Timcast EP3 - Trump Steps Up The Fight Against Censorship
The White house has a launched a tool for people to report political censorship on social media. While not directly impactful for now, it is the first step required to tackle the issue.Other Stories IncludePolice confiscating SPOONS In the UKA Man Sues After Being Falsely AccusedSAT's Launch "Privilege Scores" Based on raceKimberly Coulter Joins the show to discuss censorship
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Now, I want to point out I don't consider The Verge to be very credible.
I'm not saying they're, you know, I'll give them like a 5 out of 10, right?
The story's okay, but they're misleading.
We'll get to this.
They've done some things in the past that I think are egregious violations of ethical standards.
But, the story.
White House launches tool to report censorship on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter.
If you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.
Now, I use Verge on purpose because of their bias.
We're gonna get to this.
Let's read the story.
On Wednesday, the White House launched a new tool for people to use if they feel they've been wrongly censored, banned, or suspended on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
Quote, Too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear violations of user policies.
No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.
I want to say, this to me seems like the first step that could be taken in any official capacity to actually deal with the problem of social media censorship.
Trump, the White House, whatever, Republicans, you can't stop a problem if you don't have it actually like charted out.
So while I don't think this is any significant action, and I do think this is going to be a big play that's aimed at Trump finding people who will support him, whatever your opinion is on what they're doing, before anything can actually happen, I mean, for one thing, Trump can't enact policies or anything like that.
But the first thing that has to happen is you have to quantify the issue.
Figure out how widespread it is.
If it is widespread at all, do people actually care about it?
If no one cares about the tool and no one uses it, why would Trump be bothered by it?
If it ends up being 50 people, why would Trump or anyone else be bothered by it?
I think it's going to be a lot more than that.
Now, there's another issue here.
In that left-wing and far-left activists are supposedly, or I should say, presumably, spamming the tool with fake nonsense.
They're saying things on Twitter like, you guys know what to do.
And that's usually a call to brigade.
Brigading is when you get a bunch of people online to target something, and that's likely what's going to happen.
So whether or not this actually works out, I don't know.
But let's, uh, we'll read a little bit more.
And I want to get to the, you know, at the end of the story, they make a very, very misleading... I can't stand these digital news outlets.
The Verge is part of Vox, and they are deceptive.
Extremely deceptive.
So let's read on.
A Twitter spokesperson responded to the new rules, to the new tool, saying, we enforce the Twitter rules impartially for all users regardless, I'm not even going to read this trash.
Twitter's full of it.
We know they're full of it.
We know, Jack Dorsey said on the Joe Rogan podcast, perhaps we were a bit too aggressive in how we handled this particular issue in reference to learn to code.
Yes.
So, no, you don't enforce the rules impartially for all users.
Jack Dorsey admitted it on the Joe Rogan podcast.
He even said your own employees are scared to speak up.
I can't stand this.
Okay?
The Verge, and there's, where's journalism?
Okay?
Because all they do is they just take this quote and they parrot it, even though it's not true.
And then what they try and do is make it seem like conservatives are lying about being censored when they are.
I can't stand it.
This media's dead, you know what I mean?
And the big problem we face, not just with censorship...
But with media, because the media has no credibility, you are allowing the authority, you're allowing the government, you're allowing Trump and others to push whatever they want.
And there's nothing, you know, without an honest media, no one's going to care.
When I see a story and it says like, oh, you know, 12 year old had this happen to it.
And I'm like, yeah, right.
I just don't believe you anymore.
And it's not just me.
We know trusted media is collapsing.
Let's read on.
You see, over the past few months, Republicans have taken aim at social media networks citing claims that conservatives have been wrongly censored on these platforms.
Like when Jack Dorsey said, perhaps we've been too aggressive in how we handled Learn to Code.
Yes, when Jack Dorsey, the CEO of the company on the Joe Rogan podcast, said we were too aggressive.
That's conservative claims.
It's like they don't do any research.
You know what?
The reason why this is so frustrating to me, and the reason why I want to...
There's gonna be a lot more fun coming to my main channel.
That's the- because of this!
Okay?
I shouldn't even call my main channel anymore, my personal channel.
This is becoming my news channel, news and commentary.
I can sit down in front of Jack Dorsey and say, here's a problem, here's a problem, and Jack can say, oh wow, you're right.
And then what happens?
Nothing.
And the really funny thing is, there's a few lefty journalists I talk to fairly often, and we were having a conversation the other day where they basically told me, of course they'll never make changes because you've got people who want better moderation tools.
I'm totally fine with personal moderation tools.
By all means, mute, block, and however else we can solve these problems.
And you've got people saying that we need to stop, you know, a rule set that's targeting only one political faction.
Regardless of where we stand and how it should be, you know, in these conversations, we both agreed, Jack Dorsey can't do anything.
He's just a figurehead that looks like Twitter.
And they send him out to put out PR fires.
Let's jump down, because I do want to go through the tool itself.
But I want to talk about this.
They end the story by saying, Earlier on Wednesday, the White House announced that it would not be endorsing a call for international leaders to combat online bad people.
I'll put it that way.
As a response to the tragic attack in New Zealand.
In a statement, the White House said, Here's what I love.
Okay, do you know why the White House didn't join this international call for censorship?
Because they legally cannot.
The United States has the First Amendment.
The government cannot enter into an agreement.
Or, what does the First Amendment say?
Government shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.
You can't do it!
How do they frame it?
It's like, we're not currently in a position to join the endorsement.
Well, tell people what they really said.
Do you want to know what they really said?
And this is funny, because Vox.com, which is the parent company for The Verge, actually does explain it.
They specifically reference in the story that, uh, well, okay.
Here's the thing.
It says, so what does the White House object to?
It's not entirely clear.
Yeah.
The Supreme court unanimously ruled only recently.
This was on, uh, human events.com.
Will Chamberlain wrote an article about platform access should be a civil right, and in it he references a Supreme Court ruling where the Supreme Court unanimously decided the government cannot restrict access to social media, period.
So what does the White House object to?
They object to anything that would infringe on our First Amendment right.
They then go on to say, A spokesperson told the Post, So why would you say it's not clear?
It's clear as day!
the document runs afoul of free speech principles in the first amendment. So why would you say it's
not clear? It's clear as day. The government cannot do this.
They go on to say, quote, we continue to be proactive in our efforts to counter
terror content online while also continuing to respect, respect, respect freedom of
expression and freedom of the press, the White House told the Post.
Further, we maintain that the best tool to defeat bad speech is productive speech, and thus we emphasize the importance of promoting credible, alternative narratives as the primary means by which we can defeat this messaging.
Here's the thing.
They're right.
They are right.
The data proves they're right.
We have data.
Censorship doesn't work.
Censorship radicalizes people in several ways.
For one, it pushes them into pockets.
It separates them from the main society so they're no longer interacting with people who can push back on them.
They form spheres of influence among themselves.
They also feel defeated and become frustrated and angry, and with no alternative for having their message heard, become violent.
They say.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
That doesn't mean good or bad revolution.
It could be seriously bad things.
It could be very, very bad people with dangerous, psychotic ideas who become violent.
