Timcast - EP6 #MeToo Backlash Escalates, 60% Of Men Fear Working With Women
Though the Me Too movement has done good things is calling out abuse and harassment there are unintended consequences. Notably, men are not uncomfortable working with women. Women now fear this will result in less promotions and hostile work environments.Additional SegmentsTrump begins flying illegal immigrants to Democratic StrongholdsTrevor Noah Defends Trump on Kimmel ShowOcasio-Cortez Comic Gets Shut Down By DC ComicsFalse Accusations result in calls for "MenToo Movement"
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In an interview with Vice, Jordan Peterson said, Many people saw that as absurd.
They disagreed with Jordan Peterson.
Of course, many people agree with him as well.
But it was presented in such a way that, what is he talking about?
Of course men and women can work together.
But now we see this story from Glamour.
Male bosses are ignoring women colleagues after Me Too.
This is a problem.
Jordan Peterson brought up interesting points about makeup, about what women wear.
And let's think about what the workplace was presumably like before MeToo.
Men were handsy, perhaps?
Not all of them, but some of them.
Some men were harassing their female employees.
And there were some very high-profile individuals, males, who were outed for being predators.
In some instances, it wasn't always towards women.
You had Kevin Spacey, you know, as one individual.
Now that the MeToo movement has shined a light on these bad practices, we're left with an inverse problem.
Men don't want to work with women.
This is another story.
I have done maybe four or five where every single time they do some kind of poll, it gets worse.
Now, this is serious.
Listen.
According to leanin.org, 60% of male managers say they're uncomfortable participating in common workplace activities with a woman, putting promotions at stake.
It would seem that, you know, in the past videos I've covered, men don't want to be alone with women, they don't want to go out for drinks after work with women, they don't want to mentor women, and now they're not even comfortable in common workplace activities.
So was Jordan Peterson right?
I don't know.
But what I will say is, if men are avoiding women because of Me Too, then maybe the answer is, you know, maybe he is onto something.
Maybe there's going to be some dramatic changes for men and women to actually be able to work together.
Because certainly this is untenable.
How do we get to a point where men and women can just work together?
Was it, you know, I don't know.
Was it better before Me Too?
I think not.
You know, you had, um, I can't remember the guy's name from NBC or whatever, who had like, he had a button to lock his door remotely.
Yeah, weird guys.
So let's read through the story and we'll look at some of the data.
Before we do that, make sure you head over to timcast.com slash donate.
If you want to support my work, I really do rely on you guys, especially considering in the summer months, viewership goes way down and we are expanding.
So there's a monthly donation option.
There are cryptocurrency options.
I have a physical address.
But of course, you can just share this video and click the like button.
That's one of the most effective ways to actually help.
Tell YouTube it's a video worth watching.
Well, let's see what they have to say.
The story starts as a bit of a narrative, saying, one of my first jobs out of college had me assisting a publisher who frequently shared sensitive company information with me as I drafted memos and reports, which meant we often had to close the door to his office.
He'd dictate what he needed to do, and we'd move on with our day.
Occasionally, we'd do it over lunch.
I never once felt uncomfortable, and I'm pretty sure he didn't either.
Because I was good at my job, the publisher eventually promoted me.
This was almost two decades ago, and much has changed for women and men at work.
The most pervasive shift, of course, has been spurred by the MeToo movement, which not only has managed to hold power-abusing men accountable for their actions, but has also changed the norms so many women have silently faced in the workplace that range from farming to fashion.
They say.
But with any movement, especially one that exists to empower women, there has been a backlash.
And one particular facet is the idea that Me Too has scared some men away from interacting with junior-level female colleagues.
Well, let's talk about why that is real quick.
If you do something that makes a woman uncomfortable and you don't realize it, you don't know why it's wrong and no one ever told you why it's wrong, you could have your life destroyed, your career destroyed.
So think about this.
The way I always frame it is, and it's not a perfect analogy, but if you could buy a lottery ticket, and if you won, your life would be completely destroyed.
Would you buy that ticket?
Most people are going to say no.
The chances that, you know, you working with a woman or being alone with her in a room will result in a false accusation or something, you know, destroying your career, slim to none.
But because of these high-profile stories, you have many men who are scared saying, I'm not even gonna risk it.
What's the point?
Do you really trust that person?
But not even, it's not even an issue of trust.
It's an issue of what if you say something that is considered inappropriate?
So here's another example I've used.
I can walk up to a man and he's got, let's say there's a guy and he's wearing a brand new three-piece suit.
I can go, whoa, damn, that is a nice suit.
Looks amazing, where'd you get that?
Wow, must've been expensive.
Think about what would happen if a man walked up to a woman and went, ooh, damn, look at that dress.
That is amazing.
Where'd you get that?
It must be expensive.
Different cultural contexts.
A guy can compliment another guy's clothes because there's no implication of sexuality.
But with a woman, when you go, ooh, look at that dress, it's an issue about her looks.
And that is culturally sensitive.
So think about what that means.
Think about if you walk up to a guy and you put your hand on his shoulder, you pat him on the back and say, good job in that meeting, brother.
That was fantastic.
Think about what happens if you walk up to a woman, pat her on the shoulder, pat her on the back and say, good job in that meeting, sister.
You killed it.
She's going to say, why is he touching me?
Maybe not.
The point is, there are different norms between the genders.
And thus, you're going to have many men saying, I don't know what I can or can't do.
I always compliment my buddy's looks and his hair.
When he's coming out of a meeting, you've got to look sharp.
You've got to look like you're prepared.
He had a fabulous suit.
Sometimes they'll even help their buddy put their tie on and get it straight.
Can you do that with a woman?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
You could get in serious trouble if you go anywhere near touching a female compared to a male.
So these are serious considerations that are going to result in men who are good people who don't want to work with women, not just out of a fear of false accusations, but because there is an absolute difference between what is acceptable between men and between different genders.
But let's read the data.
According to new research released today by Lenin.org and SurveyMonkey, 60% of male managers say they're uncomfortable participating in common workplace activities with a woman, a 32% increase from research done last year on the topic.
The data found that senior-level men are 12 times more likely to hesitate before having one-on-one meetings, 9 times more likely to hesitate to travel with a junior woman for business, and 6 times more likely to hesitate to go to a work dinner with a junior woman.
36% of men also say they've avoided mentoring or socializing with a female coworker because they were nervous about how it might look.
Let's talk about how it might look.
What happens if...
You're a male.
You mentor a female.
What happens if someone sees that and then starts spreading rumors?
Oh, I saw them leaving.
They were at a bar together.
When I worked at Vice, rumors were flying about one of the senior level staff and one of his lower level staff being seen at a bar outside of work hours.
And of course, guess what everyone said?
It was an affair.
What do you think happens when the young woman, her career is threatened because of the rumors, she's made to look like a bad person?
You will find that sometimes, not always, they say, oh, I didn't want to have anything to do with it, he's pressuring me, ah!
It doesn't have to be about assault.
It can be about, you know, he's too aggressive and he's bad and that can still be damaging for reputation.
Would not happen between guys.
You see two guys at a bar and they're like, oh yeah, I saw John and Jim over at the bar last night.
Oh yeah, I think they were talking about the new spreadsheets.
The cultural context It's different between men and women.
And this is why I think Jordan Peterson brought up a really interesting point.
You don't have to like Jordan Peterson.
You don't have to agree.
You don't have to think he's right.
But he does bring up an interesting point.
He talked about women wearing certain clothing in the workplace.
Clothing that's meant to be attractive.
Should men and women not wear attractive clothing because of what it might entail between the interactions?
It's not fair for a woman to be subjected to any kind of harassment.
But at the same time, What if it's a guy giving his buddy a pat on the back?
Can't do the same thing for a woman.
So, you then enter the workplace and you have different rules for different people.
It can't just be one set of rules that people can understand.
So, maybe the answer is simple.
Treat women differently.
But I don't know if that's the right answer either because now look what we're seeing.
Yeah, men are saying, I'm not going to be alone with a woman.
I don't want to get... It'll look bad, right?
They say the problem.
Most managers are male, and their fear is prohibiting women from proving themselves and moving up at work.
Well, I think that is a problem.
It will likely change in the future, but let me just suggest to women, I know it's not a complete solution, but I would recommend to anybody, not just women, start your own business.
If you've got people standing in your way, and they won't interact with you for whatever reason, be it an honest, you know, fear, like, you know, of being, of looking bad or being accused of something, well, you know what?
It's on you.
It's your responsibility.
Maybe you're not going to move up in your job, but maybe you can start your own firm.
Maybe you can start your own business.
I know it's not easy.
It's not.
And maybe it's not fair either.
But I'll tell you this.
If there is a wall in your way that you cannot overcome, the solution is probably going to be to turn around and find a different path.
It sucks.
You know?
I don't know of anyone who's been promoted who hasn't had one-on-one conversations with a superior.
That's from Sheryl Sandberg.
Women need that one-on-one time to get the mentorship and sponsorship they need to succeed.
Sandberg knows this well.
