All Episodes
Previous Next
May 14, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:07:06
Buzzfeed Smears, Ocasio-Cortez, Trump Approval Hits 51%

I'm changing formats and now going to have a daily hour of content on various stories.Please bear with me as I ramp up to get this new format going!This show can be found broken up on Youtube.com/Timcastnews  Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:06:34
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
This article is a really good example of why politics is so frustrating.
Before we get started, I'll just say I don't know what my schedule's gonna look like.
I've got a big announcement coming at 4 p.m.
on the main channel.
Things are changing.
Probably gonna be producing a lot less, but still producing.
We'll see what happens.
See, I saw this article, and as much as I was thinking to myself, just, just, just, these people are nuts, and maybe we just need to get away from them and tone things down.
This article's actually a really good example of the kind of disdain I have for politics, or what makes me feel this, just kind of, I don't know how to describe it.
I can just say, there's an article from BuzzFeed.
YouTube's newest far-right foul-mouthed red-pilling star is a 14-year-old girl.
Soph has nearly a million followers on the giant video platform the site's executive only have themselves to blame.
BuzzFeed is certified 100% by NewsGuard.
I don't know if this is going to appear in the actual recording.
Sometimes it doesn't.
But we can see that there are some important distinctions here.
Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly.
Wouldn't that require BuzzFeed to put opinion on this?
Gathers and presents information responsibly, clearly labels advertising.
BuzzFeed sells cookware by reviewing their own cookware.
So why is BuzzFeed getting a positive rating?
Now, of course, when it comes to rating these news organizations on the far left who are venture backed, it's what I was talking about when I made a video saying I'm done with this.
And for the most part, we'll get into that stuff too.
They hide behind venture capital in the mainstream to do exactly what they claim other people are doing.
If you're not familiar, Soph is a YouTuber, and it's like edgy, dark comedy presented from, like, an anti-SJW perspective.
She says some pretty extreme and offensive things.
Um... And I- I- I- Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm not even gonna read it.
I'm not super concerned about, uh... Look, uh, Soph is a 14-year-old.
She makes edgy content.
It's comedy.
It's dark comedy.
Whatever.
You know, I don't understand why BuzzFeed is so obsessed with this stuff, except for the fact... Rage clicks.
And it can be exemplified by this subhead here.
The site's executives only have themselves to blame.
To blame for what?
A 14-year-old being edgy?
What do you think 14-year-olds do?
They smoke cigarettes, right?
They go to their friends.
They smoke pot.
Kids who are 14, they're becoming teenagers, and they're doing dumb things.
It's what kids do.
They do dumb things.
Now, sure, if you want to be upset that this kid ended up with 800,000 followers, the reason why Listen, my opinion.
Soph has so many followers.
It's not because it's far-right nonsense propaganda, whatever you want to call it.
It's because it's crazy to see a 14-year-old talking like a 30-year-old man, you know?
So, you know, you're reading this stuff, and it's kind of like, somebody has to be writing this for her.
I don't know.
I'm less concerned about the content she's producing.
Sure, whatever.
At this point, it's just kind of like, Why should I care about dark, edgy comedy when we're a generation raised on South Park and Family Guy?
How is it different from, you know... I think it's getting angrier, and that's something I don't like.
When you watch Family Guy and South Park, it's not as angry, but this is now, you know, like, satirical, pointing at the real world, and... I also want to point out, too, there's a really interesting study I saw, where it said that conservatives can't understand exaggeration and irony, And I wonder if these people, like Joseph Bernstein, can understand exaggeration, like comedy through exaggeration.
A 14-year-old saying some really outrageous thing is, at least my understanding, is comedy through exaggeration, right?
But I guess that doesn't exist anymore.
The reason I wanted to do a video about this is because, uh...
Well, they do, like, they do point out that Soph has posted some crazy stuff on Discord.
I don't know anything about that, nor do I trust BuzzFeed.
But, uh, they talk about, you know, Miller... So here, let's do a few things.
They talk about how Soph is, uh, presenting comedy in a terminally ironic style, popularized by boundary-pushing comedy groups like the influential Million Dollar Extreme, and adopted of late by that guy in New Zealand and the other guy in San Diego.
Yeah, mass tragedies.
Right.
Because...
People say things, and then if one person says something, it means every single person is guilty.
It's just, this stuff is so frustratingly insane.
And this is why, you know, I made a video a couple days ago, maybe you saw it, maybe you didn't, where I'm like, I need to quit, things are gonna change.
And then I didn't post anything for two days.
And that's probably gonna be the case.
We're gonna figure something out.
I got a big announcement coming later today.
But one of the, uh, I don't know exactly where he puts it, but I was reading this article, and I saw, you know, uh, someone got mad that a reporter contacted her dad.
So, I think it's around this part, and they talk about YouTube is, uh, let's read this.
But the powers of parents over children who live online are limited, and YouTube has taken no ownership over what is happening to kids who grow up inhaling its trademark stench of bigotry, conspiracy, and nihilism.
Gee, BuzzFeed!
What do you think about all the kids who grew up watching your race-baity, identitarian content?
You do literally the same thing, and you're grown adults, and this is why I'm just so fed up.
They look at YouTube.
They point to people like Joey Salads.
Did Joey do wrong?
Of course he did.
Joey made some really, really awful stuff, and he apologized for it, and he stopped making that really, really awful stuff.
And all I can really say is, okay, man, if you promise not to do it again, you know, we accept people's apologies.
It doesn't mean I like what he did.
It doesn't mean I agree with his politics.
It means, alright, you know, stop.
But no one is there to call out BuzzFeed.
No other news organizations.
That's why I brought up NewsGuard.
Where is any other news outlet saying BuzzFeed is producing opinion masquerading as fact and they take no ownership over what they did?
We know how BuzzFeed got started.
We know how Huffington Post got started.
They were people who understood the Facebook algorithm and were manipulating politics to get shares.
No one has held them accountable.
When they pump out trash after trash, lying, smearing, pushing extremism...
And you see the results.
Young people who are radicalized to the far left.
And then they have the nerve, Vox, to take the same standard, right?
So you've seen the graphs I've posted where you see the left go like that.
What they've done is they've shifted the perspective so they claim that the left, no matter where the left goes, it's center, and that shows the right veering off.
Whereas the right has actually stayed relatively in the same spot As per its values.
So the way they do these studies is like, do you believe we need stronger border security?
And they'll ask that in 94, they'll ask that in 2004, they'll ask that in 2014.
And they'll show where Republicans have moved.
And they move slightly to the right.
They ask the same questions to the left.
And the left said, in 94, we believe in strong borders.
In 2004, we believe in strong borders.
And then in, you know, 2014, open borders, right?
Obviously not every Democrat is advocating for open borders.
The point is, these sites, For years, have been producing insane nonsense, and it's directly radicalizing people.
Was SOF radicalized by YouTube?
Absolutely not.
Maybe technically not, right?
The issue is, sure, you can find content on YouTube.
You can find content that is woke, broke, red-pilled, whatever you want to call it.
It exists everywhere.
However, on Facebook, the algorithm was gamed to prop up far-left identitarianism That was being shared immediately.
So the way I explained it in the last video is, when you go on YouTube, YouTube recommends something to you.
It may or may not recommend the same topic, right?