Censorship does not work.
So here's what we're gonna do.
That's why I wanted to read The Verge, for those that are wondering.
I'm going to pop over to this tool.
Now, for those of you that are listening on the podcast, I'll just try and read and explain to you what we're seeing on the screen.
It's just kind of a white page, and it's at whitehouse.typeform.com.
It says, social media platforms should advance freedom of speech, yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear violations of user policies.
No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.
I'll click start.
There's a little start button.
And then it says, to get started, please tell us a bit about yourself.
I actually, I don't really want to fill this out because I don't want to put any, um, bad information in this.
I'm not going to, I'm ultimately not going to click submit on this.
I just want to see, you know what?
I don't think I actually need to, I could actually read the questions without typing this stuff in.
They say, let's talk about what happened on social media.
What social media platforms took action against your account?
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or other.
Paste a link to your profile on the social platform.
If you no longer have a link, tell us your username.
What happened to your accounts?
Was a specific post or tweet involved?
I like how they say tweet.
If you can, please include a link.
Sometimes platforms will notify you and take action.
If you've got a notification, please include a screenshot.
More screenshots.
We want to keep you posted on President Trump's fight for free speech.
Can we add you to our email newsletters?
One more thing.
Just to confirm you aren't a robot, what year was the Declaration of Independence signed?
Please confirm that you accept the user agreement and then you can submit.
So I'm not going to submit.
I don't want to put bad information in the form.
But I'll say a couple things on this.
I do believe this is the first bit of action that can be taken for those that feel they've been unjustly censored.
I've recently spoken with many people who have told me their stories about arbitrary censorship.
I was at an event not that long ago, a couple days ago, where a guy said he has no idea why he got banned.
He was a pro-Trump account, he had only like a hundred or so followers, he wasn't posting anything against the rules, and then one day they said, your account has been suspended.
And he was just like, whatever.
You know, kind of like what it was explained to me is, These smaller accounts that get banned, it happens all the time and no one knows about it.
Because who do they tell?
And then they send messages.
I get email after email from people saying I've been suspended for nonsense.
So here's the thing.
These people with tiny accounts ultimately just shrug and say whatever.
I didn't, you know, have a lot tied to the account anyway, so I'm just not going to use it anymore.
And that's kind of the real nefarious issue happening here with social media censorship, is that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc., they can target small users, you know, average people, and no one will hear about it.
Oh, you'll hear about Jesse Kelly getting banned because he's prominent.
He's a voice.
But when they ban the little guy, when they ban the average middle American, who's there to step up?
And that's the big problem.
We're seeing high-profile bannings.
We talk about it.
It tends to be on one side of the political debate.
But what about the small accounts?
And in my opinion, the ones that really, really matter.
Because the grains of sand that make the heap.
If you don't pay attention, you are going to wipe out the entire base.
And that's... You know, I don't want to be conspiratorial, but look, the elections are coming up.
And man, oh man, has censorship ramped up, so...
I guess we'll leave it there.
I'll say a few more things.
I'm going to be much more active on Instagram, so make sure you follow me.
Instagram.com slash TimCast.
I'm actually gonna be posting videos there, just because, uh, I really don't like Twitter.
Really don't like Twitter.
Instagram's not- not perfect, but, uh, I'm gonna be posting stuff there.
But more importantly, um, minds.com slash timcast, because, uh, that's the easiest place to actually message me if you wanna communicate.
So, uh, we'll- we'll- we'll stop here.
Stick around, I've got more, uh, more Segments coming up in a few minutes for those that are I'm sorry the next okay.
I'm doing a podcast thing now So for those that are watching on YouTube, it's like I'm trying to balance both 1 p 10 at 10 a.m.
1 p.m.
And 6 p.m 6 30 7 p.m.
Are the schedules throughout the day But all of this goes live as a podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play, etc.
at 7 p.m.
So this will be a one hour long segment.
And I'm also thinking about what I'm going to be doing for my main channel.
Probably interviews, right?
So I do have an interview set up today talking about issues of censorship and things like that.
And that will probably be the trail end of the podcast.
So we're figuring it out.
We'll get there.
But thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More news to come.
And I will see you shortly.
Our next story comes from The Pluralist, and it's actually kind of funny because it starts with a tweet of mine.
And this tweet was actually brought to my attention by my brother.
London police mocked for confiscating a spoon in dangerous weapons bust.
The UK has gone completely insane.
I don't even know how to describe it.
They literally confiscated a spoon, but not only that, chose to post a photo of the spoon.
Now granted, it's a photo of a bunch of knives, but they actually chose to put a butter knife and a spoon in the photo and claim it was a dangerous weapons cache.
We also have a couple other stories that I want to highlight later on in the segment where Carl Benjamin was grossly misrepresented by, I believe it was Channel 4, I'm not familiar with UK channels, but it was the most insufferable interview to watch because the interviewer wasn't even talking to Carl, for those that aren't familiar.
Carl Benjamin, also known as Sargon Avocado on YouTube, is running for MEP, and he's being dragged over a joke he made three years ago, and then a blooper real joke he made, and they're pulling it all out of context.
But then beyond the strange spoon-and-knife story, which we'll start with, we actually have this guy The police in the UK were running a trial on facial recognition, so a guy covered his face.
They actually fined him 90 pounds!
The UK, what the?
What is going on?
Man, I, I, look.
The Fourth Amendment, I believe it's the fourth, protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.
Which means we can cover our face if you're running facial recognition.
These are what, these are some of the reasons why the United States decided to declare independence from Great Britain.
But let's, let's start with the story.
London police mocked for confiscating a spoon.
I kid you not.
No one wants a repeat of the Regents Park Desert Spoon Massacre.
London police officers triumphantly announced Tuesday that they had seized a weapons cache, only to be ruthlessly mocked by Americans.
The Regents... Yes.
Yes, because Americans have guns.
The Regents Park Police, who are responsible for a ward of London's Camden Borough, tweeted a photo of the contraband, which included an assortment of old kitchen knives, a broken fencing sword, and a rusty spoon.
They said they had swooped in a day earlier at the request of a local charity to ensure the implements didn't, quote, get into the wrong hands.
What could the wrong hands do with the spoon?
Okay, I get it.
You could melt the spoon down and turn it into a blade of some sort.
You could sharpen it on a stone or a curb outside.
Yes, the dangerous spoon must be kept.
I know, for those listening, you can't see it, but for those watching, there it is.
There's the spoon.
There's also a butter knife right here.
There is a butter knife.
Let's open up this phone and make it a little bigger.
There is a butter knife.
It's serrated, okay.
But they also have what looks like a sheath.
And so this right here, this is, I believe this might be a foil.
Could be wrong.
But most people, that's a fencing sword, if you're not familiar.
It's kind of just like a thin piece of metal.
But these typically have what's called, my understanding is a button tip, meaning it's round.
So you poke people with it.
Sure, I guess you could whack them and it would hurt.
And look, they also have knife sharpeners.
The police claimed they didn't want these falling into the wrong hands.
Hold on, man.
These are all kitchen knives.
I kid you not.
Almost all of them.
I don't know, this looks like a broken piece of a sword of some sort.