She goes on to talk about working with Mark Zuckerberg.
But let's go down to the conclusion here, and I want to pull up some of the actual stats.
As Sandberg put it, people believe that not harassing us is enough right now.
But that's not true.
Not harassing us is not enough.
You also need to not ignore us.
It's really interesting, right?
So, actually, let's read this back.
Let's get a better context in that final thought.
Being more or less invisible to a male superior is better than being uncomfortable, right?
In theory, sure.
But considering the vast majority of managers and leaders are men across most fields, the fact that women aren't getting the attention they need to succeed because men are afraid isn't doing them any favors.
Ultimately, this is about closing the gender gap at work from the entry level all the way up to the top, said Rachel Thomas, president of Lean In.
When companies employ more women, sexual harassment is less prevalent.
And when women hold more leadership roles, company profits are higher and workplace policies are more generous.
Supporting women makes companies stronger and safer.
To get there, we need men to be part of the solution.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
There is no rule.
You cannot force a man to go on private meetings with you, to promote you.
I mean, like, the only real solution to anything that they actually propose in terms of, like, The earnings gap and things like this was like full-on government regulation and socialism.
When they talk about the earnings gap, they literally do.
Vox.com openly acknowledges they're not talking about men and women working the same job, they're talking about female school teachers and male petroleum engineers, and they want those wages to be evened out.
I'm not exaggerating.
Vox.com wrote an article explaining this.
I'm like, that's basically just socialism, giving everyone the same wage no matter what their job is.
It doesn't make sense.
But I don't want to get into that talk.
Let's pop over to what we have here.
This is from SurveyMonkey.
How Me Too has impacted mentorship for women.
This story keeps popping up.
I think this is like, seriously, like the fourth or fifth time I've talked about how Me Too has negatively impacted women.
Let's not forget, the MeToo movement has positively impacted women by putting away these, you know, stopping a lot of the abuse and putting away these really nasty dudes who are doing really nasty things.
They needed to be called out.
But I think one of the things I often talk about is surface level solutions.
So you have to think beyond your move, right?
Play chess.
I've been playing chess since I was like, as long as I can remember.
I was very, very little.
I was like three years old when my mom first started teaching me chess.
Okay, you can't just make a move.
If you make a move, what are the other moves?
And as you try and think ahead, the variables increase exponentially.
What that means is, in life, okay, you should think about like a strategy game.
If I do X, what are the likely results?
It's much harder to predict in the real world as it is for chess because chess has finite moves, but this is predictable.
Yes, there are going to be a lot of men saying, I do not want to be accused.
If somebody says something about me that's not true, what if I make a mistake?
Go back to my first point.
What if I pat someone on the back as a friendly gesture, and they take it the wrong way, and then tell the boss, and then everyone starts accusing me of being an abuser?
Because I touched an elbow, or put my hand on someone's shoulder, or complimented their professional outfit like I would for any of my guy friends.
You can't.
In fact, you shouldn't do this, but there are dudes who pat each other's butts, like in sports they do it, right?
There are certain things where men feel more comfortable to be physical, to roughhouse, you can't do it with women.
So maybe the lines have to be drawn, maybe we're not there yet, but certainly It's going to have a backlash for men, and I go back to what Jordan Peterson said.
Maybe this is another example of us finding out there's inherent troubles when men and women are working together.
Again, well, actually, I'll say this.
My overall opinion is I absolutely think men and women can work together.
I don't think it's that big of an issue.
I think it becomes an issue when you have strangers working together, right?
So I've worked with many females in small offices.
Between two or three people, there's never been a problem.
You know?
But what happens when you're in a company with 500 and you go down to HR and there's a woman or someone you don't really know?
Now you've got some problems because, yeah, you've worked with them, you've seen them around the office, but you don't know what they find acceptable or not.
You're not friends, you don't know how to interact properly, you might say something that has nothing to do with anything negative and they might take it the wrong way and then complain about you and thus we end up with situations like this.
But again, to the other point I made earlier, let's say you do have, you know, a lower-level staff member who is the, you know, female, or male, and you're a female, whatever, like opposite gender, and you go into the room and close the door.
Then a lot of people are gonna start murmuring, and then you've got a potential for chaos.
So, you know what?
There's a lot of data here.
I'm not going to go through all of it just because it's seriously a lot.
They ask, like, how do people feel about these reports?
And the biggest group is most people are not surprised.
That's funny.
In the last two years, have you heard anyone say men should spend less time with women in the wake of Me Too?
Overwhelming no's.
Of course not.
No one would say that.
Let's see, let's go down.
Do you think company leaders and high performers are held accountable when they harass someone?
And sometimes is the biggest, but usually, rarely, and then rarely or never.
So it's sometimes, then rarely or never.
In your view, are the consequences of harassment more damaging to the harasser's career or more damaging to the victims?
It's actually spread out really even, which is interesting.
Most people lean towards the harassers, but for women, they think that it's more damaging to victims to come forward.
Well, there you go.
I mean, we've got problems.
Look, men would assume the harasser's life is going to be ruined, but women would assume the victim's life is going to be, I'd say ruined, but damaged their careers.
So I'm not going to go through all the data points.
Suffice to say, I think we've addressed a lot of the issue here.
Well, you can let me know what you think in the comments.
Yeah.
Stick around.
I'm going to have more segments coming up very, very soon on the podcast in a few seconds.
For the rest of you on YouTube, it'll be at 1 p.m.
And as always, you can go to timcast.com slash donate if you want to help support my work.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you in the next segment.
Oh, my.
The madman did it.
The madman has gone and done it.
Homeland Security is now flying migrants out of Texas to locations throughout the U.S.
And the next story we have, a second plane with migrants from Texas lands in San Diego.
From Politico, Trump sending 500 migrants per month to Florida Democrat strongholds.
Trump, uh, maybe not Trump personally, maybe, I'm not entirely sure, but I know that there was talk within the administration to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities.
Many Democrats were outraged, saying, you can't do that, that's, you don't have the right to do that.
Saying that, essentially, you're using these people as pawns.
What's truly interesting, however, is while the Democrat political elite were outraged by this, the actual leftists supported Trump.
And I kid you not, this is from PBS.
Trump's sanctuary city idea could help migrants stay in the US.
This is a fascinating story because people who are actually on the left and want to protect illegal immigrants know by having Trump bring them to sanctuary cities, they will be protected.
But the Democrat establishment understands that's bad for them in the long run, and it's going to cause them problems.
Now before we get into this first story, make sure you go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
I really could use the help, especially in summer months when viewership declines for everybody.
There's a monthly donation option, there's cryptocurrency, a physical address, but of course, you can just share the video and click the like button.
That's the easiest way to tell YouTube, hey, this video's pretty good.
But to the first story.
This is from a couple days ago.
They say from CBS News, with the surge of asylum seekers, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol are now flying migrants from the Rio Grande Valley in southern Texas to cities across the country.
In San Diego on Friday, 100 migrants arrived for processing.
It came one day after two South Florida counties were upset with a plan that would bring thousands of migrants there.
We cannot accommodate in Florida just dumping unlawful migrants into our state, said Governor Ron DeSantis.
I think it'll tax our resources, the schools, healthcare, law enforcement, state agencies.
Now, let's be clear here.
Florida is not a Democrat state.
The Republicans won the Senate and the governorship.
I believe so.
I mean, it's complicated because there were some threats of suits, but I'm pretty sure that's where we ended up.
Story says, Florida officials have been told to expect two plane loads of migrants each week, up to 1,000 people a month, split between Palm Beach and Broward counties.
My understanding is those are both Democrat- Yes, it says here, both are Democratic strongholds.
The migrants do not face criminal charges, but would likely be released into the community awaiting immigration hearings.
I will stress, too, In terms of where the administration is sending these people, I mean, these are Spanish-speaking areas.
You know, outside of the political, I don't know, fervor, it does make sense.
Look, we know there's a record number of migrants coming in, record apprehensions.
We've seen, I mean, even New York Times saying we have a real crisis here.
You can't assume that all of these people can be held in Texas.
So while Trump may have done himself no favors with the left by saying he wants to send migrants to sanctuary cities, it may be a legitimate course of action that they have to bring the migrants somewhere.
Although they did recently win a lawsuit saying they can send people back to Mexico.
So I think this is more political than anything.
CBS says reporting found that 80% of the beds at the nation's largest detention center for immigrant families in Dilley, Texas, were empty last month.
But Brian Hastings, Chief of Law Enforcement Operations for U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, said they're overwhelmed.
The crisis at hand is causing us to look at multiple different locations where we have capacity to process, to fly these individuals to simply so we can process them into the system.
Florida has no designated shelters or government funding for food insecurity.
Officials there have been told to expect migrants in about two weeks.
So let's be real here.
Trump won the lawsuit saying he can make people remain in Mexico.
He won.
I think that's where we're at so far.
It's been back and forth.
Which means these people could be sent back to Mexico.
Let's make another thing clear.
CBS reported last month, so it is a month ago, that immigrant facility was empty.
It may have filled up.