I get a bunch of skateboarding and Dragon Ball Z videos.
On Facebook, BuzzFeed has to keep one-upping themselves, but you are sharing those articles.
That's the goal.
The goal of YouTube is to get you to watch, but the goal of BuzzFeed on Facebook is to get you to read and then share.
Two steps.
YouTube, one step.
Which means, yeah, sure, YouTube can radicalize.
Content creators can keep trying to one-up themselves and be edgier and edgier, of course.
But BuzzFeed does it so much faster.
So much faster.
Because they track, they can actually see, they have something called, they do A-B testing, where they'll actually change the headline of the content as it's going out, and they can actually show different headlines in different regions.
Their goal Is to radicalize.
That's what they're doing.
And then they write these, and you know they know what they're doing.
You know, like, YouTube hasn't taken any ownership of the spread of conspiracy.
And it's like, yeah, because YouTube is a platform.
That means there's flat earthers.
That means there's, you know, round earthers.
It means there's the right, there's the left.
And YouTube just recommends what people are clicking.
So if you click a skateboarding video, congratulations, you're going to get more skateboarding videos.
But BuzzFeed has to make sure you share because Facebook doesn't... Facebook will recommend BuzzFeed.
They're not going to recommend the content.
Which means if BuzzFeed wants shares to get more... Actually, I'll put it this way.
If your content is good on YouTube, Of the 15 videos you see when you go to YouTube.com, your video might be one of them.
This video might be one of them.
It probably was.
70% or so of the videos that people watch from me come from YouTube on the front page.
BuzzFeed doesn't work that way.
Facebook... BuzzFeed can post something and it's going to have limited reach, especially today because YouTube deranked publishers.
So what does BuzzFeed have to do?
They have to make sure they have the most radical, insane stories so that you click share.
You don't do that on YouTube.
On YouTube, you can watch the video and you might see more of that video.
On Facebook, they want you to click share.
So you want to talk about who's radicalizing who?
Sure, you can be radicalized on YouTube.
It's just not really there in the data.
It's a personal choice to watch more of this content.
You could argue that people are choosing to watch more of the same content.
I would argue that's not radicalization.
If somebody watches a video about Dragon Ball Z, and then only ever watches Dragon Ball Z, I wouldn't say they were radicalized by anime.
I would say, wow, they must have become a big fan.
If someone watches a video about immigration, and they watch a ton of videos about immigration, it doesn't mean they're now going to support or oppose immigration.
They're watching videos on the subject matter, not the political ideology of the content.
But as we know, BuzzFeed, Vox, Vice, Mike, etc., they do this.
It's how they make money.
It's their bread and butter.
They, they, you know, I, I... Oh, they even have a correction?
unidentified
Pfft.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Whatever.
This is just, uh, uh, another example of how insane everything is getting on... online.
You know, and I don't see any... I don't see it getting better.
I just don't.
So, I'm going to... Here's my plan, right?
I felt like making a video.
I did.
Right?
I don't know what else I would do.
You know, I'm not gonna sit around and do nothing, and this is what I've been doing for most of my time for the past several months and a couple years.
But the reason why changes need to come, and I'm doing a bigger announcement at 4pm, is because of this.
Because these people are chasing after this absurdity.
Nothing's gonna get better until people just decide to walk away from it.
So I'm gonna restructure this channel if you're watching.
I'm gonna probably do a big news story for the first video and then do four more videos throughout the day.
But there's a reason why I'm gonna change the structure and I'm gonna do these things.
For one, there's like moral reasons.
Everyone's going insane.
And even when, you know, you might watch my video and say, Tim, you're being rational
and you're being reasonable and you're, and you're calling out, you know, both sides.
Sometimes I tend to point at these people because they're so insane and they, and they
lie and they cheat and they smear.
And it's kind of an issue of like, am I going to call out Soph, one random YouTuber who
has, who is a tiny, tiny bit the size of Buzzfeed.
But I, but I, but you know, I'll point out YouTube has those, those paths.
It's just, you know, the data's not there.
But the other thing is, well, whatever.
I'll leave it there.
You know, BuzzFeed's never gonna walk away.
It's their bread and butter, and they don't care.
We've seen how the SPLC is full of racists.
We've seen how Mike.com... You know, I did a video about that article where they talk about how they had a formula to guarantee virality, and the employees thought they were doing good, and they weren't doing anything.
It was just fake nonsense.
It was just manipulating people.
It's making everyone go insane.
But, you know, we'll figure it out.
Some people have said, you know, I've gotten some messages from people talking about YouTube burnout, and it's not that.
It's, you know, I have no issue with working hard.
I've been producing seven videos for the past, like, six, seven months.
Or six.
It was like five videos, then six.
And I don't plan on ever stopping working.
In fact, that's what I was doing.
When you don't watch me on YouTube, I was still working.
And so we've got an announcement later today.
The issue is just that It's like, no matter what you do, no matter what you say, it will be weaponized by these people to work for them.
It's a Chinese finger trap.
I'm sitting here saying, like, these people are liars.
They're liars.
This is an opinion piece, not labeled as an opinion piece, and the subhead proves it.
The site's executives only have themselves to blame.
Well, that's your opinion, dude.
You're going to write a news story or analysis, fine, but label it.
But BuzzFeed doesn't label it.
And then they put links in their content where they don't disclose they're selling cookware.
BuzzFeed is trash.
I used to give them more credit, but here's the... you know, they've... and, you know, it's going to be to varying degrees, people will agree or disagree.
But they've been getting worse and worse and worse.
It's like, why are they so obsessed with Sargon?
Who cares?
Like, Ukip is polling at 4%, right?
Well, Sargon said, you know, I think he said something about, you know, he thinks he has a good shot, but we'll see what happens.
Ukip is polling low because Brexit Party.
But he's out there doing his thing and they're obsessed with him!
They're not talking about anyone else from Brexit or Ukip because they're just playing this game where they point to random small channels and that's how they generate traffic.
That's how they generate clicks.
Do I care when BuzzFeed writes a story about Sargon?
I don't!
Why are you writing about this?
Because it's just about the clicks.
You know, so I'm over it, but we're gonna figure something out.
Because I've got YouTube channels, right?
I have a platform.
You know, apparently people like watching me talk about stuff, but we need to figure out how to actually solve the problem.
And calling it out and highlighting it apparently doesn't do anything, because it's only been getting worse.
Something else has to be done.
I'm gonna have another video at 1pm, but I've got a bigger video at...
Over the past couple days, I have not produced anything.
And one of the stories that came out while I was not producing content for the first time in two and a half years, isn't that crazy?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claimed that her 12 years left to live was dry humor.
And this really made me angry.
I'm gonna stop here and make a point because Donald Trump does similar things.
Donald Trump has said things and then later said, nope, nuh-uh.
He does it a lot, okay?
So, I bring that up because, of course, the video is about Cortez, so I'm gonna get the finger pointed at me for double standards.
But the issue with Trump is, do you seriously need me to make a video every single time Trump changes what he was saying?
It's like, dude, come on, man.
I'm not a fan of Trump, whatever.
The point is, I'm not a fan of Ocasio-Cortez either.
And there needs to be more people calling out her gaslighting and insanity.
Daily Wire writes this story.
Ocasio-Cortez issues another apocalyptic climate rant.
Is this more of her dry humor?