Letter opener, maybe?
But they're mostly just kitchen knives.
That's the state of the UK.
I mean, quite literally, we're looking at a photo of kitchen knives.
But let's see what the...
Some of the comments were.
This is kind of funny.
Actually, they say, Independent journalist Tim Poole retweeted the post, noting, There's an effing spoon and butter knife in this photo.
The UK has gone mad.
Yes, absolutely.
But here's a funny little side note.
The article calls me Tim Poole, and they put an E in my name, but then actually posted my tweet.
There's no E in my name.
How do you make that mistake?
Police didn't want this cache of weapons to fall into the wrong hands.
What are the wrong hands when it comes to a spoon?
Or a butter knife?
Or a foil?
A fencing sword?
They chose to include the spoon.
Now here's the thing.
They chose to include the spoon.
The police laid out these knives on the ground and took a picture of it.
In this photo, a butter knife and a spoon, what were they thinking?
They actually were proud of capturing the spoon.
There's a spoon in this photo!
What is going on in the UK?
Seriously.
Someone posted this tweet.
It's actually really funny.
I'd like to report a dangerous cache of weapons that I found at my friend's house.
Please send help!
And it's just a photo of an open kitchen drawer with utensils in it.
Yes, the state of the UK, the absolute state of the UK, my stars and garters.
They're going to say dozens of commenters took shots at the United Kingdom's reputation as heavily regulated, not to say unfree and hyper-politically correct island.
However, British Twitter users saw the horror of the region's police tweet too.
Scottish journalist Liam Cacardley Cacaldly.
Cacaldy?
Sorry.
Helpfully shared a zoomed-in image of the spoon.
And there's, look, there's a serrated butter knife.
Like, what do you do?
Hold someone down and take the butter knife to their arm and, you know, three hours later you might penetrate some skin?
Okay, a butter knife can hurt more than that, but still, it's a butter knife.
London really does have a knife problem.
It's just that officials have responded in ways conservatives in America would never tolerate and liberals can only dream of.
Like, I'm just so over the left and right and liberal and conservative.
I'm liberal.
I think it's, it's, it's absolutely absurd and obnoxious to confiscate kitchenware because sometimes people commit crimes.
What are you gonna do about it?
Yes, they don't have guns.
They have a crime problem.
So they have a knife problem.
You take away the guns and you end up with people with knives.
All right?
But let's move on a little bit from here because I do want to address another much more serious issue.
Now, you might be saying it's silly and it's funny and we can poke fun at how they confiscate kitchenware, including spoons.
But while we laugh at this and while we mock it, God bless the First Amendment and the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.
They're not going to take your knives away when we have the Second Amendment.
And I think it's just absurd.
But we also have a fourth amendment.
So in this video posted by Jamie Bartlett on Twitter, it's from BBC Click, he says, I can't believe what I'm seeing.
While running a facial recognition pilot, one man, understandably, covered himself up.
The police forced him to show his face and then fined him for disorderly conduct.
This is dangerous and terrifying.
This kind of thing has been happening in the UK for a very, very long time.
The expansion of the surveillance state.
There's cameras everywhere.
And it hasn't... I mean, look, I don't know what's going on in terms of crime rate, but we recently, it was like last year, for the first time, London's murder rate, I believe, I could be wrong, but it surpassed New York City.
Now, New York City's violent crime has been going down.
These are good things.
But why, after all of the rules and regulations, is the UK not able to get a handle on this?
I'll tell you why.
It's because sometimes people commit crimes.
There was a point made, I think by Bill Maher, and he said something about a religious person saying, you know, if I prayed for rain and it rained, how is it not a miracle?
And Bill Maher said, because sometimes it rains.
Right?
It's a coincidence.
The issue here with, you know, the way I would frame this in terms of what's going on with the UK is, Sometimes people commit crimes.
Most people don't.
Most people don't.
But these laws only impact those who don't.
This is the problem with prohibition.
It's twofold.
You have regular innocent people who have a steak knife for cutting their steak, who have a butter knife for buttering their bread, and you want to take away the kitchenware from the people who aren't breaking any rules, and literally a spoon!
Why would you confiscate someone's spoon?
That's insane!
And then what happens with criminals?
They don't care.
They'll take a screwdriver.
What happens when you ban everything?
They'll tie a string to a padlock.
They'll tie a rock to a string and swing it around.
What are you going to do?
Ban rocks?
You can't stop this.
Now, you know, they're taking extreme action against knives and whatever.
But this is the step up.
So in this video, it's got 1.34 million views.
We can see this guy.
Let me just jump to the end because I don't want to play it, but...
They try and justify it, but we can see here, for those that are watching and not listening, here's the man, and he's showing the citation, a £90 fine, because he covered his face when they were running facial recognition.
God bless the Fourth Amendment.
We really are lucky here in the US, because the UK has gone nuts.
But let's look at, you know, interestingly, this is a story in which the First Amendment would actually protect the dirty, dirty smear merchants.
And this story, just a final thought, because it goes beyond just what the government does to their people.
We have the story of Carl Benjamin.
It says, Carl Benjamin claims survivors of assault have thanked him for joking about the Jess Phillips joke.
Now, here's the thing.
I don't want to get too much into this, but I did want to talk about the private side.
Actually, what is that?
Victoria Derbyshire.
I want to talk about the other side, not just government, but private instances of oppression
or authoritarianism.
In this interview, which again, I don't want to play, but Carl Benjamin made a joke three
years ago and the media will not stop about it.
He then made another joke where he was joking at the media, pressuring him to change his
stance on not committing a crime.
Well in this segment, the woman, whatever her name is, she doesn't even talk to Benjamin.
She just keeps trying to frame the narrative and decontextualize his joke.
So the reason I bring this up is because it has been absolutely insane on the media side what they've been doing to Carl Benjamin.
And don't get me wrong, there's a lot of things to criticize Carl for.
And it absolutely is fair to criticize him for the jokes he makes.
But he should be allowed to do it.
The police are investigating him now over these jokes.
What's absurd is, I mean, most of you are probably familiar with Jordan Peterson, that famous Kathy Newman segment that went viral and contributed to launching Jordan Peterson into the forefront, you know, into the public sphere.
Granted, he was already getting a ton of traction before this.
That's why they had him on.
But this is a very similar interview where the interviewer doesn't understand anything.
It's mind-numbing to see how intellectually inept the interviewer is.
Every point that Carl tries to make about perspective It's just completely ignored and all this woman does is just keep reading and it's like she's not even there.
I'm surprised Carl even stayed for the interview because the woman wasn't even talking to him.
He would say something, she would interrupt him.
And so, you know, I don't want to get too much into this because, oh my god, I feel like this interview is on par with the Kathy Newman thing.
Just no matter what he says, she interrupts him, doesn't let him speak, and then reads things out of context, decontextualizes.
So this is what you have to look forward to in the UK.
You could be arrested for a joke, like Count Dankula.
Mark Meechan, he's the guy who made his girlfriend's pug do the salute.
The media will then lie about you, decontextualize what you did to smear you and destroy you in every way possible.
The UK has gone mad in more ways than one.