And let's also be clear that Florida has no designated shelters.
I'm gonna have to say this is overtly political inaction.
Now, check this out.
The next story we have from CBS 8.
Second plane with migrants from Texas lands in San Diego.
The border patrol says San Diego has the capacity to handle three flights each week.
Every flight will have 120 to 135 people, all are non-criminal families.
135 people all are non-criminal families. Listen, I have I
Don't know whether or not, you know people should be mad about this because we have to think about it
Okay, let me try and do this.
This is complicated.
It's really complicated.
The political nature of what they're doing, I think, is wrong.
But at the same time, left-wing activists support this.
The only people who are really upset are the Democratic politicians.
And if they're truly upset by this, who do they represent?
If we can see that PBS is straight up saying this is a good idea to protect immigrant families, particularly from Trump, ICE, CBP, etc., then who is really
upset by this?
It seems like Trump has called the bluff of Democrats and the Democrats are angry.
But the activists are saying, okay, fine. So this story from PBS News,
pbs.org, says an idea floated by President Donald Trump to send immigrants from the border to
sanctuary cities to exact revenge on Democratic foes could end up doing the migrants a favor
by placing them in locations that make it easier to put down roots and stay in the country.
Who should be mad about this? Look, Look.
I don't like the idea of people being used as political tools, but it's less about the intent and more about the outcome.
If you think Trump is wrong to do this, you also have to recognize that this is good news for the migrants who are going to receive protections from Democrats.
Why would anyone be angry?
No, seriously.
The outcome is good for everybody, I guess, right?
Well, the Democrats certainly are angry.
This story from CBS says, When in San Diego, Governor Newsom addressed the migrants, saying, They are human beings being used as pawns, as tools.
We have lost all our moral authority.
It is hard for us to preach when we are not practicing.
But if you believe in making a sanctuary state, if you believe in protecting these people, you have some jurisdictions that are Republicans saying, no, we can't handle these migrants.
And you have California saying, yes, we can.
So why would anyone be mad then when Trump says, OK, we'll send them to you?
I think there is an issue if Florida doesn't have the capability.
And has no designated shelters.
That seems like a big problem.
But again, I'll stress PBS.
They're straight up saying, this is good news for the migrants.
If it's good for the migrants, who can complain?
They go on to say that Border Patrol says San Diego has the capacity to handle three flights a week.
We read that from the other story.
Detainees are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement within 72 hours.
The state is preparing for the possibility that agents will release some of them into the community.
California Governor Gavin Newsom said, We did not want folks to end up on the streets and sidewalks.
We don't want people being trafficked.
Human trafficking is very real.
We were dumping people out in the Greyhound bus station and they could end up homeless.
So I don't understand if now all of a sudden it seems like California is recognizing the problem of human trafficking.
This is really weird.
The facility in San Diego is only for asylum seekers.
If those flown into the area want to seek asylum status, they can request it once they are in San Diego.
This is what local leaders think will happen.
County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher told News 8, we have already processed 14,000.
I think we can handle this, but ultimately, this is a failure of the Trump administration who created crises to drive a political narrative and agenda that is not needed.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The New York Times.
Listen, if the New York Times comes out and says we have a serious humanitarian crisis, it is not Trump making a crisis.
I'm sorry.
We have more apprehensions now than we have had of all of last year.
In fact, that record was broken, I believe, in March.
So you can't act like there's not a problem.
Caravan after caravan are coming here.
It's fine if you want to support the migrants and believe they should be given sanctuary.
But the issue is it takes resources and these people are getting sick, they're getting hurt.
Something has to be done.
Do I think what Trump is doing is going to solve the problem?
I really, really don't.
I do think it's political.
But what I can't stand is when people act like...
Trump, this whole thing was manufactured.
What kind of conspiracy theorist believes... Okay, you know, let's walk back.
Yes, there are non-profits in Central America encouraging people to come to the border.
We've seen interviews of migrants saying they were told there were jobs waiting for them.
Who's doing that?
I don't know, and I'm not going to engage in a conspiracy theory.
Do they seriously think Trump is spending money to recruit people down in Central America encouraging migrants to come?
That makes literally no sense!
That's absurd conspiracy nonsense.
But you know what?
Considering Russiagate for two years, I'm not surprised.
Let's pop over to this Politico story and just grab a little bit of this.
A little context here, they say, Trump's sending 500 migrants a month to Florida Democratic strongholds.
They say, Trump's plan to send potentially hundreds of undocumented immigrants each month to the Democratic strongholds of Broward and Palm Beach counties ignited a torrent of criticism from local Florida officials who called the move political.
It's blatant, it's absolutely political if you were to ask me.
The blatant politics sending them to the two most democratic counties in the state of Florida is ridiculous, said State Senator Gary Farmer, a Democrat who represents portions of Broward County.
You can't make this stuff up.
You know what, man?
I agree, it's political.
But I'm also at a loss to how to be upset, you know, with Trump specifically, when it's the Democrats who repeatedly say sanctuary cities and let these migrants in and protect them.
I'm going to side with PBS on this one.
The left-wing activists are saying, good, bring them to the Democrats, the Democrats can protect them.
Why are the Democrats mad about this?
They're upset that Trump made a political move.
Yeah, well, your base apparently likes this.
You know what, man?
This is why politics today is so ridiculous.
Because it's the intent that is bad, but the outcome that is good, yet they're still mad about it.
It clearly shows that everything's just nonsense.
Everyone's lying.
Well, I'm gonna end by saying this, okay?
Regardless of your opinion.
This is going to help the migrants in many capacities.
But PR is a lie.
I just can't stand it.
Everyone's lying.
The Democrats are lying.
Trump's spokespeople are lying.
And it's not unique to Trump and his administration.
It's literally everything all the time.
It's a lie.
A lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
Let's name a random company.
When Facebook comes out and says, we don't ban conservatives.
Lie.
PR.
PR spinning lies.
Name a spokesperson for any private corporation.
They're lying to you.
Name a politician.
They're lying to you.
That's the whole public world.
We know this is going on.
We know it's all lies.
And it's goddamn frustrating.
But you know what?
Trump has actually, he's pulled the wool.
He's revealed the wolf in sheep's clothing.
The Democrats talking about how they want to protect migrants and create sanctuary cities.
And then when Trump says, okay, we'll send them to you, they freak out.
He's called their bluff.
Welcome to politics.
I can't stand these people.
I can't stand the lies.
I can't stand the fake nonsense, whatever.
There's your news.
The madman did it.
The madman actually did it.
One more thing.
It's like, I don't know whether or not to be upset about it, that Trump is pulling this political move with migrants, or that the Democrats are clearly lying about how they want to support migrants, and the activists are happy!
So where does that leave me?
I have no idea, man, but Trump did it!
So, wow.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I've got more content coming up shortly.
Next video will be on the main channel, youtube.com slash TimCast every day at 4 p.m.
I will see you there, and next segment will begin for those listening to the podcast very soon.
I'm actually kind of shocked to see another one of these late-night left-wing hosts defending Donald Trump.
I did a video the other day about Bill Maher, so we can go over a bit of that later on.
Bill Maher defended Trump, both for the same reasons.
Trevor Noah says Trump is the first president to actually deliver on campaign promises.
That's not even true!
What I mean is, Trump is delivering on many of his campaign promises, not all of them.
But certainly there have been other presidents who have delivered on certain promises, not all of them.
Why is it that Trevor Noah is now warming up to President Donald Trump?
I think for one thing...
You are not going to escape.
The economy is doing really, really well.
No one's going to get away from that.
I've tried to hire people, and they're booked for months.
I've got the van project going on.
I'm currently working with somebody on that.
If you're not familiar, I've got a cool van thing happening.
We're going to do road trips and on-the-ground reports and interviews.
But I've tried hiring other people, and yeah, the economy is doing really, really well.
So I think, as we're moving into election season, You are going to notice that, as much as the polls are likely wrong, middle Americans are very much happy with the economy.
And if all you do is rag on Trump all day and night, eventually you run off a cliff and regular people are confused.
This may actually be holding their ratings down.
All of a sudden you then see Trevor Noah and Bill Maher come out and say, oh well, you know, you know, you know.
Both who have been very critical of Trump.
Before we dive into this story, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option.
Cryptocurrency address is a physical address.
Summer months get pretty bad with viewership dropping, so that means revenues go down across the board.
And I'm trying to expand.
We're launching Subverse, so, you know, all of your support helps.
But more importantly, you can just share the video.
Click that like button because it tells YouTube that apparently I'm doing a good job and people should watch what I'm doing.
So, the like button apparently works.
If you don't like it, then don't do it.
Whatever.
Let's read what they have to say over at Fox News.
Well, he's certainly delivering on sending illegal immigrants to democratic cities.
Kimmel live on Thursday night and offered some rare praise for President Trump for being
the first president to actually deliver on his campaign promises.
Well, he's certainly delivering on sending illegal immigrants to democratic cities.
That was shocking.
Noah, 35, began by knocking critics who claimed he wasn't angry enough when he first took
He said, when I took over the Daily Show, everyone was like, what are you going to make jokes about?