Well, you may need some context here.
Cortez tweets this.
This is a technique of the GOP.
To take dry humor and sarcasm literally and fact-check it.
Okay, Trump.
Like, the world-ending-in-12-years thing.
You'd have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it's literal.
But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office, so who knows?
That's really funny, because I don't think John Bowden A writer for The Hill has the intelligence of a sea sponge when he wrote this story, Ocasio-Cortez, World Will End in 12 Years if Climate Change Not Addressed, and it's got 40,000 shares!
I read a study recently.
It was on Reddit.
It said that conservatives don't have the cognition to appreciate exaggeration and irony in humor.
And because of this, the left tends to produce more satire than the right.
Or it said, this is why satire tends to be liberal.
But I'm going to have to disagree there for a second.
Maybe it used to be that way, but something happened with cognition where it flipped.
Snopes regularly fact-checks Babylon B. You know what Babylon B is?
It's like The Onion.
It's hilarious, so is The Onion, they're satire sites.
I think they do a good job.
One of the funniest articles I've seen in a while, kind of a sensitive subject, but after Julian Assange was arrested, The Onion wrote an article saying Julian Assange lifts into the air and turns into computer code while cackling.
You'll never catch me or something like that.
It was hilarious.
And the Babylon Bee does things, too.
And the Babylon Bee is fairly, like, center-right.
I wouldn't... Maybe they're, like... They poke fun at the left a lot, but they do poke fun at the right.
Here's the thing.
Ocasio-Cortez is claiming it was dry humor.
Well, journalists at The Hill didn't understand.
And that's not the only one.
She was repeatedly quoted as saying this, okay?
And then you have something really funny.
The reason I bring up the humor thing is because Allie Beth Stuckey brings up the best point in the weird shift happening between the left and the right.
Look at meme culture.
Look at, you know, the right shares memes, it's always laughing, it's always a joke, and this is what helps it.
The left had that when I was growing up, with Bill Maher, with Jon Stewart, but now it's shifting.
It's absolutely shifting.
Even Bill Maher gets called alt-right.
Allie Bestucky did a satirical interview where she cut herself into an interview with Cortez.
Very obvious that it was not real.
It was just her making fun of Cortez.
And Cortez thought it was like an actual attempt at making a fake interview.
Do you not understand irony and exaggeration?
Do you not understand the point of humor?
And I think they're losing it, right?
It's kind of devolving into a humor conversation, but look at how comedians today are.
Everything's offensive.
You can't joke about certain things.
They really don't understand humor.
And they call people far-right for thinking things are funny or wanting to tell a joke.
So Cortez tries to gaslight her... How many followers does she have at this point?
4.16 million followers by saying, first of all, the Hill is not the GOP.
This is absolutely insane.
The Hill is a rather like center, like center, straight-lined political blog.
I don't, I think, you know, media fact, uh, media bias check says it's like center.
Yeah, she's saying it's the GOP.
This is what she does, okay?
No, this wasn't a joke.
You quite literally said we had 12 years left before the world ended or something like this.
Let's, uh, let's go down and see what other, some other people said.
Scott Adams said it seemed that she was not intended to be taken literally, but the thing is, she was actually referencing a study that said we had 12 years, otherwise there would be irreversible damage.
She then exaggerated the point, saying, you know, the world is gonna end in 12 years.
Look, the world will end in 12 years!
Here's what happened.
Cortez read this story, where scientists said if we don't course correct in 12 years, there will be irreversible damage.
Oh, okay.
The world's not gonna end.
Subverse, you know, we did a story on it several times.
Cortez then takes that and exaggerates it because this is what they do.
She then says the world's gonna end.
The Hill reported on it in January.
John Bowden, you're not joking, dude.
It was literal.
What did she say?
She said, look at this.
People for Bernie.
Millennials and Gen Z and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we're like, the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how we're gonna pay for it?
That point she was making.
We can look at it two ways.
Oh, you're trying to be funny.
Are you insulting progressives?
No, think about it.
If what she was saying was intended to be dry humor, then she's insulting progressives.
Because this joke would imply they're ranting and raving about the world ending.
The world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.
We're like, the world will end in 12 years.
That's dry humor if you want to imply that progressives are crazy people who think the world is, you know, the end is nigh.
So now Daily Wire's got another story on this.
Now, I will say this.
I think that Daily Wire is jumping on her gas lining, the 12 years thing, because she made a point about 415 parts per million carbon in the atmosphere, which is unprecedented.
And so now they're poking fun at her because of that.
Look, you can criticize Cortez when she lies, when she pulls the Trumpian fake news, ah, it's the media, but then for some reason blames the GOP!
I'm gonna have to, like, a technique of the GOP, what are you talking, like, that's so insane.
Anyway, the point is, so yeah, she's ripe for criticism.
But it is, look, just because she said something crazy about the 12 years thing doesn't mean it's wrong for her to bring up the 415 parts per million.
That's a fair point to bring up.
Although, it's kind of weird that she would then backtrack her 12 year statement and then try and talk about climate change.
I want to make a point about climate change, alright?
By all means, conservatives criticize Cortez.
By all means, you know, progressives criticize conservatives over climate change.
That's not the point.
The point is, Cortez here is a gaslighter, but here's the thing I was thinking about in terms of climate change.
I watched a video.
Some old dude talking about how Florida is projected to be underwater.
They're saying Florida's gonna sink, right?
But apparently, like, Al Gore bought a condo there, and apparently it's like the fastest growing condo market.
And so the point that was brought up was, If we're looking at 12 years until the sea levels start rising, if we're looking at 30 years before the sea levels have risen and, you know, why would people buy property in Florida?
You could argue then, okay, so maybe they're just making bad investments.
So then the argument in this video was why aren't these banks required to tell people That that investment will be worthless when sea levels rise.
I thought that was a really good point.
It doesn't disprove climate change.
You know, there are people who are anti, you know, who don't believe in man-made climate change, excuse me, who argue if the banks aren't, you know, making a move on it, that proves it because why would the banks want to lose money on their investment if it gets flooded?
You know, my response is, like, that doesn't prove they don't... It doesn't prove climate change isn't real.
It proves they don't care whether it's real or not.
Some people argue that it proves they know something.
No, it doesn't prove they know something.
It just shows that if it is true, they don't care.
So it's a really good point to be made.
Whether you agree with climate change or not, banks should be forced to tell, you know, potential investors it's a worthless investment in 10, 12, you know, 20 years, right?
That would be interesting.
See how the banks react to that.
But anyway, let's, uh, so they make fun of her dry humor remark because she's talking about CO2 levels.
CO2 levels have reached the highest levels in recorded history, and the last time levels were this high, bacteria and diseases we have never seen before roamed the Earth.
It was reported today that this weekend for the first time, 415, yeah, we get it, So what's their point?
It's not surprising that Ocasio-Cortez quoted Holthus to buttress her hysteria.
In 2013, he vowed he would never fly again, tweeting that he broke down in tears in the boarding area of SFO while on the phone with, quote, with the phone with my wife.
I never cried because of a science report before.
Fox News' Greg Gutfield reacted, Someone should tell him that planes are better than driving, as their nitrous oxide causes cooling by ridding methane from the air.
Is that true?
But hey, he says he's the expert.
I'm calling BS on this drama queen.
This is what dooms environmentalism.