You know, I'm not surprised the police confiscated a spoon.
These people have no sense of proportionality, and they are completely intellectually inept.
That's unfortunate.
But you know what?
The only thing I can really say after all of these stories is God bless the Constitution of the United States of America.
So I'll leave it there.
If you want to support my work, you can go to TimCast.com slash donate.
I'm trying to figure out how to structure this in a longer podcast, but I will have another segment coming up shortly.
For those of you watching on YouTube, this will be at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out and stay tuned.
A man was falsely accused.
He had some evidence, some video footage, proving that he was likely telling the truth.
He was expelled anyway.
And this is, you know, I always want to make sure I stress what I refer to as the scaling problem when we talk about stories like this.
We want to do our best to make sure that the innocent don't, you know, aren't persecuted, prosecuted, or harmed, or punished.
And I want to make sure that we stress just because we see a lot of these stories doesn't mean it happens, you know, on a higher percentage than other types of actual accusations.
As we have more people, more schools, and more media, we're going to hear more about this.
So, again, the point I'm making is when you hear a story like this, a lot of people are going to be quick to assume it happens too much or all the time.
And that may be true.
I'm not saying it's not.
I'm just saying we should focus on the individual and make sure this individual is properly taken care of and we don't punish the innocent.
And when it comes to actual legitimate accusations, like, you know, true ones that we can prove, then we need to make sure that the guilty Are rehabilitated punished in some capacity?
I don't like using the word punished because I like to think that we can rehabilitate people and if you can't then what's your alternative?
But let's read.
The story is from Yahoo Lifestyle.
Expelled Columbia journalism student accused of assault sues university over anti-male bias.
A former Columbia journalism student who was accused of Forcing himself on a woman is suing the university for expelling him and succumbing to anti-male gender bias according to a new lawsuit.
Ben Feibelman filed the suit against the university on Monday in Manhattan federal court.
He claimed school authorities grievously mishandled an October 2016 incident in which a female acquaintance accused him of assault while he was attending the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
According to Feibelman, the unidentified victim, a fellow Columbia student, was actually the aggressor begging him for intercourse and then forcing herself on him, the New York Post reported.
He said he met the woman at an event and she struck up an hours-long flirtation with him.
He alleges they went up to a water tower atop an apartment building where they kissed and the woman began to pull Feibelman's face into her chest.
They made their way to the female student's room for more kissing, he claimed, but that's where Feibelman's consent ended.
The woman began begging him, saying, please, because I can't let you go without it, according to the suit.
Feynman claims she then forcibly tried to perform oral on him, despite the fact that he'd clearly refused.
He even cited the woman's boyfriend as one reason he didn't want to fool around.
Angered by his rejection, the female student allegedly berated Feibelman for half an hour, and she even bit him, the New York Post reported.
At some point, Feibelman apparently suspected he'd be accused of misconduct, according to the New York Post, so he used his phone to begin taping their encounter in her room.
When the woman leveled accusations against him, Feibelman was able to turn over the 30-minute recording to university investigators, but the evidence was not enough to appease them.
Who also felt that Lynn was too drunk to even consent.
Columbia is holding Fibelman responsible for the assault, expelling him, and withholding his degree even though he technically graduated.
More than two years later, Feibelman maintains the accusations are false.
Can I just point out something?
Why would anyone want to go to college?
My stars and garters.
And you know, we are seeing young men go to college less and less.
And maybe that's not really a bad thing.
While we do want to point out that young men are facing trouble, they're not working, they're staying at home, they're unemployed.
Just because you're not going to school doesn't mean you're worse off.
In fact, many young men who don't go to school and pick up a trade probably make way more money and have way less debt than college graduates.
But let's also talk about Title IX, and the idea that if you are a young man, you could actually be the victim, like in this case, presumably, have a 30-minute video recording, and still get expelled, and still have your diploma withheld, even though you technically graduated.
So what did you pay for?
You are in massive debt.
You have no degree to show for it.
You were falsely accused, and here you are.
And all you can do is sue, and you'll probably still lose that.
Why would anyone want to go to school?
And there are a lot of other complications in stories like this, right?
Let's read on.
Ben simply did not want to have intercourse with her, the suit says.
The suit goes on to suggest an explanation for Columbia University's reaction to the situation, too.
It says the Ivy League school succumbed to pressure from anti-male female protectionists, gender biases permeating Columbia's disciplinary process.
As an example, the suit references the case of Emma Sulkowicz, another Columbia student who accused a classmate, Paul Nungesser.
In 2013, Nungesser went on to sue the school twice and lost both times.
Silkowitz became known as Mattress Girl for carrying a mattress around Columbia's campus and her graduation ceremony in protest of the school's decision not to discipline Nungesser, but my understanding is...
Excuse me, I'm about to sneeze.
My understanding is that Nungesser actually had text messages from Sulkowicz where she was saying she wanted to come over and she was encouraging this behavior.
It is widely believed, based on those texts, that she likely was upset because Paul didn't like her back.
Now, I'm not going to claim to know for sure.
What I do know is things are nuanced, and I don't believe Paul was ever actually criminally implicated in anything.
It was just, you know, this is why I say, why would you want to go to college?
Why would you want to put yourself in a situation where you aren't allowed to cross-examine the accuser?
You're not allowed to face your accuser.
You're not allowed a right to due process.
Why would anyone want to be in that situation?
You shouldn't!
Fibelman's attorney, Kimberly Lau, provided a statement to Yahoo Lifestyle on the case.
Columbia University grievously mishandled the case.
Columbia discriminated against Mr. Feibelman on the basis of his gender in violation of Title IX.
The events of the evening in question and Columbia's numerous missteps are clearly detailed in our lawsuit.
Mr. Feibelman did not violate Columbia's gender-based misconduct policies.
In fact, Columbia acknowledged that she begged him.
He refused and that nothing occurred.
Yet, Columbia continues to withhold his degree despite the fact that he has met all the requirements for its conferral.
They say Yahoo Lifestyle has reached out to the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism for comment on the case.
So here's my advice.
If you actually have, if this is true according to the lawyer, that nothing had occurred, she begged him and he refused, but he is still expelled, why would any guy want to put themself in this situation?
And think about this.
Sure, he met her.
But let's say the accusation was without evidence at all.
They still might say, well, for ponderance of evidence, we're gonna get rid of the guy anyway.
End of story.
Because what happens if the woman decides to carry around a mattress and make a high-profile stink?
They don't want the PR blunder.
But there is some more news that we can talk about, which is interesting.
This is from AL.com.
Alabama would criminalize false accusations.
This is just from a few days ago, interestingly.
About a week ago.
A bill making it a crime to falsely accuse someone of assault was first read in the Alabama House of Representatives last week.
The bill, introduced by Rep.
Dickey Drake, a Republican, would make false accusations a Class C felony and punishable by up to 10 years in prison if the accused is found not guilty.
The accuser would be responsible for paying the accused person's legal expenses.
Now, we've got to stop here.
Let's be real.
Simply being found not guilty should not be sufficient to charge someone with a Class C felony.
First of all, here's one of the biggest problems with false accusations.
Even if you prove an individual was not guilty, that doesn't mean you can prove they lied.