And then one of the main things people have said to me was, they said, you're just not angry enough, Trevor.
Where's your indignation?
And I was like, what do you have to be angry about?
Things are going great right now.
Your economy is growing.
Your president is loved.
Your footprint around the world is one that's being cemented as a superpower.
What are you angry about?
Slow clap.
What are you angry about?
Seriously?
Listen.
Here's the thing.
Let me do this.
Let me do this.
I've shown this a couple times.
This is my moral foundations test.
And why is it that I can recognize things are going really great and be happy?
It's because, yes, you can clearly see my care and fairness are really high.
That's a liberal trait.
Liberals have very high care and fairness.
Conservatives have an even across the board.
My purity, loyalty, and authority are actually kind of low.
It is what it is.
My liberty is very high.
So here's what I see when Trevor Noah says something like this.
Trump is kind of mean.
Yeah.
He says mean things.
He does mean things.
And I understand why that makes people upset.
At the same time, I'm not a crazy person.
I can recognize that if things are going better for a lot of people, then by all means, don't like him personally and call it the bad things he does.
Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syrian missile strikes, the list goes on.
But you still have to recognize when things are going well.
And this is what's mind-numbing to me, how it's like, you're not allowed to have any praise for the president at all.
It's like, no, let's, like, be reasonable.
There's, like, the nuance in all things.
It's not black and white.
There are subtle differences here.
You know?
Trump isn't just this evil, you know, orange man bad.
Some things are good, some things are bad.
And more importantly, by all means, hate him.
But his policies are different.
What's happening with the country is different.
What does his personality have to do with the policies he's implementing and the boom in the economy?
For sure, you can talk about how it's a short-term gain.
A lot of people believe this is going to be short-lived and then it's going to come tumbling down later.
I don't know about any of that.
All I know is things are going pretty well.
And even Trevor Noah and Bill Maher admit.
And I shouldn't even say admit.
I think it's a fair point they're bringing up.
Admitting it, Fox News says Bill Maher admits in exchange, we can't ignore the economy is booming.
But admit implies that, you know, Bill Maher is acting in bad faith.
Like he doesn't want anyone to realize there's good things going on.
No, I think Bill Maher and Trevor Noah are making good faith point that, hey man, look, the economy is doing well.
You want to rag on Trump all day and night, but things are going well.
I don't, I don't, I gotta be honest.
I really do believe the hate for Trump is fake.
A lot of it is fake.
There are, listen, when you see people like Jim Carrey go on Twitter and they rant and rave and wave their arms all crazy in the air, posting this ridiculous nonsense.
There are a lot of people who are posting stuff about what's happening in Alabama and Georgia, but they're not actually making points.
They are literally virtue signaling.
Now, I know virtue signal can mean nothing to many people.
What they're doing is they're arguing to their own tribe to earn points within their own tribe.
They're not actually trying to make a point.
They're not trying to win any arguments.
They're just trying to make sure everyone knows where they stand.
So let me make another point.
I worked in non-profits.
I quite literally was an activist, started working for non-profits to raise money for causes, and then, excuse me, got into this for political reasons.
It was because I was working with hackers to help establish a free exchange of information.
I don't care for political agendas.
I care for the right to free expression and the right to knowledge.
Knowledge, if you know what I mean.
So you see these celebrities who are now claiming to be activists who are so outraged by Trump?
No.
They're celebrities who are trying to convince a large enough amount of people to support them because that's what their net worth is.
Was Kathy Griffin, you know, marching down the streets, you know, for these big activist causes and working with nonprofits?
Maybe she was.
Maybe she was.
But the point I'm trying to make is many of these celebrities are not.
They're comedians.
They go on TV.
They make jokes.
They want an audience.
They serve as a brand ambassador for companies.
Jim Carrey.
Why is Jim Carrey famous?
When you put Jim Carrey in a movie, the movie is likely to sell more tickets.
He is an advertising tool.
Do you think Jim Carrey actually cares about these politics?
No!
Of course not!
These are people who got into an industry to be famous!
That's all they want, and I don't trust them.
Sure, some of them actually are doing good.
Doing well.
No, but I mean doing good, like good things.
Chris Evans, as much as a lot of people have criticism for him, is trying to do like a bipartisan thing, bring people together.
Not perfect, but I can respect it.
Well, let's read on about Trevor Noah.
He goes on to say, And then people had all of this faux anger and they were like, you've got to be angry.
And I was like, there's nothing to be angry about.
There's nothing to be stressed about right now.
And I was worried about that for the show.
Look at this.
Trevor Noah, straight up saying it's faux anger.
Slow clap, Trevor.
Slow clap.
Trevor Noah, Bill Maher now coming out and saying, yeah, economy's doing great.
Trevor Noah saying it's faux anger.
They want him to be angry for his show.
He says, I was worried about that for the show.
They know, they know you have to be mad at Trump for ratings.
So what do you think happens?
These celebrities, personalities who don't actually care about politics, they don't care about Trump.
Want fans, want an audience, so they act outrage.
They pretend to be distressed.
But then regular people get distressed.
These people are sociopaths destroying the fabric of society.
I know, it's a bit hyperbolic, but they're crazy people!
And look, you gotta be nuts if you wanna be a celebrity, seriously.
These people who are in the public light, it is torturous.
Like, anybody who says they want this, there's something wrong with them.
No, it is not fun having people know who you are and threaten you and know where you live.
It is awful.
It is absolutely awful.
It's one of the reasons why I'm setting up this van.
I'm gonna go drive to the woods and chill out and go fishing.
I can still work and then go fishing and not have anybody know where I live so I don't have to feel threatened by people who are actually sending me things.
You know.
He says, We're always angry about something.
If there's nothing important to be angry about, we'll find something dumb to be angry about.
Kimmel said in agreement, somebody will put pineapple on pizza and we'll lose our minds.
Good on you, Jimmy.
Good on you.
It's about time people start realizing how insane they've gotten.
Because I am really worried when you see mainstream television, if you watched the main segment I did on the Tim Pool channel, The mainstream is jumping in with the mob and encouraging an escalation in the tensions and conflict.
That's not a good thing.
Not a good thing for anybody.
I like this.
The Comedy Central star then pivoted to the Trump presidency and acknowledged a trait rarely seen in politics.
Then when Donald Trump was elected and then proceeded to do what he had promised, ironically, right?
Because it's funny that Donald Trump would be the first presidential candidate to actually deliver.
Hate him or love him.
Hate him or love him.
He's done things that he said he was going to do.
Yep.
What's going to be interesting for me in 2020 is this new narrative and this new discussion around the Democratic Party.
Because for a long time, it's just been one storyline.
Donald Trump, Noah said, at a South by Southwest panel in March.
But now it's going to be, who are the Democrats?
Who do they stand for?
What are their plans?
We're going to be at the conventions.
We're going to be tracking the primaries, Noah said.
We're going to go where there's access.
Yes.
Who are the Democrats?
I don't know.
Because Trump is actually more moderate than Republicans before him.
And this is the big challenge presented to Democrats.
If Trump is adopting your border policy from 2012, 2007, what do you run on?
You gotta go to the left.
Trump's policy on the border is not too dissimilar from Democrats in, you know, 2011, 2008.
We've seen all the speeches.
So what do they say?
It's morally wrong to build a wall.
Makes no sense.
Not an argument.
Okay?
I'm not saying the wall is the right thing to do.
I'm not saying Trump's policies make sense, but the Democrats certainly aren't arguing anything.
So it comes down to Trevor Noah.
Don't take my word for it.
It's not my opinion.
I think it's really funny when these lefties are like, Tim Pool is a conservative.
We're talking about these things.
Oh, is Trevor Noah conservative?
There's only one reason I'm doing this story, this segment, is so that I can show you a satirical article from the Babylon Bee.
Otherwise, I'd have no reason to actually talk about something that I find very funny about Ocasio-Cortez.
I got some more coming up shortly.
Stick around and I will see you soon.
There's only one reason I'm doing this story, this segment, is so that I can show you a
satirical article from the Babylon Bee.
Otherwise, I'd have no reason to actually talk about something that I find very funny
about Ocasio-Cortez.
The story here is from ComicBook.com.
DC Comics sent cease and desist over a cover, a comic book cover, depicting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
as Wonder Woman.
For those that aren't familiar, there was going to be a small release of a comic book
depicting AOC as a superhero.
However, the costume they gave her...
Made her look like Wonder Woman with some, like, kind of Batman aesthetic, and apparently now it's being shut down by DC.
Not surprising.
It is kind of weird, though, because it, you know, I don't have the graphic pulled up, but I think I might have, I do actually have it.
So in this in this graphic, it looks like it's satirical, it's parody, it's commentary, but that is basically Wonder Woman's costume.
But it looks like it's kind of like Batman 2, I guess?
I'm surprised this isn't covered under fair use, but yeah.
I mean, a cease and desist doesn't mean they're legally in the wrong.
We'll go through the comicbook.com article and figure out what's going on here, and then I want to show you this really, really funny satirical version.