Dishonest hysterics who put drama before data.
I'm not going to get into all that.
I'm not a scientist.
But I will take this opportunity to point out Nuclear energy is probably something we need to do.
If your concern is climate change, if your concern is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, nuclear energy makes a ton of sense.
It is carbon neutral.
There are less deaths for nuclear energy than any other, you know, like coal.
Renewables are great.
Renewables are improving every day.
And wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, these are all really, really awesome things.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't do those either.
I'm saying, in terms of the conflict between The climate change, you know, hysterics and the, you know, economy hysterics.
We can calm everybody down and say nuclear energy has an extremely high return on energy investment.
It's a great technology.
It's carbon neutral.
That's a solution for both.
You know, why can't we do it?
It's funny because a lot of moderates hit me up and they're like, Tim, yes, thank you, talk about nuclear energy.
And when I do, I'm not saying don't do renewables.
No, I'm saying we'll do nuclear because that will provide a ton of energy based on what we put into it.
Renewables have a much lower return on energy investment, but they're much, much safer in the long run.
So then they go on to Ragon Cortez for trying to walk back her 12 years thing.
Sure, whatever.
Let's see this.
They say, as far as the latest predictions of doom from Ocasio-Cortez, here are some other perspectives.
Lamar Smith, 2017.
A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth.
This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.
Studies indicate that crops would utilize water more efficiently, requiring less water, and colder areas along the farm belt will experience longer growing seasons.
I have heard that too.
I've read about how trees and vegetation are growing faster with the higher concentration of carbon.
So, the idea in this regard is that the more plants grow, the faster they grow, and the faster they'll absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
We are seeing a massive increase in parts per million of carbon dioxide, so it would seem, at least for now, plants may be growing faster, but they're not pulling the carbon out of the atmosphere fast enough.
So, in my personal opinion, I think we do have a serious problem with carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases.
I don't know what the solution is, and this is the problem I have with the progressives that are just basically... So, I'll put it this way.
The progressives who are like, No fossil fuels, like the Green New Deal.
And then you have the anti-climate change, you know, more right-wing types, who are like, climate change is a myth, ignore it.
Well, my thing is kind of like, listen, we can see the carbon in the atmosphere, I can only defer to the scientists, but the issue here is not America, because we've dramatically been reducing our carbon emissions.
Great, we all agree, here in America.
What about the other countries?
They're not.
And they're not going to.
And especially when it comes to, like, plastic pollution.
Sure, that's great.
We as Americans are doing a fantastic job.
We can do better.
But what about other countries?
So when you talk about these doomsday scenarios, I don't think you realize that, quite literally, there are other countries that aren't going to do what needs to be done.
What do you do?
What's your proposal?
We can do everything in the book.
We can transform America, but China's doing their own thing.
Now granted, China's doing great technologies, developing things like solar and everything, so it's not absolute.
Well, we have to recognize America doesn't have the authority to tell other countries what they can or can't do for the most part.
So it's not as simple as just be like, America has to do a Green New Deal.
Great!
Will that actually change things?
I don't think so.
Well, you know what?
Whatever.
Long story short, main point, come on.
Cortez, we know what you meant, we know what you said, and it's so insane that she's trying to gaslight now.
But I will end by reiterating the other point.
What happened to where it's now shifting to where conservatives are the funny bunch, with jokes, with humor, with satire, and the left is becoming the anti-humor, you know, triggered, offended, morality police?
How did this switch happen?
Beats it out of me.
Anyway, I'll have some more videos coming up in the next video at 4pm, big announcement, main channel.
Basically, let me end by saying one thing, because if you watch the video on my main channel at 4pm, my main channel is the biggest workload I have every day.
These videos aren't that difficult for me to make.
I read the news, I comment on things, and people actually like these videos better.
So it's become very burdensome to produce the very straightforward Tim Pool show, especially as I'm trying to launch Subverse and I'm hosting those videos as well, because Subverse is what Tim Pool is supposed to be, right?
So now we have an opportunity.
What I'm going to be doing on the Tim Pool channel is much more me.
It's going to be my personal vlog channel or whatever.
And I'm going to push people towards here for news and commentary and subverse for straight news.
And I think this is what we'll see moving forward.
But I'll put it... I'll leave it there.
YouTube.com slash TimCast at 4pm.
Big announcement.
I'll just give you a quick little snippet.
We're hiring.
And we've got a massive space popping up.
It's going to be...
It's going to be crazy.
I'll see you at 4 p.m. Whenever I see headlines like this, I get kind of frustrated because
you always want to do this, okay? Here's the headline.
Trump approval at 51%, winning millennials trusted more than Democrats on economy.
And that's fine. There is a poll.
It's from Zogby, and this is true. They did find these results. However,
people will choose whichever poll props up their narrative.
You can easily find a poll that says Trump is doing bad.
If you turn on MSNBC, that's what you're going to see.
If you turn on Fox, you're going to see Zogby or something.
So, you know, when you're trying to really understand what's going on in the world, these kinds of headlines, I get it.
Conservatives are going to try and prop themselves up to prove them right because they're fighting that battle.
Liberals are going to do the same thing.
You know, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I shouldn't call them liberals because most of you know, you know, there are liberals like, you know, me or I actually think the Weinsteins are progressive, but you know what I mean, right?
The left is not liberal.
But you pop over to RealClearPolitics, and I will say this.
I always check the aggregates, as should you.
But the reality is, Trump's job approval actually is almost as high as it's ever been, which is actually surprising to me.
So, you know, I initially see this story and I said, OK, OK, let's take this and look at the aggregate and show where we're really at.
Well, we're not at 51% in the aggregate right now.
We can see that When they aggregate all of these different polls from the end of April until now, you can see that Trump is at 44.9.
However, look at the, so the black line is Trump's approval rating.
It's actually almost higher than it's ever been.
It peaked at 45.1, and the highest it's ever been is 46.
This is the aggregate, okay?
This is not, you know, like, you'll find him having a higher approval rating on other polls.
Rasmussen had him at 49 to 49 as a tie, as of the 9th.
But actually, when you look at the aggregate, we can see that Trump actually is Polling pretty well, you know, relative to his presidency.
We can see that his disapproval rating skyrocketed.
Actually, he had more approval than disapproval.
But then his disapproval skyrocketed.
So Trump's disapproval right now dominates, for sure.
But Trump's disapproval is particularly low.
But his approval rating, again, one more time, it's almost as high as it's ever been.
So let's read this story.
Now that we've kind of looked at the aggregate and we can realize, if you want to put him at 51%, that's what Zogby did, fine.
That's their results.
The aggregate doesn't show him above 50%.
But he is polling almost as high as he's ever done.
So let's read what they have to say.
So that's another really important bit.
Zogby is legit, right?
50% approval line needed to win re-election as millennials and independents are moving
to embrace him according to a new survey.
The latest Zogby poll put Trump's approval rating at 51%, his highest ever in the trademark
survey.
So that's another really important bit.
Zogby is legit, right?
Zogby is legit polls.
They've never had Trump this high before.
So there you go.
Zogby Analytics pollster Jonathan Zogby said that the president is riding a booming economy and could be hard to beat should the nation's economic health continue to improve.
His survey found that several groups that had been leaning against Trump were starting to favor him in large part because they have a growing confidence in the economy and Trump's handling of it.