Because you also have to consider some people are nuts.
Some people are dumb.
We need to make- so this seriously does present us with a real challenge.
Will women not want to report true instances out of a fear that if the person isn't- if they can't convict this person that will be used as evidence against them?
The issue is...
If we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone made a false accusation, by all means, punishment.
If we can't, you know, then you can't.
It doesn't matter what the crime is, we have a legal basis and we need to protect the innocent, period.
There is a real argument to say that certain women would be scared to come forward if they're going to be legally held responsible if you can't prove it.
Such is the nature of accusing someone of a crime.
But let's think about beyond false accusations in this regard, and what about any false accusation of any crime?
Are we going to create a special circumstance for these types of crimes, and not for, say, theft or robbery?
You know, someone can sue you if you falsely accuse them of doing, you know, make a statement of fact, a false statement of fact.
If I say, you, you know, kidnapped my dog, well then, if I can't prove it, then yeah, you can sue me for defamation, slander, whatever.
Are we going to have the same law for false accusations against an individual for every other capacity?
So, they're going to say it's already illegal to file a false report, but one of the issues is if you falsely accuse someone and they get convicted, you've destroyed their life in so many ways.
The public stigma, the fact that they're going to go away for a long time, and filing a false report, the penalties for that are way less harsh.
So you actually have a decent wager for someone who wants to commit this crime?
Oh, okay.
I can maybe put this guy in prison for 25 years and I'm only risking, you know, three myself?
No.
So, I don't know how you solve this problem, but I will say there is a reason why we should take it seriously.
Excuse me.
Because of this story from a few days ago, which I just want to stress lightly.
Man accused of assault, falsely, by a teenage girl was killed.
by her brother. And so this is why we should take these things as seriously as any crime.
You have a lot of feminists saying we shouldn't penalize false accusations because it's going to
make women scared. Well, listen, a crime is a crime, okay?
Falsely accusing someone is akin to swatting them, pointing the police in their direction to use the power of the state to victimize an innocent individual.
So when we see stories like this, bad things can happen when you falsely accuse people of anything.
And it's tough, it really is.
But back to the main point before we wrap up.
It would seem, based on the reporting from Yahoo and even the New York Post, this guy really is innocent.
And the school even acknowledges this.
At least according to his lawyer, it would seem there's no evidence to suggest he did anything wrong.
Why then is he being punished?
Well, I do think there is a bias.
Absolutely.
Because the mainstream narrative is feminist.
Absolutely.
And no one's going to stand up for guys like this who did nothing wrong and have had their lives destroyed over false accusations.
So I'll leave it there.
I've got a couple more videos coming for you in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you shortly.
If you're listening on the podcast, it will begin now.
I hope you are ready for me to be angry.
This next segment comes from the Wall Street Journal.
SAT to give students adversity score to capture social and economic background.
New score comes as college admissions are under scrutiny.
For those that can't see the image, what we have here is they love to start with this
Asian right up on top, then white, then Hispanic, then black.
What you're seeing is the SAT distributions by race.
Because they seem to think all of these races are the exact same thing.
Let's break it down for them.
Asian.
That can mean you're from Iran.
India?
The Philippines?
China?
Or technically even Russia?
What does that mean?
It means to me nothing.
It means you are racist and want to lump in wealthy Indian and wealthy Chinese with impoverished Filipinos.
Now some people have said, but Tim, Filipinos can classify themselves as Pacific Islander.
Sure.
Right.
Lie.
Right?
The point is, this is racist.
Overtly racist.
And this is what you get when you see this social justice, regressive, identitarian narrative being institutionalized.
Let me stress, when they show on this chart, the Asian average is 1223 on the SAT, and it is the highest.
They're talking about wealthy Indian immigrants and wealthy Chinese, or the children of.
Yes, I get it.
The wealthy immigrants from these two particular countries that make up the overwhelming majority of what you call Asian dominate.
But then what happens when you have someone from Vietnam, whose family struggled to get here, who are poor, who don't make up the actual ethnic background of those who dominate this category?
They have to lie and say, you know what?
We're not Asian.
What do you call yourself?
Anything but.
Because they will hold you back even if you are poor.
Now, I certainly think the race qualification should be removed entirely because it is overtly racist.
Let's talk about Hispanic.
What if you're Hispanic from Spain?
Hispanic typically just means someone who speaks Spanish.
Is someone who grew up in Madrid, you know, going to score less?
Oh, are you talking about specifically Mexicans?
Are you talking about Brazilians?
Well, Brazilians speak Portuguese.
But what do you mean by Hispanic?
Hispanic isn't even... It's not even a race.
You can be a white person and be considered Hispanic.
What does that mean?
It typically means you speak Spanish.
So how do you break this down?
And then we have black.
Now, that's actually a bit more nuanced, especially as it pertains to the United States.
But as we are moving on into the future with more immigration... I knew somebody... I've told this story before, but I'm going to say it.
It bears repeating.
When I worked for, uh, at O'Hare Airport, there was a conversation about political correctness, and someone brought up the idea of the phrase African-American, and how they thought it was silly because you have people who aren't from, you know, who aren't African-American, they're quite literally from the United Kingdom or something, when all of a sudden, one of the black guys we worked with had an accent, got really angry, and said, he's not African-American, he's Haitian.
And I'm like, you can't, there's nothing you can do.
It makes quite literally no sense.
But it is more nuanced in the U.S.
The biggest issue I take is how they claim that the Asian average is the highest, so they're going to punish one of the smallest minorities in the country.
But here's the important thing.
What does Asian really mean?
Well, let's talk about it.
It's like 6-7%, I believe.
It might be less, of the U.S.
population.
And it includes Indians, Iranians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Chinese, Japanese.
It makes no sense.
And I find it offensive.
But of course, the woke, regressive left wants to institutionalize racism, and they'll get away with it by claiming they don't institutionalize racism.
Oh, if you think it's as bad as it's going to get, you are wrong.
You are sorely mistaken.
It is only going to get worse.
student who takes the SAT to try to capture their social and economic
background jumping into the debate raging over race and class in college
admissions. Oh if you think it's not it's as bad as it's gonna get you are wrong.
You are sorely mistaken. It is only going to get worse.
There was a video made on YouTube years ago that joked about this. It was a handful
of students taking a test or doing an essay.
And one student had just, like, ripped up paper with crayon scribbles on it.
And they went through his adversity score, his privilege count, and found that he was so underprivileged, he wins!
Top of the class!
That's how they score it.
Well, here you go.
We're actually here.
You know, parody becomes reality.
So what?
Someone can lie about their neighborhood?
It's absolutely absurd.
Yes, I'm from the south side of Chicago, therefore I deserve to go to this class.
behind students' test scores by measuring adversity in their neighborhoods, families, and schools.
So what? Someone can lie about their neighborhood? It's absolutely absurd.
Yes, I'm from the South Side of Chicago, therefore I deserve to go to this class.
Great. Everyone's gonna lie. No one's gonna claim to be Asian anymore.
Russia's mostly in Asia.
So here's, this is really interesting.
Down here on this graph we have the score gap.