But before we do that, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option through PayPal, a Bitcoin and crypto addresses, a physical address.
You can always just share this video, click the like button, that really, really helps, comment, etc.
Summer months, viewerships decline and it makes things a little harder, but it's cool.
Feel free to do whatever you want or do nothing at all, but let's read about this story from comicbook.com.
They say.
Ocasio-Cortez is making waves in Washington, D.C., but she's also making waves in the comics world too.
Though for different reasons.
Ocasio-Cortez is the subject of a new comic from Devil's Dew titled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Freedom Force
new party who dis Wow and in promotion of the launch the publisher has been
offering up special limited retailer variant covers One particular cover came under scrutiny for DC Comics though, being a bit too close to their iconic character Wonder Woman for their liking.
And now they've sent a cease and desist to Devil's Due.
The cover in question was the NY Collector Cave retailer exclusive cover by artist Carla Cohen, which as you can see below does bear a strong resemblance to DC's Wonder Woman, Ocasio-Cortez has an A symbol where the typical W would go, but it's not hard to make the leaf leap to Diana from Themyscira.
So apparently it's not the cover I showed earlier, it's this one.
That's literally Wonder Woman's costume.
And instead of the W, it's an A, but that is... That is Wonder Woman.
So... But I still have to wonder, though.
I mean, it's... You know what?
I'll say this.
I was gonna say I would assume this would fall under parody satire, but Wonder Woman herself isn't a specific person, meaning Someone might actually see this and think it is Wonder Woman, just because they drew it to look like Ocasio-Cortez with an ant in the chest doesn't mean anyone actually knows who Ocasio-Cortez- knows who she is, and it's also possible people just assume it's a variant on Wonder Woman.
They say, the print run was already going to be a small at 250 copies, but once DC sent their cease and desist notice, that will now be even smaller as DC requested the covers not be distributed, but recalled, returned, or destroyed.
The cover, however, has already been printed.
So while 250 won't be available, there will be some to get your hands on if you want them.
But do expect the price to jump.
The cover was originally sold for $30 by NY Collector Cave, and then jumped to $40 from several sellers on eBay.
It jumped again to $70 on eBay, and you can still bet it will make another jump over the next week or so.
This is gonna be worth a lot of money, because it's... Look, it's gonna be an extremely rare discontinued thing.
They say, If you've been wanting an Ocasio-Cortez Wonder Woman cover, you best be getting it now, yada yada yada.
Well, let me explain what this is, for those that are curious.
Do they have the actual... You know what, I don't think I have the actual thing pulled up about the history of the Ocasio-Cortez comic.
But essentially...
Look at this cover.
This is the original cover.
For those that are listening, you probably can't see, but it's Ocasio-Cortez, and she does look like she's wearing the same Wonder Woman outfit.
It says, New Party Who Dis?
Freshman Force.
It is one of the cringiest things I have ever seen.
I have never cringed so hard in my life at this.
New Party Who Dis?
Oh, it is so fellow kids, okay?
Do you know what r slash fellow kids is?
There's a scene from 30 Rock where Steve Buscemi walks in, very clearly an old man, he's wearing a red hoodie and a grey shirt, it says Music Band on it, and he's got a skateboard, and he says, How do you do, fellow kids?
30 Rock is awesome, by the way.
And so, yes, this is, it's like, people who aren't cool trying to pretend to be cool, and it is the cringiest, awful, oh, it's so awful!
There's apparently some kind of democrat donkey king going like, nyah, with their, pulling on their collar, and she's standing over a red king elephant.
Very obvious what they're trying to allude to here.
The ultimate cringe, I gotta say.
Wow.
This is a story I'm reading from the New York Post.
But let's do this.
Let's do something a little different.
I normally don't read satirical articles.
Trust me, this is hilarious.
Babylon Bee is very, very funny.
They have this article from a couple days ago called An Exclusive Look at the New Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Comic Book.
However, in this version, the cover shows her with what appears to be the Infinity Gauntlet from Avengers, and she calls it the Inclusivity Gauntlet.
Uh, I'm gonna- because I'm already- you know what?
I'm gonna save the surprise for you at the end as to what you think the Inclusivity Gauntlet will end up doing to America, but it's funny.
So this is a- again, keep in mind, this is all fake, meant to be funny, but let's read it.
They say, from New York, comic book artists are so inspired by Rep.
Ocasio-Cortez that they've decided to turn her into a superhero.
The new comic is titled, Alexandre Ocasio-Cortez, 12 Years to Midnight.
That's a play on the Doomsday Clock, where we're at, I think we're like three minutes to midnight.
And the clock means that once you hit midnight, like the world ends or something.
And what do you think it is that Ocasio-Cortez is fighting with her superpowers?
Not donkeys and elephants.
with baby steps," said one of the artists on the project.
While the publisher, Golden Gulag Comics, has kept art from the comic tightly under wraps,
the Babylon Bee has received an exclusive first look of four panels from the upcoming series, Watch
Out, Avengers! There's a new superhero in town. And what do you think it is that Ocasio-Cortez
is fighting with their superpowers? Not donkeys and elephants. The first picture
shows her punching an airplane out of the sky. And she says, maybe, it says, ka-punch, maybe next
time you'll be a train, plain brain.
And the pilot says, thanks, AOC, as they're knocked out of the sky.
It gets better.
This is where the comic starts off, with wisecracks reminiscent of Peter Parker himself.
The fearless congresswoman has taken to the skies, punching carbon-spewing airliners and sending them plummeting to their doom.
Take that, pollution!
It only gets better from here.
In the next panel, there is a giant cow with guns hooked up to its back, which I can only assume are hooked up to its butt, because it's shooting farts!
And Ocasio-Cortez says, oh no, Cowpocalypse is destroying the world with atomic death farts.
My doom clock says we have only 12 years left!
I love this.
Babylon Bee is hilarious.
Ocasio-Cortez recently tried claiming that her repeatedly saying, we only had 12 years left and the world's gonna end or something, was a joke!
It was dry humor!
No, sorry, that's not how it works.
The Hill quoted you, okay?
You're not joking.
Here's where it gets even better.
New York is overtaken by cowpocalypse.
The dreaded fart cannon-wielding bovine uses its own toxic flatulence to systematically destroy the Earth.
Ocasio-Cortez's doom timer begins counting down a mere twelve years before cowpocalypse has obliterated the planet in a misty cloud of death.
Oh, this is fantastic.
The next one depicts a strange, gigantic machine, Thomas Sowell, holding a book titled, by Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics.
He's got a calculator on his wrist, and it says, That was when her arch-enemy, the Economist, discovered her greatest weakness.
The book is blasting energy at Ocasio-Cortez, and she says, Ack, I feel all the strength draining out of me.
Here's the best part.
Later, after battling an army of ninja croissants using parts from an unassembled IKEA dresser, Ocasio-Cortez is caught off guard by her arch-nemesis, the Economist.
Mild-mannered Thomas Sowell has created a mutant horror who wields the power of Ocasio-Cortez's greatest weakness, basic economics.
But spoiler alert, that's not the end!
Yes.
Now, were you wondering what the Inclusivity Gauntlet would do?
Well, what did you think it would do?
This next panel says, finally the power was hers.
Now half of America will be wiped out.
Yes.
The Inclusivity Gauntlet wipes out half the population of America, not too dissimilar to the Infinity Gauntlet.
She says thanks to the Inclusivity Gauntlet.
In the nick of time, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez acquires the fabled Inclusivity Gauntlet, Which contains the six social justice gems, giving her the power of a god.
With this power, Ocasio-Cortez does what any benevolent deity would do.
She wipes out half of the country in order to bring a new age of peace, kindness, and free stuff.
The creators say there is more to come in the follow-up series, AOC The Dark Age Returns.
Alexandre Ocasio-Cortez, 12 years to midnight, hits comic shops today and is sure to be a smash hit with fans of comics, democratic socialism, and those who hate math.
That was all just a joke.
I want to make sure it's entirely clear to everybody I'm reading a satirical article.
Normally it wouldn't do this.
I've seen a bunch of Babylon Bee articles that I thought would be funny to read.
But in light of the news, The actual, uh, comic from, uh, Ocasio-Cortez is being, uh, restricted.
I thought it would be funny to read.
But I also would like to point out, I would absolutely buy this comic.
Please.
Seriously.
If someone made an actual full-length version of this, with, like, four chapters that actually went through each of these things in full length, I would- I would- I would give you my money.
I- Take my money, please.
I don't care for the super cringey Ocasio-Cortez New Party Who Dis.
unidentified
Oh, God, it's so cringey it makes me wanna just, like, Ah, jeez, ugh.
Anyway, I thought it would be fun to do something a little bit silly following up this news,
and so it gave me an excuse to point to something that was funny.
Hopefully you laughed, and laughing is sometimes good.
I don't wanna always be negative, as much as it's kind of insulting of Kaiser Cortez.
Hey, it's comedy, there you go.
I got one more video coming up, one more segment.