Notably, millennials and independents have turned in his direction.
This graphic's actually fairly interesting.
Who do you trust more to grow the U.S.
economy?
And we can see that Trump has 46%.
Democrat leaders only has 42.
12% are not sure.
So in terms of the political battle, the culture war, Democrats and Republicans, Trump, are going to be trying to snatch up this 12%.
But for the time being, Trump's winning.
And that's really important because a lot of prediction models for winning a re-election have to do with, well, first, The incumbent always has an edge, but the economy plays a big role.
If the economy tanks or people don't have faith in the president to help the economy, Trump will lose.
But right now, at least based on Zogby, it looks like Trump... You know, here's the thing.
I did a couple videos.
There have been poll after poll, forecast model after forecast model showing Trump is going to landslide 2020.
I think that's absolutely the case, right?
Especially if he's getting millennials.
Overall, likely voters said they trusted Trump over Democrats 46% to 42% to grow the economy.
With a solid economy, a potentially long and drawn-out primary season for Democratic presidential
candidates, plus solid gains with independents, millennials, urban voters, college-educated
voters and minorities, Trump could be very hard to defeat in 2020, said Zogby.
unidentified
Thank you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
In addition to his base of supporters, Trump might be able to piece together another coalition and produce another improbable victory as long as everything goes as planned, but we still have a lot of time left on the game clock.
The Zogby poll is the latest of likely voters that showed Trump receiving a bump in approval ratings after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's 2016 election report, even Gallup, which surveys the broad category of adults, had him at a record high, 46%.
And as I said 50 times already, right now, yeah, he's polling nearly as high as ever done.
Now this is actually interesting because we can see that, here's the nuance, in the Zogby poll, 37% strongly disapprove, and that's the biggest bracket.
But somewhat disapprove is only 11%, and somewhat approve and strongly approve are between 30 and 21, giving him 51%.
And this shows you, this right here, somewhat approve, between somewhat approve and somewhat disapprove, is probably where, like, classical and social liberals fit people who aren't identitarian, and don't vote just based on where they're told to or the tribe.
They're probably in a position where, you know, They're between these two.
Here's the thing.
Just because someone would somewhat disapprove of Trump doesn't mean they wouldn't vote for him, however.
So here's an interesting, you know, opinion, at least as I see it.
I think the strongly disapproved people absolutely would not vote for Trump, right?
They strongly disapprove.
These are the never Trumpers.
Somewhat disapprove might be presented with a worse alternative, right?
Like Hillary Clinton.
You might somewhat slightly disapprove of Trump, but strongly disapprove of the other candidate, and thus you'll vote for the lesser of two evils, or you won't vote, right?
Whereas I think if you somewhat approve of Trump, you're probably likely to vote for him, albeit you could strongly approve of the other candidate.
They say Trump's approval rating topped that of former President Barack Obama this far into his first term, but Trump has had the lowest approval ratings throughout his first term.
However, This is true, right?
Trump is also riding high on positive economic news, a record high stock market, low unemployment, and solid GDP growth at home.
I don't know.
it a few weeks ago, but that's not the complete story as to why the president has reached
a peak in his job approval rating.
Trump is also riding high on positive economic news, a record high stock market, low unemployment,
and solid GDP growth at home.
I don't know.
Listen, whenever I talk about what I don't like about Trump, I can point to foreign policy.
I'm very concerned about potential conflict in Venezuela, which I think is a bad, bad idea.
And these things tend not to work out very well for the United States.
We keep doing it, though!
Trump commando raids in Yemen, supporting Saudi Arabia with their conflict in Yemen.
Yeah, I think these things are disconcerting, but when it comes to domestic policy, I really don't have anything to say.
I mean, I don't, you know, one of the arguments I've heard is that Trump, his policies are kicking the can down the road.
Yeah, it's a short-term gain.
Things are looking good now, but a lot of people think it's going to crash later on.
I don't know that.
I'm not an economist.
All I can do, and the reason I'm saying this is not to defend or support anything Trump is doing, is to make a point about regular voters who don't know economics, right?
I know a little bit about economics.
I am no professor, okay?
So when I see this, Trump says he's going to do X, all of a sudden now we have this record growth, we do have a massive debt, I shrug.
I say, okay, right?
This is good news for everybody.
The economy is doing well, people are back at work, record low unemployment.
Damn!
Well, I don't know what you guys- if- if- if- look, there- there- there is the issue I was talking about, like the Chinese finger trap problem, or it could be that this is an illusion.
We're seeing all these good things now, and then as soon as Trump leaves, everything tanks, because it's a short-term, you know, band-aid over a bullet wound.
But you have to prove that, right?
So it's up to the left.
If they want to put an argument against Trump, prove to me why all of this news is bad.
What does it mean in the long run, right?
Long-term gains very often are more important than short-term gains.
Short-term, you get something, short-term, and then later on you get hurt by it.
We want to make sure we're constantly improving.
We're planting trees that our children can sit beneath.
But I got to say for now, all this to me looks like it's going to be pointing in a positive direction.
So again, If you're on the left, what you gotta do is you gotta come to me and say, here's why that's bad.
Plain and simple.
Zogby Analytics had President Obama at 48% at the same time, 5-0-9, said the pollster's analysis provided to Secrets in advance of its release.
There were two intriguing findings in the survey.
On the positive side, the poll found that 22% of Democrats approved of Trump.
unidentified
Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
That's a surprise to me.
But it also found that 59% of elderly voters disapprove of Trump, 59% to 41%.
That's surprising.
unidentified
Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
There's some following takeaways.
Trump's approval rating is the highest we have on record.
That's seriously interesting.
A slim majority strongly and somewhat approve of his job performance as president.
His numbers are being driven by decent job growth, an inflated stock market, etc.
Yeah, we talked about that.
There are potential foreign policy threats like Iran, North Korea, a trade war with China, which could derail his current popularity with voters.
Besides a good economy and vindication from the Mueller report, Trump's good approval rating is being driven by a
surge in popularity among college-educated voters.
unidentified
What?!
No way!
College-educated voters?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
That I have trouble believing.
living in the Western region, independents, millennials, suburban men, urban men, middle-aged
voters, Trump's approval rating has improved with minorities.
27% of African-Americans and 45% of Hispanics approve of the president, both very good numbers
historically for Trump.
College-educated voters?
That I have trouble believing.
Seriously.
According to, but that's great news for Trump, you know.
According to recent job statistics, most job growth in the U.S.
has occurred in large- to medium-sized cities, which could also explain the good job performance rating Trump received from large- and medium-city voters.
Trump has recently seen a spike in support among large- and medium-city voters.
Almost half of each group approve of his job as president and think the U.S.
economy will be positive for the next four years.
Stock market has been fluctuating.
I don't know.
I don't know.
You know, Trump talks about tariffs.
He talks about, you know, bringing jobs back.
All that sounds good.
Andrew Yang disagrees.
Andrew Yang has some interesting proposals and talks about automation and VAT tax and the freedom dividend or universal basic income.
The challenge now is, look, Jobs aren't just about making money.
Jobs are about purpose.
And people who don't have purpose are unhappy people.
People get bored.
They want to do something.
And a job is your purpose.
The reason I bring up Yang is I think he has the best argument for anyone on the left or the Democrats.