Average SAT scores broken down by income, race, and parents' education levels show disparities.
Of course they do.
Of course they do.
We can clearly see, however, when we look at no, so let's look at here, parents' highest education level.
Graduate degree.
Parents with a graduate degree, their kids on average score a 1068.
and end up. That's the highest. Bachelor's degree, associate's degree, high school diploma,
no diploma. It's actually really interesting because we can see if your parents are less
educated, you are less likely to score well on the SATs.
But that also does, I think it's silly to classify people in this way, especially when you realize
that you think beyond the average.
You still have people who come from a family of, you know, come from parents who have no diploma, who still score near 1600 and still score better than, look, there are people with no diploma who can score 1400 or higher.
They're less likely to be there.
There's less of them.
But they score higher than the average with a graduate degree.
Should we then weigh down the children of parents with graduate degrees?
Because someone else's parents didn't?
That makes no sense!
It makes— It doesn't make sense!
The way you solve these problems isn't this way.
I can put it that way.
We can then see something really interesting.
But let's talk about this.
One thing omitted from these averages is not just— So they talk about the average score.
What they don't talk about is how many.
How many people have parents with graduate degrees?
Let's look over here.
For those that are listening, we're looking at a graph that shows households that make more than $200,000 a year have the highest average, and then it slowly goes down.
200 the next highest 100 to 140 80 to 100 less than 20,000 has the lowest average SIT score
$80,000 to $100,000.
How many?
What they're not telling you is that families that make more than $200,000 a year are like, what, 10% or less?
And that families that make, you know, 60 to 80 are the overwhelming majority.
So what they're not showing you is, sure, we can take 10 people and then create a scale that doesn't tell you how many people are there and then weigh them down.
This is quite literally social justice privilege politics being institutionalized to deal with schooling.
James Conroy, Director of College Counseling at New Trier High School, which serves several affluent and mostly white communities north of Chicago, said the focus on diversity by elite colleges is already high and the adversity score would magnify that.
My emails are inundated with admissions officers who want to talk to our diversity kids, Mr. Conroy said.
Do I feel minority students have been discriminated against?
Yes, I do.
But I see the reversal of it happening right now.
No.
It is not the reversal.
Reversing discrimination is good.
Discrimination is bad.
This is just straight discrimination.
It's not reverse discrimination.
It's not reverse anything.
It's quite literally them just discriminating in another way.
The College Board tried a similar effort two decades ago, but quickly dropped it amid pushback from colleges in 1999.
After California and Washington voted to ban affirmative action preferences in public education, the College Board created a program it called STRIVERS.
The program aimed to measure the challenges students faced.
It created an expected SAT score based on socioeconomic factors, including, if schools chose to add it, race.
Students who scored at least 200 points more on the SAT then predicted were called STRIVERS.
Because minorities often had lower predicted scores, they were more likely to be strivers.
I want you to look into the eyes of that Chinese, of that Laotian, of that Filipino student and say, you cannot go to this school because you look like that person.
That's what you're saying.
What should be the ultimate determinant in whether or not someone is worthy of attending the school is whether or not they pass.
What happens when you take someone who isn't smart enough and put them in a higher learning institution?
They struggle and they will do worse.
We want to optimize for people's talents and abilities.
Not everyone is going to be super smart.
Not everyone is going to be super dumb.
And yes, historical racism, poverty, these play a role in this.
But that doesn't change the fact that simply because your parents couldn't train you to be smarter, because they didn't have a degree or didn't make enough money, that doesn't mean you will do well at an Ivy League school.
We need to find other ways to alleviate the problem.
It is not just putting kids into higher education where the challenges they face are higher.
It's getting tutors.
It's providing resources to these communities, not setting the standard based on your race for education.
I'm gonna wrap this one up.
The end of the story says, at Florida State University, the adversity score helped the school boost non-white enrollment 42% to 37% in the incoming freshman class, said John Barnhill, assistant vice president for academic affairs at Florida State University.
He said he expects pushback from parents whose children go to well-to-do high schools as well as guidance counselors there.
That's their standard.
They don't care about whether or not minority students are actually succeeding.
They care about if a certain percentage of the students look a certain way.
Look a certain way.
Let's be honest.
If you believe, like these people do, that race determines your ability, Then you are a racist.
And I will say right now, I do not believe that to be the case.
Why is it that the Asian average is so high?
Because they come from wealthy immigrant families.
So I appreciate the economic standard they place.
But I'm also, I take issue with the fact that they don't clarify that the $200,000 income bracket is probably few and far between.
The issue for me for the most part is the implication that we can lump every different person who lives in the continent of Asia into one category and then hold it against people because they look a certain way.
That is the opposite of what I understood to be Dr. King's vision.
That one day his children would be judged based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
How does this How does this align with his vision?
How does Vox and BuzzFeed and the woke left, how does their narrative on race and identitarian politics align with the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?
I don't see it.
And I grew up being told that we should not judge people based on what they look like.
You never judge a book by its cover.
No, it's not absolute.
You know, if you see someone, you know, who's wearing something that says they're gonna do a thing, like, I am going to, you know, do a bunch of drugs, then, sure, you can make an assumption that maybe they like doing that.
So, sometimes you can learn a little bit about a book's cover.
But we should try to understand there's nuance in personality.
And I'll end by saying this.
It's gonna get worse.
They will continue to judge people based on the color of their skin.
This is reactionary.
This is what reactionaries are.
They want to return the world to the neo-segregationist.
They want to return it to the status quo.
When we used to tell people based on your race.
Based on your race.
Whatever.
I'm done.
I got another video coming up for you.
A special interview.
Stick around and it will be up shortly.
So, joining me today is Ann Coulter's niece, Kimberly Coulter.
I do think it's silly to introduce someone that way, but it actually plays into what we're going to be talking about.
So, I know several people who know you, Kimberly, and the other day someone said, They were freaking out like, oh my god, Kimberly got fired for supporting Alex Jones and free speech.
And it's a little bit more nuanced than that.
So I definitely want to start this off by saying, I don't want to definitively say, and I don't think you do either, that you were fired for supporting free speech.
But it seems like it's leaning in that direction.
And the reason why I think this conversation is a good one to have is because whether or not we can definitively prove you got fired from your job for speaking up in defense of free speech, It's something that does happen often.
We see a lot of people, you know, there was one woman who tweeted recently in response to Alyssa Milano, like, she divorced her husband for being a Trump supporter.
And so, right, right, we see this absolute division.
So when someone says to me, you know, I had a conversation with some employees, you know, some coworkers, we talked about free speech, and then all of a sudden I get a text message that I'm fired, I'm like, hmm, so let's go over what happened.
Yeah, well, okay, so I had recently been hired by this company and I'm not gonna, you know, I don't want to make a big thing about the company because I'm not gonna pursue charges or anything like that.
I don't think it's a degree, I just think it's important to have this dialogue about it.
So I've been working there for, I want to say, a couple months, almost two, and I I hadn't been really late without calling in.
I was picking up extra hours.
I was getting along with my co-workers.
Things were going well overall.
I started bringing up Stop the Bias because if you follow me on Twitter and on Instagram or Facebook or wherever, you know I'm a big advocate for free speech.
