Pearl, yeah, on feminism.
	Yeah, for sure.
	I don't have a topic.
	And by good faith arguer, it's not essential that he even know that he's not arguing or debating in good faith.
	Yeah, so when people change, when people shift the goalposts without mentioning it, that's usually bad faith debating, right?
	How do we get you back to Australia, mate?
	Interesting.
	You are my hero, Steph.
	You are awesome sending you pep to your step.
	Well, thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	Some of the best training for logic comes from manual labor, computer programming, and economics.
	Yeah, pretty sure.
	Steph, the book Death by Socialism by J.M. Rock is a good read.
	Thanks.
	I'll check it out.
	Chris says, Steph, I think it's terrific you're back on YouTube.
	I was a regular viewer when you had over half a million subs.
	Oh, I'm kidding.
	I had almost a million.
	Careful, though, they still kill channels that cover certain topics.
	Yeah, for sure.
	Steph, in the past, you've talked about your daughter leaving home and going about things on her own.
	In this massive housing bubble, do you expect your daughter to buy a home in this environment?
	Bro, she's 17.
	She's 17.
	She's going to buy a home.
	Let's see here.
	Wow, Steph read one of my incoherent ranting run-on sentences, and now it's carved into the history of philosophy forever.
	I'm not kidding about that.
	We'll be studying this for thousands of years.
	What are your top three favorite movies?
	Good question.
	Good question.
	I suppose if I had to do it off the top of my head, Room of the View, Fight Club, and Jaws.
	All right.
	Thank you, everyone, so much for your lovely topics tonight.
	Freedomain.com/slash donate to help out the show.
	Still trying to dig myself out of a half-decade of financial nuking from the powers of the beast.
	So if you could help me out, freedomaine.com/slash donate.
	Don't forget to shop.freedomain.com for your merch.
	Don't forget peacefulparenting.com.
	Please, please, please share the book.
	Also, the novel The Present is now available in print form.
	Just go to freedomain.com slash books.
	Go to the present and you can purchase it there.
	Wait!
	Oh, you're saying I'm fat now?
	You're saying I've got too much weight?
	And what else?
	Oh, yes, freedomain.com slash call.
	If you want to book a call-in, you can do that.
	I've got a follow-up question.
	All right, Monsieur Goldstein.
	On my deathbed, I will tell the joke about the Me Too movement.
	That would absolutely get me news.
	Not the seventh samurai?
	No.
	No.
	The print books did turn out well, yes.
	And thank you to our good friend Zynph for that.
	I still owe you.
	I'll pay you.
	I'll pay you tonight.
	Sorry.
	I still owe you some money for that.
	I love your book, The Art of the Argument.
	No, you don't.
	Just kidding.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	ArtofTheArgument.com.
	On the topic of homeownership, isn't it more ideal to have a multi-generational property?
	Maybe, yeah.
	Maybe.
	Can't wait to read your novel, The Future.
	Ah, it's a great book.
	And Dissolution is also great as well.
	Okay.
	Sorry, you're going to have to email me the topic.
	I have not seen it and has not come back.
	All right.
	Enough, vamping.
	Have a great night.
	Freedomaine.com/slash donate.
	Talk to donors.
	Sunday morning.
	Peace out.
	Love you guys.

▲