And Trump, well, he's the president, so his argument is it's working.
It's working.
So here's the challenge.
We're seeing something work.
Yang argues Trump is trying to roll back the clock to bring things back to where they were.
That's not necessarily wrong, right?
If we did things that were bad and we went left when we should have gone right, I don't mean that politically, I mean you have a fork in the road and you took the wrong path, go back and then go the other direction, that could make sense too.
I don't know.
All I can really say is, you're going to have a hard time winning over people when you have such great numbers for Trump.
Seriously.
Listen, man, I know the people who watch my videos get it, but these progressives on the far left don't understand.
You need to go and sit down with someone who's a 50-year-old man with a couple kids he wants to put into college.
He wants his kids to have a better life.
And you say to him, Trump is bad.
Trump is all these really, really bad things.
And what's he going to say to you?
He's going to say, I don't know about that.
I don't care.
The economy is great.
I got a job.
Trump said I was going to work.
And now my kids are going to college.
Argue against that.
It's going to be a tough position.
I think Trump's on track to win.
I got a couple more videos coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you shortly.
This video is actually good news.
This video should make you feel good.
I laughed.
I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm lifted up by this first.
Here's the headline.
Stephen Fry accused of using okay, hand gesture.
I'm not going to use what they called it in a post about mental health.
For those of you that are listening, you can't see, but we've got Stephen Fry, the great comedian.
Stephen Fry is an amazing individual.
And he's holding up the OK sign to promote Mental Health Awareness Week.
Well, naturally, you know what happened!
Stephen Fry decided to make a point.
It's an organization called AOK, it's my understanding.
And yes, people started dragging him for making the OK hand sign.
So let's read some of the stories from Metro.co.uk.
Stephen Fry has been accused of using an alt-right hand sign for promoting Mental Health Week.
Why?
Because 2019, and also Twitter, the 61-year-old told followers he would not allow the OK gesture
to be co-opted by the alt-right after some people urged him not to use it.
And this is why it's good news.
Because we're not just going to talk about Stephen Fry here.
Ricky Gervais took a big step to defend free speech with a tweet recently.
And there's some awesome stuff.
We're going to read these tweets.
As Mental Health Awareness Week kicks off, Stephen Fry showed his support for London's
AOK Kitchen Working With Mind by sharing a photo of himself holding up the gesture.
He tweeted, Are you AOK?
Our friends, AOK Kitchen, are supporting Mind Charity this Mental Health Awareness Week 13-19 May.
Follow them for more.
And he used the emoji!
He's really pushing it.
He knew what he was doing.
Seriously, he knew what he was doing.
He was making a point.
And bravo, Stephen Fry, you beautiful, beautiful genius.
He said, I'm sorry, the story continues.
But while Stephen Fry was just trying to raise awareness and drum up support by sharing the universally recognizable OK symbol, others piped up to claim it was a sign of the alt-right.
One person wrote, Stephen and friends, you might want to be super careful using this symbol if you don't want to be confused with the alt-right.
It's an unfortunate fact of life that even the kindest of intentions can be taken out of context.
Another replied, are you aware that this hand symbol can be misinterpreted as support for- oh my god.
Didn't have you down as part of the alt-right.
The miscommunication was so strong that Steven followed up his post with a message stating, no, he wasn't using a alt-right hand sign.
The former QI host wrote, P.S.
I really will not allow the simple OK gesture to belong to the moronic, dog-whistling, catfishing, fog-horning, frog-marching, pig-sticking, neck-waving few who attempted to appropriate for their own fatuous fantasies.
They talk about 4chan after this, you get it.
4chan was a hoax.
They talk about 4chan after this, you get it. 4chan, it was a hoax.
They say in recent months it's been used by a bunch of people who are not good people,
but let's pop over to Twitter!
And see what's going on with Mr. Stephen Fry.
So here's what he tweeted, right?
I read the tweet already.
For those that are watching, you can see it's just a mental health awareness week.
It's very innocuous.
He's got a decent amount of retweets.
There's his statement saying he's not going to let it be taken over.
But we can clearly see in the replies.
I do believe Twitter is algorithmically handling replies to make sure people see things that make them feel good.
Because most of the replies are people mocking those who would claim the OK sign as anything other than OK.
We can see one person says, Mr. Ben says, So here's the thing.
Why is this video going to be a good video?
And why should you feel good with a good laugh?
I maybe should have done this video as the last segment, but Ricky Gervais has also chimed in.
So when I see Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais come out and say, free speech, You know, I'm like, man, that warms my heart.
Because these are wildly influential mainstream individuals.
Stephen Fry is doing something important by not letting these media companies chase after this insane narrative.
But you know, I've talked about it.
The reason these media companies claim the OK sign is anything other than what it is, is because they need rage bait.
They need to convince you that things are bad.
They want you to get angry and click share, right?
People posting laughing emojis.
But sure enough, there are some people who are accusing him, as it were.
What does this guy say?
I have a support team for my mental health.
I didn't like to ask.
Okay, that's nothing to do with the okay sign.
Someone says the gesture has another meaning, especially in the USA, Stephen Fry.
Innocent mistake, I know, but it's a mistake all the same.
No, it wasn't a mistake.
He knew what he was doing.
Let's pop over to Ricky Gervais.
Ricky Gervais tweeted this four days ago.
If you don't believe in free speech for people who you hate, fear, and disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech.
Spot on.
But here's what really, really is uplifting.
This made me smile.
Gad Saad.
Gad Saad, this is why, as a Jewish person, he supports the right of Holocaust deniers to spew their BS.
You're welcome.
I have respect for that.
I believe that sunlight really is the best disinfectant, but it's not absolute, right?
When people talk about free speech being the best disinfectant, you have a lot of people on the left who assume that means any idea can be destroyed by, you know, is guaranteed to be destroyed as soon as people hear about it.
That's not true.
But if you let people fester in darkness, you won't know what they're doing and they'll get worse.
This is why all the censorship is bad.
Ricky Gervais responded to Gadsad, exactly.
I say, if you wish to deny something, don't choose evolution or the holocaust, way too much evidence, you'll look stupid.
And then, um, as an aside, Gadsad then talks to Ricky about getting him on his show, and Ricky is down, which is cool!
Man, Ricky Gervais, you are an awesome dude.
Funny guy, appreciate it.
LiberalNotLefty says, please stop being perfect, it's annoying.
You know, so the reason why I wanted to pull up the Ricky Gervais tweet and talk about Stephen Fry is that when you constantly see these stories about how the world is going to hell in a handbag, it's depressing.
It makes you feel like, wow, people have lost their minds.
But then you get reminded that someone like Ricky Gervais, how many followers does he have?
13.3 million followers, and Stephen Fry, let's scroll back up, Stephen Fry with, come on Twitter, load, what are you doing?
Stephen Fry has, okay, 12.7 million followers.
These are wildly influential people who are pushing back on the psychosis that is addiction attention media.
And I have much respect for this.
But when it comes to Ricky Gervais, right, I read the story about Stephen Fry, and it made me kind of just like wince, like, oh god, here we go.
If you haven't been following just the absurdity of the OK sign, Cubs, Wrigley Field recently banned a guy for doing the circle game because the media is just playing into this game.
They're absolutely playing into it.
You can have, you know, somebody use the sign, ironically.