I believe that the Stop the Bias movement is something that deserves the attention, as much attention as possible.
Most of my co-workers didn't even really know what Stop the Bias was, so I was able to kind of start a dialogue a little bit between people, and then the name Alex Jones came up, and one of my younger co-workers proclaimed he should be killed.
And she was talking in reference to the Sandy Hook situation, and my response to that was, you know, I can't believe that in a situation where we're talking about the horrendous nature of children getting massacred, you're talking about how it's, on the other side, totally okay if someone comes and murders Alex Jones because of the way that he chose to go about that generalistically, even though at this point, He's come out and apologized for a lot of those statements
I was gonna say, but I'm the one who ended up getting fired, and if we're gonna talk about the merit of which comment deserved to be reprimanded, I would say that I would be on the winning side of that debate.
But the fact of the matter is, what it just- I don't understand how I'm supposed to live in a society where I can't express discomfort with a statement about someone being murdered without potentially outing myself as conservative-leaning and making myself a pariah.
What in the world does that have to do with my ability to sit behind a counter and work a cash register?
Well, what happened... Okay, so they kind of used the opportunity that I had a bad lower back spasm, and I decided to come into... I got my work covered for the one day, and I came into work the next day.
Just, you know, I'm trying to tough it out.
I try to do that in most situations, because I don't want to miss work.
You know, midway through, I was kind of buckling at the knees, it was really a lot, so I asked if I could run around the corner, there's an urgent care, and to see if they'll give me some 600mg ibuprofen or something, and they ended up holding me, so I stayed there, I sent the letter that they gave me to my boss, you know, explaining like, this is why I'm not at work, I texted everybody to see if I could get covered, And the people who were working, you know, sent me a nice reply, you know, hey, we're good.
If you need to stay, you need to stay.
Not a big deal.
Went through every proper channel.
And then the following day, my, one of my co-workers sends me a message along the lines of, what's going on?
I don't see your name on the schedule.
And I don't know.
This is only speculation.
I can only say from my educated guess.
But the fact is, if I hadn't texted my boss saying, hey, I'm feeling a lot better.
I'm ready to come back to work.
You can throw me on the schedule.
Is there a chance you didn't email it out already?
Is there a reason I'm not on it?
And he sent me the reply that I showed you, which basically was along the lines of, you know, we're sorry to say you're not the right fit for this position, and good luck on your podcast and future endeavors.
But that sounds like here's the thing, you know, again, we can only guess I would I would lean towards it sounds like
they didn't like you because if somebody hurts their back one day and needs to get medication that doesn't seem like
a fireball offense. In fact, firing someone for for, you know, being hurt on the job in this capacity seems weird
and unreasonable. At the very least, we can say you work for someone very weird and unreasonable.
But then you mentioned that you had like awkward exchanges following this conversation about your political beliefs.
And it sounds like maybe, maybe they just wanted to, you know, shoo you along and not work with someone like you.
And so we'll transition the conversation in this way, to clarify.
You know, based on what you've heard, for those that are listening, you decide if you think it's actually as egregious as it really is.
But the reason I find this interesting is just because of cancel culture as a whole.
You know, like I mentioned, Yes.
There was some woman who tweeted she divorced her Trump supporting husband.
We saw a story, I believe it was in the Atlantic, where it talked about married
couples getting into fights over their, you know, differing political beliefs.
And we're at, we're actually seeing, you know, we're, we're seeing this ridiculous
divide where, I mean, if you even walk outside wearing a Trump hat, people
will accuse you of the worst things.
They'll splash drinks in your face.
They'll knock it off your head.
They'll attack you.
You know, there was a viral video a few weeks ago where some Koreans were just walking down the street wearing Trump hats, and some guys came up and ripped them off their heads and threw them on the ground, started stomping on them.
And I saw this behavior in San Jose in, I believe it was 2016, where they knocked an elderly couple to the ground, this crowd of anti-Trump protesters, Set their hats on fire and that was to me that was insane like I had never seen young protesters attack old people So I think it for me You know I have my personal bias when I see all these things happening when I see like 800 plus instances of harassment And and you know suspensions and censorship, and then I hear your story.
I lean towards yeah I'm willing to bet that your supervisor.
You know heard that you know wait a minute.
Who is this your last name is Coulter and So let's segue in this way.
Undeniably, throughout my entire life, I was... You know, actually, this really came to resonate with me.
Last night, I was watching Soph, and it suddenly triggered some memories.
It was like, I used to have a lot of the same opinions as her at the same age, and those were kind of subsequently beaten out of me.
In the sense that I am and I was more susceptible to people's opinions of me, very clearly, at least from what I'm able to glean from myself in retrospect.
I used to be the little girl that would run up to people in the park when I saw them reading an Ann Coulter book and proudly proclaim, that's my aunt!
I'm so proud of her!
And it went from that to me being Are you adopted?
developing this defensive coping mechanism when people would bring up that she was my
aunt and I would immediately go, oh no, I'm adopted. I'm adopted.
Are you adopted?
I am adopted actually.
Oh, there you go.
And it was just like teachers, parents of friends, even people that I associated with
as we started to get a little bit older and started to understand politics a little bit,
or try to pretend that we did, I would get a lot of, oh, you don't believe, oh sweetie,
you don't believe what Ann does, do you?
Because that would mean that you're a bigot, and that would mean that you're a Nazi, and that would mean that you don't like You don't like gay people and you are just a sexist bigot and how can you defend your family when they come from this place of hate?
And of course as a young child, and especially as someone with adoption issues, I want to be accepted, and I want to be liked, and I don't want to be seen in a negative light.
So my immediate defense mechanism is, well obviously I'm not a bigot, so I guess I don't believe in her, and I guess I don't like her.
And I spent a lot of my adolescence kind of thinking that she was something that she wasn't, and I really do regret that in retrospect.
Yeah, I definitely would say, I mean, it kind of, it still kind of makes me feel cringey because I don't know, I can't honestly answer for myself whether or not I hold on to the centrist label because I'm terrified of what would come if I was to fully come out as a conservative.
Because the fact is I do have liberal views, but I have more conservative views now than ever before because I've been able to meet people like you and Lucien and... Well, I would argue towards the other side.
I just mean people who in the public eye are viewed as controversial.
I'm able to meet these people like Milo.
When I met Milo and I posted a picture of me and him hanging out, I got a slew of messages from people on the left who are my friends.
How dare you?
How are your Jewish friends supposed to feel?
What's wrong with you?
I've been thrown out of... I made a video where I was thrown out of a Juno car because I was listening to all these podcasts.
I've been... I've gotten into friendship-ending arguments because I have even so much as indicated that I might agree with something conservative.
So I have like a deep-seated fear that Because I've started to agree more and I started to see more logic in the conservative argument that I'm going to be a social pariah and I barely have started a career.
So I did a live show kind of like this with David Pakman, and he spends the first 15 minutes or so questioning my political beliefs based on the direction of my content.
And I'm fine with that.
I'm willing to have a conversation with literally anybody.
If you want to just come at me, I've got nothing to hide.