Actually, for those on the podcast, there should be two more segments,
but one more video coming up on YouTube, and I will see you shortly.
Apparently, in India, a wave of false accusations is resulting in what they're calling
the hashtag MenTo movement.
I have two stories.
This is really weird.
This was posted on Reddit, on the news section, and there's a lot of criticism of it, because people are saying, should there be a MenToo movement at all, because MeToo can't include them.
We saw, I'm forgetting the actor's name, why I feel really bad, Terry Crews.
Terry Crews came out and he made some accusations.
So MeToo can absolutely be about men, there doesn't need to be a MenToo movement, add a little N to it.
But this is specifically about the right of anonymity.
If you're accused, should you have the right to remain anonymous?
And I think this extends beyond just these particular crimes to any crime.
If you're accused of a crime, should your name be plastered all over the press?
Maybe not.
Maybe, unless you're convicted, you should have a right to anonymity.
So there's two stories here with different people in India.
There's a lot to talk about with India because India has serious problems.
But before we do that, make sure you check out TimCast.com slash donate.
If you'd like to support my work, I really do rely on your assistance.
There's a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency, physical address.
But of course, you can always just share this video.
Click that like button.
Like, apparently clicking the like button really does boost you in the algorithm, so that's very, you know, helpful if you don't want to do anything else.
Or you know what?
Do nothing at all!
You have no obligations.
I just, I appreciate any support.
Well, let's check this out.
So this is from the Times of India.
India, as you know, has a seriously screwed up history with, you know, assault and things like this.
But they still bring up the question about men too, so let's read this.
From Mumbai, they say, Mentoo movement.
Is it time for a debate on anonymity of the accused, like in Ireland?
Ask activist's lawyer.
In the Republic of Ireland, the accused can remain anonymous until the trial is over.
And even then, unless convicted and the identification wouldn't endanger the anonymity of the complainant, he can't be identified.
But while naming and shaming an accused in an assault case is par for the course in most jurisdictions, there's a simmering debate elsewhere on the need to maintain anonymity of the accused in these cases.
I want to point something out.
They bring up a really good point.
Think about the victim.
If the victim wants to remain anonymous, that can be a really, really good thing for victims.
They don't want people knowing about what happened to them.
If the accused is made public, it's bad for the victim too.
So perhaps the best thing we can do, not just in these areas, in any areas, is anonymity.
You have a right to confront your accuser.
But does that mean there's a right for people to blast their image of the victim or the accused?
Maybe not.
It's an interesting point.
They say, India may well be ripe for such debate, say activists and lawyers.
Earlier this year, the acquittal of two rugby players in a high-profile trial in Belfast prompted both academics and parliamentarians to enter the debate in support of the Irish law on anonymity of defendants and complainants in these trials.
Five years ago, England too was in throes of a heated public discussion on the need to bring in a law not to name the accused until conviction.
No such law, however, emerged.
But after the Belfast trials ended with a clean chit to the rugby players, a member of parliament in Northern Ireland raised the demand once again to seek same right of anonymity to the accused that a complainant has.
BBC reported almost three decades ago Harvard law professors had advocated non-naming of accused on mere accusations.
But again, I think this should extend to all crimes.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Let's point out, there's nuance, okay?
Not every crime is the same thing.
It's not black and white.
There are differences between, you know, even in specific crimes, there's degrees, right?
First degree, second degree, third, there's class A, there's class B, etc.
Misdemeanor, felony, it's not all just one crime or nothing.
Should we extend anonymity to every facet?
Should it only be in, you know, this area?
I don't know, but I think it's a really interesting point being brought up.
Let's read on.
In India now, civil rights activists agree that restraint should be exercised against naming the accused before at least a charge sheet, say some, until conviction.
say others. Given the rise in the number of cases where the complainant seeks to drop charges after
saying it was consensual or the promise of marriage is fulfilled, it is increasingly clear
that a change to the law is required for cases to protect the name of the accused till he is
convicted. Till they are convicted, women can do this too, said former Bombay HC Justice VM
Kanade Edding. I believe there should be some law, but a distinction has to be made between
a case filed after a relationship has ended and one where it is a clear case of violence or force.
Of course, yeah.
So there's more.
Names of the accused in certain cases filed need to be made not public till investigation is complete and charge sheet is filed.
There is stigma associated with such cases, but a false accusation can also stigmatize an accused in society, said Flavia Agnes, leading women's activist, who started Majilis.
who started Majilis, Majilis, Indian, sorry if I can't pronounce it properly.
This is necessary because even an accused has a right to privacy and a fair, not public
trial.
I completely agree.
While Irish law of automatic anonymity for the accused, some campaigners of the rights of the victims argue against granting such anonymity, arguing that naming an accused empowers other victims to come forward.
I don't necessarily agree, because if the victim wants to remain anonymous, then you can't name the accused, and who gets the right to name who?
If, you know, basically, I guess the point is, if the victim knows the perpetrator, and that's most cases, then it'll be really easy to identify the victim in the case.
But there is another story from the India Times bringing up the issue just the other day.
Amit Deshpande, gender equality activist, says, we need a movement like men, too, because crime has no gender.
I agree, but I also think it's fair to point out statistics that men are more likely to be the victim of and the perpetrator of many different crimes.
Take that for what you want, that's just what we see in the numbers, right?
And so a lot of people say that's, you know, transphobic or it's sexist or whatever.
It's like, look, man, I don't know.
There's a lot of things behind a lot of things, but let's see what's going on with this other article.
So there's this image here, I'm not sure what it is, but it says, men too is as important as me too.
Let me address that and say, I don't know if it's ever, like, I don't know how you quantify which is more important or not as important.
But if you have someone who is a man advocating for a male issue, then I believe they should have a right to do that.
And if you have a woman advocating for a female issue, they have a right to do that.
And just because both sides are advocating against issues affecting them doesn't mean they oppose each other.
And I actually think, you know, considering the nature of these stories, it was actually really important for men's rights activists to actually work with, you know, feminists, masculists and feminists, because they actually agree on a lot of things, but are focused on their personal, you know, issues, right?
One of the big problems I've seen is that a lot of what mainstream feminism pushes, it kind of diminishes masculinity or men's issues.
And that's illegitimate, in my opinion.
You should be able, as a woman, to point out, like, hey, this thing is bad, and it's focused its discrimination against women.
And a men's rights activist should be like, wow, you're right, that is gender discrimination, and we should help with that.
Hey, have you noticed I have this issue in this area?
And they can both be like, hey, maybe if we work together, we can solve problems together.
Unfortunately, People like the other.
Mainstream feminists blame the patriarchy.
Now, they try and tone things down and say it doesn't mean individual men, but you have to understand that still reflects negatively on an individual man when they're told they're toxic or part of the system.
Especially if they don't feel that way.
You know, men are more likely to be homeless, more likely to die on the job.
Men aren't going to feel like they're in charge when those things are true.
So people need to, you know, come together and try and figure out these problems.
They say, there are regular stories in the media of gangs extorting money from innocent men with the threat of false accusations.
Salman, an IT consultant, had consensual intercourse with his girlfriend and he wanted to marry her.
He has submitted proof of her consent and his willingness to marry her.
They both got engaged in the presence of friends.
Wow, that's... I wonder if that would be illegal in the US.
the marriage. Eventually, his girlfriend refused. They broke up. But suddenly after a year,
she barged into his office saying she is pregnant and wanted him to marry her. Upon his refusal,
she filed an accusation against him. Within a couple days, citing intercourse under false
promise of marriage. Wow, that's... I wonder if that would be illegal in the US. Like,
coercive, maybe? She also filed a case of assault against his cancer-stricken sister.
And another case against his father, who spent a week in jail.
Geez!
So, let me stress one thing, too, about India.
Most of the news we hear about India is not about men being falsely accused.
It's about the nightmarishly horrifying problem of men attacking women in India.
Let's make that really clear.
India's got some serious problems.
But I want to stress, in terms of rights, just because, you know, two things can be true at the same time.
It is absolutely true there's a problem with men, you know, hurting women.
And it's absolutely true that some innocent men are targeted by vindictive evil women.
Should we ignore one problem because two problems exist?
No!
We can certainly allocate on both problems, and we can try and figure out a triage system which one needs to be addressed first.
It doesn't mean we ignore the other one.
It's always been weird to me that because of stories like this, you know, you have people who say, if a men's rights activist is advocating for a men's rights issue, he's clearly opposed to feminists.
Like, oh, hold on, man.
Just because they're focusing on their issues doesn't mean you should deride them or assume the worst.
What is that, you know, why is that the issue?
Why does everyone think that certain, you know, I'll take that back, it's not everybody, it's typically this, like, progressive, regressive, whatever you want to call it, where they're like, you can't be sexist towards men, or racist towards white people, instead of being like, everybody experiences unique problems, and we should figure out which problems we can solve together, and then move, you know, into solving these problems.
I'm not going to read too much into the second story, though, because I think it's mostly the same thing, so we'll just leave it there.
Basically, I find it interesting that you have men in India, of all places, bring up this idea of a Men Too movement.