But until we get Ricky Gervais, Stephen Fry, and other celebrities saying no, it will only get worse.
So this is why this is good news.
This is kind of a pushback.
Can NBC, can BuzzFeed really claim that Stephen Fry is actually, you know, alt-right?
They can't.
They can't do it.
So the only stories that you'll really see is, you know, Stephen accused of doing this.
Yep.
It's still that bad, where even when you have these mainstream liberal personalities pushing back, the articles still pop up.
But a lot of people... Let's go down to Ricky Gervais and look at some of the responses.
Imam Tahiti says, if you start a new religion, I'll be your prophet Muhammad.
It will be good this time, I promise.
unidentified
Wow!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It's really important and, you know, look, I think we get it.
Free expression is paramount to a free society.
If people aren't able to speak out of fear, then we can't progress.
And one of the examples I always use is, you know, think about the struggles of the LGBT community when they were speaking about why they deserved rights and the pushback they received.
And in some ways still receive some today.
We have legal, you know, gay marriage is boom, it's done.
Supreme Court ruled.
Anywhere in the country you can get, you know, you can get gay married.
That only came about because people had a right to speak up.
Bad ideas went away, good ideas moved forward.
So what's going to happen is liberal ideas tend to progress.
And I don't mean liberal in the sense like, you know, the left and the right.
I mean liberal in the sense of freedom and liberty.
It's because I think there's one underlying principle that's really important or aspect of this.
If you come out and say, people should not be able to do X, and X doesn't involve anyone else, you're going to be hard-pressed to defend that argument.
If you go out and say that you think, you know, women shouldn't be able to do X, people are going to say, that doesn't impact your life.
So the liberal argument tends to work because most people are going to say, hey, you know what?
Whatever makes you happy.
I don't want you infringing my rights.
I'm not going to infringe yours.
There are groups that want to hold things back.
They want to, you know, have more... Like, they want to have traditional policy, or... It's not unique to the left or the right.
Both sides can do it in certain ways.
So long as the idea involves you freely doing something that doesn't harm others, it is likely to move forward.
It's not absolute.
It's just something I've seen, and I could be wrong, but that's what it tends to look like.
And then you get the arguments about, you know, like, Second Amendment and pro-choice, and this is where things get different because it starts to overlap with other people's rights in certain areas.
2A, not so much, but pro-choice definitely.
Jeffrey Miller says, yes, and in my experience, fewer than 3% of people understand this.
This person says, and maybe I don't believe in free speech if this is what it looks like.
And he shows a bunch of the Westboro Baptist Church.
And this is what they don't realize.
When I was doing the podcast with Joe Rogan, He told me that one of the women from the Westboro Baptist Church was de-radicalized by being on Twitter.
We don't want to push people in dark corners where they coalesce around these ideas.
We want them to be exposed to mainstream good ideas that are recognizable.
And we need people who are able to speak up to propose new ideas.
Heaven forbid!
We just saw a guy get banned from Twitter.
He was a research scientist who worked on the DSM-5.
I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty.
He was talking about trans issues.
They suspended his account.
They were trying to get him to delete a tweet where he talked about gender dysphoria being a mental disorder.
Twitter took him down.
He's literally the scientist doing the research on it.
That's what we can't have.
Because imagine a world where someone says, I've discovered the Earth revolves around the Sun, and Twitter bans you as soon as you do because it's blasphemy.
It's against the rules.
It's hate speech.
It offends the delicate sensibilities of the religious folk.
We can't have that.
We can't.
So, bravo Ricky Gervais, bravo Stephen Fry.
I hope this was a more uplifting video for you guys.
Tons of support, people defending free speech in the mainstream.
I hope this is a trend that continues.
You know, I don't know.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more video coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
Unless, of course, you're listening on the podcast, because what I'm going to start doing is taking all of these episodes and making an hour-long podcast every day.
So there you go.
Stick around.
One more video to come.
I'll see you shortly.
This story is from Yahoo Lifestyle.
Transgender powerlifting champion stripped of women's division titles for being, quote, actually a male during competitions.
So, for those that didn't hear the story, I covered it a little while ago.
There was a trans woman who won 9 out of 9 lifts.
I'm not sure how competitive powerlifting works.
9 out of 9.
And set 4 records.
This is a trans woman, however, born male, and going through hormone therapy.
So this triggered a negative backlash.
People were upset because biological males have a physical advantage over biological females.
Period.
It's a science.
Like, literally, it's a fact.
And it's mind-blowing how we're in an era today where you can literally have people telling you to deny what you can see with your eyes and hear with your ears.
If you take all of the men and women in one room and line them up from tallest to shortest, it will mostly be men on one side and mostly be women on the other.
It's not absolute.
You could take a bunch of women from Sweden and bring them to Thailand, and it will be the other way around.
The point is...
Cross-culture, around the world, people of the same, you know, background, you will find this.
Yet for some reason we are having this debate.
Now we should absolutely protect the rights of trans people, but sporting events rules are arbitrarily set, but set, you know, I say arbitrary in that we decide what those rules are.
You know what that means?
It means When we make a women's division, we are creating a protected class.
Did you know that, at least this is my understanding, in the NBA, in NFL, you know, baseball, etc., there is no rule against women playing.
Women have absolutely every right to try out and compete in Major League Baseball, in the NFL.
Why don't they?
Some women have tried to become kickers and have gotten close.
The issue is men have a physical advantage, so we create a protected class for biological females.
To then allow biological males who have transitioned into a protected class for biological females doesn't seem to make sense.
What would make sense is a new category for trans people.
That would make sense.
The interesting thing about this is we're not seeing trans men dominating against biological males because it's very clear.
And I can't believe that we're in an era where It's actually a conversation, but let's read the story.
Again, from Yahoo.
A transgender powerlifter who won multiple record-breaking world championships in the women's division while transitioning from male to female has been stripped of her titles after sports authorities ruled she was biologically male while competing.
The Raw Powerlifting Federation announced on May 3rd that it had revoked the titles won by Mary Gregory in the women's squat, bench press, and deadlift categories, as well as the master's total world record.
She had earned for her overall weightlifting scores at the 100% Raw competition on April 27th.
Gregory's landslide victories, which included multiple world records she'd set for her age, she was 43 at the time, And weight categories prompted automatic drug testing per Raw Powerlifting Federation's post-competition protocol, said a statement released by the organization.
It was then that authorities within the federation learned for the first time that Gregory was transitioning, they claimed.
So, so interestingly, this news came out and everyone knew this individual was trans, but the organization didn't.
So here's another, uh, interesting, excuse me, conundrum in the, in the development of trans rights and the, in the trans issues.
Let me do this.
I read a story.
There was a tragic incident.
I'm not going to talk about too much.
But it was reported that the perpetrator of this incident was male.
They literally said it was a male student.
Halfway down the story, they say it was actually a biological female transitioning.
Well, a trans man is never going to be biologically male.
A trans woman will never be biologically female.
These distinctions are important.
But I believe it was NBC, I could be wrong, said it was a male.
No, no, no, no, no.
You can argue it's a man, sure, a trans man.
But that is not a male.
And this is where things get confusing.
So think about how it pertains to a story like this.
If a trans woman says they are female, they're not.
And they never will be.
Female and male are descriptors about Mostly.
Like, you know, it's not black and white.