And the issue is, you know, hey, there are things I think are important, and I'm like a moderate, centrist, center-left individual, so yeah, I'm not going to constantly make anti-Trump videos, but what we need is, we need publicly visible people who are willing to say, oh, I absolutely have some conservative views and some liberal views, whatever.
You know, that way it gives space to other people to feel like they're not going to be excised from society.
You know, you look at how they ban people, and it scares people.
And that's not going to create a healthy society if people have anxiety all the time over not being able to... You know, look.
Conservatives who are getting banned feel like they're fighting for what's right.
Obviously liberals think they're fighting for what's right.
One side right now is being suppressed more so, right?
Obviously the anti-war left gets beaten down all the time.
Um, but the main, what we would consider like the mainstream culture of social media online, not like your average American Democrat, like the woke media, they can say whatever they want and get away with it.
They can be racist bigots all day and night.
They can advocate open racism.
Like we see where they, you know, right now there's a story I'm looking at where they're, you know, with affirmative action and adversity scores they're doing.
Where they claim all Asians are the same race, and it's mind-blowing to me to imply that Indian people and Filipinos are the same race.
It's like, it's absurd.
And they get away with it.
You know, for years you have Sarah Jong posting racist stuff.
They get away with it.
So, what happens then when you have conservatives who say, I want to speak up and defend what I feel is right, and they get banned from social media?
You're creating a very, very angry and anxious society.
So, you know, I guess my idea there, and then I'll throw back to you, is I feel like if, you know, maybe I do this by being kind of like a moderate center-left type on a lot of issues, you know, I'm pro-choice, I believe in a living wage, you know, I won't get into all that stuff, but it gives room to people who are like, look, if you want to have a conservative view, I'm not going to shame you.
By all means, let's talk about it.
And this can actually, I think, help society, help young people actually Feel safe and feel okay talking about normal things.
I'll end the thought on this right here.
If 60 million people voted for the president, that's not a fringe minority.
Those are regular people, right?
So we need to be able to talk and not be scared of being destroyed, having our finances ruined, being banned from banks, social media shut down.
Yeah, well, I think an important part of this conversation is also establishing a baseline definition for what free speech actually is, because a lot of people are conflating free speech and censorship.
It's free speech to be able to Trying to think of a good example.
It's not free speech for someone to stand in front of you and obstruct you from being able to listen to someone speak.
In fact, that's not only impeding on your right to gather civilly, but it's also censoring what you came to listen to.
That's actually complicated, because that's also protected under the First Amendment.
So for me, you know, is it annoying and frustrating if, say, Carl Benjamin, for instance, he was doing a speech at, I believe it was College of London, and protesters showed up and shut the event down?
Well, that's a private event.
Well, actually, it might be public, but the point is, he had a room, it was dedicated to him, and people wanted to listen.
Shutting him down in that regard, I think, crosses the line of either disorderly conduct, If you're in public and you're speaking and someone blows an air horn, it's like, well, we gotta figure out what that line is because you have a right to assembly.
And, you know, I think the First Amendment covers a lot of really, really important things.
But I do think the interesting debate on free speech is there is a line on free speech, right?
Because you can't incite to violence, for instance.
We're ignoring an entire group of people who are notorious for showing up to these events armed to the teeth and ready to kick in Nazi skulls, and we're patting them on the back.
The mainstream narrative of that is that kind of behavior is justified.
We've painted certain individuals in a light where their rights don't matter because they're terrible
people.
And that's just not true.
It just doesn't, it's not, it doesn't make logical sense.
And the only arguments that I hear from people is, oh, they're just evil people.
And you got to look at the motive of somebody who, who's only complained about another person
unidentified
is that they're solely evil because no one is solely evil.
That's that's, that's actually, um, I think that we can, we can understand that idea through
Jonathan Heights research, where he found that liberals tend to operate on two moral,
um, archetypes and conservatives use all five conservative, conservatives and moderates.
And so they found that liberals could not predict how a conservative would behave, but conservatives and moderates could predict How a liberal would behave.
And so that's why a lot of these left arguments are that conservatives are evil and morally wrong and things like that.
Because they don't actually try to understand.
You know, they just assume you're evil and I'm the good guy.
Well, even further than that, it is nothing to do with, like, oh, we want, like, they're evil and we're good.
It's the entire narrative that, like, you shouldn't listen to them only because they're evil, and you're not offering any substantial grounds for why they're evil beyond, oh, they're a Nazi, and that's just illogical.
It's a long-standing propaganda technique to accuse someone of being the worst of the worst, and that just makes it impossible to actually have conversations.
I think in terms of the double standard, too, you can look at where was the national reporting when Antifa showed up to Portland and bashed a Bernie Sanders supporter over the health of the club?
Non-existent.
Where was the national reporting when the bike lock basher, you know, got a, you know, bashed seven people over the head and then went to trial?
And all the story around that never happened.
Yet here's the really funny thing I find.
They like to claim speech is violence, right?
So you've got people in the UK protesting Sargon of Akkad, Carl Benjamin.
Holding up signs saying speech equals violence.
Yet at the same time, when I believe his name is Mark Pitkovich, he works with the Anti-Defamation League, tweeted that Antifa flooded the law office of someone who represented ICE and that was extremism, they said, destroying property is not violence.
His response was, tell that to the black community when their churches are being burned down.
And they said, property destruction is not violence.
So let's parse this.
You have these people simultaneously arguing, destroying a church and the black community is not violent, but saying mean words is violent.
So I know that we'll wrap this up with where we started.
You talked about how you were advocating Stop the Bias, the movement to protect speech and stop censorship.
I guess just for who you are, for what you do, for where you've come from, for the bias against you, for who your family is, what do you think is going to happen and what are you hoping Stop the Bias could accomplish?
Well, I'm just hoping that we as a society can openly acknowledge, no matter what platform you stand on, no matter what agenda you want to push, that we all deserve the right to be able to peacefully and with a certain understanding of safety be able to express our opinions.
There's a difference between censorship and free speech, and people need to understand that just because you are led to believe that a certain narrative is dangerous doesn't mean that they don't deserve the right to be able to- you don't deserve to be able to see what they have to say.
It's not free speech to bang on tables and protest saying the Pledge of Allegiance, for example.
It's a form of censorship.
I just, I feel as though I want to stop the bias to create the ideal political landscape,
which is, you know, a situation like this, me and you, we sit across from each other
and we have a conversation.
And if I say something that you don't like, you challenge it and you say,
hey, I don't agree with you because of this.
And I know that that's a very baseline example, but the fact is we don't have that in our society right now.
We don't have a...
a safe environment for people communicating different ideas because there's such a bipartisan
between the two parties and if you're not on the side that if you're not on this if you're not on
the same side that means you're supposed to be adversarial and that is a scary world to live in
I don't even know where I'm going to be uploading this, because I have the two channels.
I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing with my main channel and my second channel, and this might go on my main channel.
I might do something else.
I really don't know, but I'll say this.
You can support my work over at TimCast.com slash donate, and the podcast I do every day is now being expanded to essentially all of my content, so it's over an hour long now.
But other than that, Kimberly, thanks for the conversation.
Thanks for hanging out.
Everybody else, thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