It's not the first time it's been called for, but I thought it would be interesting to read about, considering it's been brought up several times.
I found it on Reddit, you know, so I thought it was interesting.
There was a lot of a lot of the comments in the news section were fairly negative towards it.
So is what it is.
Let me know what you think in the comments.
We'll leave it there again.
You can support my work by going to Timcast.com slash donate.
I will see you all for those listening to the podcast one more segment, but for everybody else, I'll see you tomorrow at 10 a.m.
On this channel.
Last month on a TV show called The Good Fight, a character started monologuing about how it's good to use violence to, quote, enforce Overton's window.
The idea being that if people are engaging in speech outside of what is publicly acceptable, you will beat them to enforce what is publicly acceptable.
One of the biggest issues with this is that what is or isn't publicly acceptable varies from time to time.
There was a long time ago Being gay wasn't publicly acceptable.
And it is wrong to physically attack someone for doing something or believing something or living a way that you don't like.
It's called liberty.
And you can't use force to impose your will on others.
Today, we're going to be talking about the duplicitous nature of the left, how they simultaneously argue that speech is or isn't violence, that silence is simultaneously violence, and how they're actively encouraging violence.
And there are some really interesting things I've sort of noticed.
With this Huffington Post article, they say, Conservatives are upset.
The good fight wants you to punch Nazis.
Interesting.
He's saying that conservatives are upset because they don't want the political space to turn into a violent space.
Over here at Talking Points Memo, they claim that it's the fascists trying to push society from voting to violence.
It makes you wonder then, because maybe we now see the mask slip.
It is not conservatives who are trying to bring about a violent fascist paramilitary state.
It's Antifa marching through the streets beating people, and it's people on the left, like Andy Campbell at Huffington Post, who are upset that people are trying to de-escalate the violent tensions.
Now before we get into all this, make sure you go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
I really do rely on the support of all of you.
Summer months can get really bad with viewership, so there's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course, you can always just share this video and click the like button to tell YouTube it's a good video and that other people should watch it as well.
First, we'll go briefly through this story from the Huffington Post.
I don't want to go too in-depth.
Now, Andy Campbell is an activist.
He's very overtly far-left.
In some instances, he's exaggerated or, my understanding, he's produced overt fake news about the gaming industry.
I don't want to get into his history, because it's not about him.
It's about the idea of being pushed by websites like Huffington Post.
There's a reason why people say it's not good to punch Nazis.
The real issue is it's not good to punch them unprovoked.
Certainly, if someone attacks you, defend yourself.
If these people are actually showing up and engaging in riotous behavior, then yes, we should have the police come in and stop this from happening.
However, the issue started the narrative because Richard Spencer was standing on a street corner giving an interview and someone punched him.
We then saw a wave of mainstream left-wing publications cheering this on.
In fact, YouTube got involved.
This is a video from Akilah Hughes, also known as AkilahObviously.
I briefly worked with her in some capacity when I was at Fusion, although we didn't really overlap because she does comedy and I do politics and news.
Here we have a video from her from February 18th, 2017.
It says, always punch Nazis, this shouldn't be news.
AkilahObviously, however.
Well, some people who are uninitiated or, you know, don't pay attention to politics might hear this and say, well, yes, of course, these are bad people.
She says, the same goes for anyone else thinking their hate speech should be protected.
That goes for the majority of Americans.
She is saying that anybody who believes hate speech should be protected should be punched.
They should be prepared to get hit, she says.
This is mainstream.
This is a verified YouTube account calling for political violence against anyone who believes in true free speech.
This includes Ricky Gervais, the comedian who recently tweeted that if you don't believe in free speech for even the most repugnant ideas, you don't believe in free speech.
Akilah Hughes is absolutely saying he should be prepared to be hit.
One of the things I often highlight is George Carlin, who has numerous offensive segments.
It's one of his most famous bits, the seven words you can't say on TV.
But he also has segments about assault and racism, where he uses almost every slur you can think of.
And that's George Carlin.
People say, remember when the left was liberal?
Well, let's go here to this Talking Points memo article.
This article was written in response to the idea of punching Nazis.
It concludes by saying that pushing civil society from talk and voting to violence and paramilitaries is what the fascists are trying to accomplish, moving from the rule of law to the rule of force.
Interestingly, it sounds like this article is actually implying that the left are the real fascists, which I don't believe is fair to say, actually, because fascism implies some kind of nationalism.
They're definitely authoritarians, and yes, We can show some examples.
The mainstream left is trying to move the arena from speech and voting into violence.
First, the obvious.
The show from The Good Fight, where he actually says you need to use violence to enforce Overton's Window.
Again, I'm going to stress, there was a period where interracial dating was not considered publicly acceptable.
My family faced the brunt of that and were forced to flee from state to state because it was actually illegal.
I would never encourage anyone to engage in violence to enforce Overton's window when you think about the history of this nation and the great things we fought to overcome.
This is a terrifying fascistic ideology.
Let's move on.
Burger King UK.
They tweeted just the other day.
Dear people of Scotland, we're selling milkshakes all weekend.
Have fun.
Love, BK.
Just saying.
Now, you may be asking yourself, what does this have to do with anything?
What does Burger King telling people they're selling milkshakes have to do with anything?
It has to do with the fact the police requested restaurants, including McDonald's, to not sell milkshakes because people are using them as projectiles.
They're buying milkshakes to throw at people.
Most notably is Carl Benjamin, who was recently hit with a milkshake.
Now he's been hit with several.
This is the left trying to move the political space into the arena of violence.
It was not Carl Benjamin advocating for physical conflict or confrontation.
He's advocating people come out, speak, and vote.
Yet we saw from Talking Points Memo, it's the fascists who are trying to move from talking and voting to violence.
Again, it would seem it's the left who are advocating for fascism.
Burger King then had to clarify, saying, This tweet was in response to the police saying, please don't do this.
Burger King flew in the face of the request.
Not only that, but Burger King actually liked several tweets from Antifa, from Antifa activists, or people calling them Antifa, and encouraging this behavior.
You may say, milkshakes are silly and it's funny.
In fact, one former Vice reporter called it comedy.
But it doesn't end with comedy.
I responded, it's weird to see so many former Vice people radicalized to the authoritarian left, especially considering Vice's history.
Vice is not historically far left.
Vice, when I worked there, had a pretty serious problem with not being woke.
In fact, they had numerous lawsuits against them recently, which we won't get into.
But to see someone from Vice cheering on the escalation of violence, moving from speech and voting into violence, his response was, it's a joke.
Carl will understand.
My response to him was, telling an offensive joke, albeit one far less offensive than George Carlin had told, is different from throwing things at people.
This is radicalization.
Normal people do not want fighting and violence.
We've already seen fights breaking out, and bricks being thrown.
And yes, regardless of your opinion on what's going on with Vote Tommy for MEP, we did see a large crowd of people show up to one of his events, and they were throwing bricks, bottles, they were fighting, The tensions escalated.
It started with milkshakes, and it ended with bricks.
Henry Langston responded with, yes, it's different, as in the milkshaking is funny.
But what Carl Benjamin said is in no way funny whatsoever, because trying to make light of assault.
Glad I could clarify that for you.
My response?
Escalating violence isn't funny.
I don't find assault jokes funny.
I'm trying to be light on the language for the podcast.
Two things can be true at the same time.
I recognize that George Carlin made a lot of these jokes in the past.
I also recognize that as a society we change and sometimes we think some things shouldn't or shouldn't be acceptable.
I personally don't find them overly humorous, but I also don't think people should be silenced, especially considering George Carlin was a pioneer in fighting censorship.
Henry Langston said, I'm not pushing for violent escalation.
I'm finding it hilarious to watch Carl get milkshaked.
It's not surprising you're finding this so difficult.
But to imply that moving from speech into acts of physical violence is comedy would be to encourage it.
And interestingly, yes, we've seen many more vice employees do this.
But let's talk about the idea of speech.
Because one of the important things about what happened to Carl Benjamin, Is that one of the protesters who apparently showed up had this to say, that assault jokes equals violence.
One of the things we often hear from many people on the far left is that speech is violence.
In fact, there are articles from the New York Times saying real speech can cause real harm, anxiety, stress.
So it is violence.
Is it not?
Well, not really.
But before we move into the contradiction of the left and how they're encouraging, let me say this.
These activists have no defining principles.
They will weaponize whatever they can to win.
I, as an individual, you know, me personally, I have principles.
I believe in fairness.
I believe in care.
I believe in liberty.
Those are my moral, my strongest moral foundations.
But these people don't have particular moral foundations.
They just want to win for their tribe.
You can't simultaneously say that speech is violence Here we have another image saying speech is violence, but then also claim that white silence is violence.
What they're basically saying is, if you speak ill of us, it's violence, and if you don't say what we want you to say, it's also violence.
Quite literally, say what we want to say or else.
And of course you know what the direct response is.
You will be punched because you should be prepared to get hit.
The same goes for anyone else thinking their hate speech should be protected.
If you do not agree with them, you are violent and they will attack you.