It is bimodal.
But an overwhelming majority, like 99.7% of people will be discernibly male or female.
It's possible people can be intersex.
But the issue here is, if this trans woman listed themselves as female and they're not female, then the weightlifting organization probably wouldn't know until drug testing.
But let's read more.
The lifter identifies as female, as I noted.
Raw statement reads, confirming that Gregory entered the competition as a woman and the Federation took her at her word without any prior consultation.
Well, why would they?
You know, if a woman enters a contest, we're not going to take the blood.
If a man enters a contest, we're not going to take their blood.
We're just going to let them do their thing.
However, women's competition is a protected class.
So in this instance, it gets interesting.
The organization's rules state that competitors will be classified according to physiological classifications rather than identification, which technically disqualifies Gregory from competing against athletes born biologically female.
The day after the competition, Gregory celebrated her victories on Instagram.
Her post prompted a public backlash, and combined with the gender reveal from her drug testing results, an internal investigation Raw's statement explained.
So I believe this is the old post.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Last night I had the opportunity to speak with, yada, yada, yada.
Not every choice will appease everyone.
I hope Mary's story... Oh, so this is Deadlifting announcing their... I believe it's them saying they're removing the awards.
The organization's president and board of directors met on April 29 to discuss the matter and ultimately came to the agreement that Gregory was actually a male in the process of becoming a transgender female, so her wins were not legitimate.
Additionally, they rescinded her world records.
Since the Lifter's gender classification for the purpose of our rules is not consistent with female, No female records will be broken by these lifts.
This is... wow.
So here's an Instagram post.
Response to the transgender situation that occurred last week.
Please swipe right to read the second page.
And so this essentially just goes through the story.
Um, more in detail, talks about, uh, the lifter, they say on April 27th, uh, on Saturday, April 27th, the lifter exceeded the current female world records in this lifter's age and weight category.
This automatically calls for drug testing protocols, which take place at the end of every event.
The drug testing coordinator for this event performed the drug test, at which time it was revealed that this female lifter was actually a male.
In the process of becoming a transgender female.
Since the event of this time was over, awards had been distributed, and the only lifters left were the ones who had been selected for drug testing.
At this point, the drug testing coordinator and the meat director realized this was a serious and sensitive issue the Federation President and the Board of Directors would need to address.
Yahoo Lifestyle has reached out to Gregory for her reaction to the Federation's decision.
On May 7, she told Outsports that prior to the competition, she met with an official who had known Gregory since 2016, before she began transitioning.
She claims that at this time, she disclosed to the official that she had started taking the female hormones estrogen and spironolactone 11 months prior under a doctor's supervision.
The official was initially taken aback, but then he seemed really supportive of me, and so was the rest of the staff here.
They gendered me correctly, they called me ma'am and she and her, they used the correct pronouns.
Gregory claims the organization drug tested her before the competition, but her sample leaked, so she'd have to be supervised while yearning for the post-competition test, I said.
Well, this is kind of embarrassing for me because I don't have the correct anatomy, she told Outsports.
Still, I did my business while somebody watched me sitting on the toilet, and so that's where the statement comes from because I'm sure she told them, hey, this girl's got a... Well, I think you know what I'm going to say, but I'm gonna avoid saying it for the sake of... We'll just move on, but male anatomy.
Gregory is technically a pre-op transsexual, and she told the publication she hasn't been able to afford to undergo bottom surgery because her job as a construction worker does not provide adequate health insurance benefits.
Perfect world under perfect situations?
Probably yes.
I would have the surgery, she said.
But she claims having male anatomy does not affect her weightlifting performance.
But it does reveal that this, in fact, was a trans woman.
So, we have a tweet here from Sharon Davies, MBE says, You cannot have- I don't even think I need to say it!
You can't have a biological male competing against a biological female, for the most part.
winning a woman's event in America in powerlifting. A woman with female biology cannot compete. It's
a pointless, unfair playing field. You cannot have... I don't even think I need to say it.
You can't have a biological male competing against a biological female for the most part.
One thing I often like to point out, Joe Rogan mentioned this a long time ago,
that when it comes to a biological female fighting a biological male with proper grappling techniques,
she can absolutely win.
So you can see some instances where a biological female can win against a male in certain rules.
But I did point out in MMA, a biological male, even after transitioning, is going to have bigger joints, bigger reach, stronger bones.
Bone density and muscle mass are retained somewhat.
Bone density is, muscle mass depletes a little bit.
But they're still going to have a massive advantage.
So this is actually, this story is interesting because we've heard that USA Powerlifting, this is another story, they voted 46 to 5 last Thursday to uphold a rule banning transgender women competitors.
The decision was made after transgender lifter JC Cooper and cisqueer Latinx lifter Brianna Diaz submitted a proposal to change the rule that had already been in effect to prevent transgender lifters from competing.
So, you know, I'm going to wrap it up here.
I'm not going to read too much into the remainder of the story.
They say Gregory said she'll continue to pursue powerlifting despite the bans she encounters and all the negative attention she's receiving, even if it means being a referee instead of a competitor.
The story ends by saying, quote, One reason why I decided to continue lifting is because I wanted to give the middle finger to that stigma that you can't be a strong, muscular female, she said.
I feel being strong and having muscles actually makes me feel sexy and makes me feel more comfortable in my own skin, but you are not a female.
And I believe it is even unfair to say transgender female.
I think it's fine to say trans woman or trans man, but female and male are descriptors pertaining to the bimodal system of biological gender.
The point is, yes, there are people who don't fit the gender binary, but they are exceedingly rare.
It's seriously like 99.7, it's actually like 99.8% of people that would fall into non-discernable
gender.
So for us to say female and male in reference, you know, simply because some people sometimes
don't fit, you know, the perfect, you know, our perfect understanding of gender, the reality
is male and female mean something.
You guys get it.
You don't need to hear it from me.
You can argue that gender means something else, but this is what they're doing.
They're conflating female with woman.
For the longest time, they said no.
You know, woman and man are references to social gender.
Male and female are references to the biology.
But now they're not doing that.
Now they're just saying, you know, female, which is part of the problem.
This trans woman said that she was a female, and so they didn't realize this This individual is in fact biologically male.
So there you go.
All wins rescinded.
World record rescinded.
What can I say?
I'll have more stories for you guys coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
on my YouTube channel, youtube.com slash timcastnews.
There's a big restructuring going on with how my channels are being put together.
It is very likely that what I'm going to be doing moving forward is taking all of the stories that I do and then putting them up on a podcast at 7 p.m.
So it's going to be about an hour and 20 minutes long.
But hey, wouldn't it be great to have an hour and 20 minute long podcast where I do everything I've done on this channel?
There's a lot of issues, a lot of issues.
People have told me that this channel is better in that it's more raw.
There's no edits.
It's just straightforward commentary, opinion, thoughts while going through the news.
So this is going to be part of the change.
We'll figure it out.
I'm figuring it out.
This will probably be up on iTunes.
And if you are somebody who listens on iTunes, you know, I guess what I'm trying to figure out is should I make a new podcast or just change my existing podcast into the new format?
I'll probably do that.
You know, we'll leave it there.
Anyway, thanks for hanging out.
I will see you guys tomorrow at 10 a.m.
or if you're listening, 7 p.m.
▲
Export Selection