It is not the right.
It is not the conservatives.
So when people ask me why I'm so concerned with the left, I think it's plain as day.
Here we have a study from the Cato Institute, the state of free speech and tolerance in America.
And what may be one of the more shocking findings is that there's actually a decent amount of people in this country that say it's more, liberals, only half of them say it's morally acceptable to punch Nazis.
Again, it's not an issue of punching Nazis, it's the shift in the Overton window, and it's the shift in who gets called that word.
The number that I find most alarming in this is that 40% think government should prevent hate speech in public.
The number is shifting.
That's a lot of people in this country who think the government should regulate hate speech.
But they can't.
We have a First Amendment, and hate speech is clearly an opinion.
And this shows how dangerous the rhetoric is becoming.
This is a Cato study from 2017.
If we don't push back on this, then it's going to be lost, and we're already seeing tensions escalating to violent confrontation in the UK.
Once again, it's the left doing this, not the right.
I will stress, they're absolutely individuals on the fringe far right, but these are disparate groups of random individuals who tend to act as lone wolves.
When it comes to the left, you have a CBS television show, you have Burger King, you have high-profile news outlets and personalities, journalists, all advocating for the escalation of violent conflict.
We have this story from the Washington Post claiming that online hate turns into real-life violence.
Well, it's not completely untrue.
You know, people can be radicalized.
In fact, we've seen some pretty crazy individuals become radicalized online.
But we're not seeing mainstream support for it.
We're seeing mainstream condemnation.
Conservatives and liberals alike will condemn this behavior.
When it comes to violence from the left in the streets with bricks, bottles, milkshakes, whatever it might be, we see the story often ignored.
There was an individual in Portland who clubbed someone over the head with a bike lock for having an American flag.
It was a Bernie voter who got hit.
Where was the mass condemnation from the left?
They ignore it.
They ignore these stories, they cheer it on, and they contradict themselves.
Is speech violence or isn't it?
Well, here's the thing.
This is a woman who's claiming that jokes are violence.
I'll give you another bit of evidence of there being no principles among the left.
They're simply a tribe who seeks to win.
It's funny how Bill Maher says the conservatives just want to own the libs.
Sure, that's true for some people.
But you have activists out in the streets saying jokes are violence.
And then when Mark Pitkovich of the Anti-Defamation League says anarchist violence against a law office in Portland Someone responds, violence?
No, it's vandalism.
Violence is a big stretch.
Pitkovich said damaging property is a violent act.
Here we can see that there is not a defining principle here.
I will give respect to Mark Pitkovich, who what I would say is aligned with the left working for the Anti-Defamation League.
Recognizing.
Yes, vandalism is violence.
How can you simultaneously have activists on the left claiming that jokes are violence, but that destroying property, burning down churches, etc.
are not violence?
They claim that smashing windows and setting fires is not violence, but that jokes are violence.
How does that make sense?
One is a physical act of destruction, and one is you saying a mean word.
I gotta stress one more time.
This video from Akilah.
Akilah is somebody who has been promoted By high-profile personalities like the Green Brothers.
One of her biggest videos was promoted.
My understanding, I believe it was John or Hank Green.
They're big YouTubers.
They're big mainstream personalities.
But also, she speaks at VidCon.
The biggest video convention in the world is my understanding for online digital video.
And she's been promoted by YouTube specifically.
She says, the same goes for anyone else thinking their hate speech should be protected.
That includes someone like George Carlin.
George Carlin, rest his soul.
Then we get to where we are today.
Just recently we heard one of Bill Maher's guests said that Trump deserves what Khashoggi got from the Saudis.
The mainstream left has been normalizing calls for violence.
Kathy Griffin showing a severed head of the president.
A guest on Bill Maher saying that Trump deserves what Khashoggi got.
Khashoggi was killed.
The audience cheered and clapped for this.
I don't see mainstream conservatives advocating for this behavior.
Not at all.
They're certainly fringe weirdos.
There's a big difference between some random person on the internet who's saying stupid things on some stupid website and someone appearing on the Bill Maher Real Time with Bill Maher, a mainstream live HBO program, And having an audience cheer for violence.
Let me throw it back to Talking Points Memo.
Pushing civil society from talk and voting to violence and paramilitaries is what the fascists are trying to accomplish.
So what would you call Antifa?
And what would you call this from Fran Lebowitz?
Now, she did apologize later in the show, but it was because pushback.
People on social media were heavily criticizing her.
We can then see where the escalation takes us.
Anarchist threat emerges across Europe.
Parcel bomb sent to French and German officials.
I absolutely do not want to downplay the threat of the fringe far right.
I will stress it again.
These tend to be lone wolf, crazy people, small cells but rare.
They do commit extremely Lethal acts.
And they tend to be much more efficient than the brick-throwing, bottle-throwing left.
I'm not saying that one is worse or better than the other.
I'm pointing out they're different and two things can be true at the same time.
That they're both bad.
But often we see the mainstream ignore the rising threat from the far left.
They often talk about how there's a bigger threat from the far right.
By all means, it's fair to point that out.
But we can't ignore the mainstreaming of calls for violence and escalation.
When Burger King joins the fray and defies a police request because of the escalating tensions.
The police are saying, please don't sell this because violence is escalating and Burger King makes fun of it.
They make it a joke.
They don't realize that they're on the side that's encouraging the escalation.
It's mob mentality.
When major brands are jumping up and down and giggling and laughing because they're a part of the mob, you can damn well be sure the escalation will only get worse.
And it does.
A Greek CNN reporter had their car destroyed by a bomb.
Thankfully, the reporter was uninjured.
But this is a reporter for CNN whose car was blown up only a few days ago.
Why?
She believes, excuse me, because she was reporting on the leader of a far-left group.
They didn't like that, so she was targeted.
I'll end with this one final thought.
This is from Nietzsche.
Be aware, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster, for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
These people believe everyone is a Nazi.
They believe that anyone who dare have an opinion is a Nazi.
They call liberals Nazis.
They put up signs that liberals get the bullet.
These people have become the monsters.
One of the analogies I've often used is that the anti-racist, anti-fascist types are kind of like white blood cells.
But when they've destroyed the pathogen, the invader, they continue to attack healthy cells.
It's like an autoimmune disorder.
There was a period where anti-racist activists and anti-fascist activists were important to actually push back the actual rise of fascism.
Today, they just think anybody who believes in free speech is one of these as well.
And that's when the white blood cells begin attacking the healthy cells, and it's causing everything to fall apart.
It's no surprise to me then that in Australia, we saw another Trump-Brexit phenomenon.
If you haven't been following, the right was projected to lose for years.
They won.
What do you think's going to happen come 2020?
The left has become fractured, increasingly calling for violence.
Mocking those who try to simmer down tensions.
It is a mob mentality of people with no principle, who simultaneously believe that jokes are violence, speech is violence, but silence is also violence.
They both can't be true at the same time.
And so long as mainstream outlets like the Huffington Post and YouTube encourage people to push this, things will only get worse.
And it ends when Burger King thinks it's funny to join in the fun.
Laughing, haha, at the escalation of violence.
And then people show up with bricks.
People show up with bricks and rocks and bike locks.
And it can only lead to one conclusion.
I've said often, over the past few years, that I believe escalation is truly coming.
And I'll tell you why.
When you have Burger King saying, we're going to keep selling milkshakes, we understand.
They know the joke.
They know what's happening.
We've got mainstream corporations agreeing on it.
When you have people writing articles criticizing conservatives for being upset that people are calling for violence, where do you think things are headed?
This is the mainstream left encouraging this behavior.
This is YouTubers with large followings, not the biggest following, but being promoted by the mainstream saying, prepare to get hit.
Do you think that the people on the other side are going to sit there and just take the punch, take the brick?
No, they're going to show up in force.
And of course, the people on the left who are encouraging the escalation, just call everybody a Nazi and they'll escalate right back.
I believe it's going to get really bad, but you know what?
It's been a long time coming.
These things keep getting worse, but the left doesn't back down.
They don't.
While I can certainly stress at the end of this, there are fringe right-wing weirdos who do bad things, for sure.
But to take those fringe right-wing weirdos and label all conservatives, all free speech advocates, people like George Carlin, saying they deserve to be hit?
It's you who's escalating this.
It's the left.
So, when people again ask me, why am I so concerned with the left?
Well, it's because Stephen Crowder, right, high-profile conservative, condemned the violence.
Paul Joseph Watson condemned the violence.
Who got banned?
Stephen Crowder was throttled on Facebook.
Paul Joseph Watson was banned.
Yet the people who advocate for violence repeatedly are platformed.
CBS television show tells you, you must enforce Overton's window with violence.
Let's go back to the 1960s, when people were just trying to live their lives, but miscegenation laws prevented people who were of mixed race from cohabitating.
You couldn't even live together.
Would you then call for people to use violence to enforce Overton's window?
No.
I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Next video will be coming up at, for those watching on YouTube, it'll be youtube.com slash timcast at 6 p.m.
But I believe this segment is now going to be the end of the podcast.
