Right Wing Nationalists See Major Victories in European Elections
Ratings Collapse And Layoffs Are Making The Media Go Crazy. Media ratings are failing and as these companies become more desperate for views so they can make money they turn to far left activists to push ragebait content and nonsense.Vox recently published a video claiming that Fox news is in control of the political narrative. The only problem? You can easily fact check some of their claims to see they are not true. They claimed that Hillary's email server was a non issue but Fox News pushed it so everyone else followed. Except it was the New York Times and the AP that pushed that story not Fox News.CNN recently rushed to the defense of the democrats and nancy pelosi over a video they thought made her look bad. Why would they do that? It seems they are in desperate need for news and something that will enrage people. It worked. Delete Facebook started trending among outraged leftists.It's no surprise to hear that just the other day another story emerged about CNN layoffs coming
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
One of the things I've been warning about, as media slowly collapses, is that as they lose their viewership, they'll become increasingly desperate, thrashing about, trying to stay afloat.
The news stories will get crazier and crazier, they will hire more and more activists because it's cheaper, and it's going to get particularly bad.
If you thought the smears were bad two years ago, three years ago, wait till you see what comes next.
Because, another story.
CNN is expecting more layoffs.
See, it was only a couple weeks ago that Brian Stelter, the media reporter of CNN, said, no, no, no, layoffs aren't coming.
Trust me.
The spokesperson for CNN, shooting those down.
It's a media, it's a buyout, it's a voluntary buyout.
Meaning if you leave the company, they'll pay you out.
Then what happened?
About a week ago, layoffs were announced.
And now we're hearing it again.
More layoffs announced at CNN.
We also have this story.
Local newspaper giant Gatehouse Media is laying off journalists across the U.S.
in cuts their CEO is calling immaterial.
As these companies lay more and more people off, they turn to cheaper and cheaper individuals to hire.
They turn to people who can generate clickbait and ragebait articles that will make them some money.
And the activists emerge.
We then see completely nonsensical and insane stories like this from Vox.
You're watching Fox News, you just don't know it, where they actually state things like Hillary's email scandal only became news because Fox willed it so, which is an insane conspiracy theory that says one important thing to me.
Vox and the other progressive digital media outlets like it are in the minority and the fringe.
But from their bubble, they think everything is far-right and a right-wing conspiracy.
So the only reason anyone would talk about Hillary's emails is because Fox News willed it so.
But guess what?
Fact check, that's absolutely not true.
And this is weird conspiracy nonsense coming from Vox.
And there's a good reason why.
They're going to start failing just like everybody else, and even they know it.
Now, before we go any further, make sure you check out TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, cryptocurrency, a physical address, but of course, just share this video, like, and comment, because the engagement really, really helps.
But let's go and look at a story I covered a couple weeks ago.
Disney put more than $400 million in device media.
Now it says that investment is worthless.
A now familiar story.
Investors say they overvalued a high-flying digital publisher.
And wait!
Vox is not immune to the same phenomenon.
Even they recognize it.
Saying, we don't yet know the value that Comcast, which put a collective $600 million into Vox Media and BuzzFeed over the past few years, now thinks those two publishers are worth.
But it's a reasonable bet that Comcast thinks they are worth less than it thought in 2015.
What happens when the highest rated cable channel, Fox News, talks about something?
Well, they're probably talking about it for a few reasons.
Because...
Other people are talking about it.
Fox doesn't just make up what's newsworthy, nor does the New York Times or the Associated Press or any outlet.
Vox, like any other outlet, is trying to figure out what their audience cares about and cover stories they think will have a positive impact.
Sometimes there is a profit motive.
A company thinks, hey, if we write some insane conspiracy nonsense about Fox News controlling politics, people on the left will click it.
And as Vox becomes desperate for views, that's my opinion of what they're doing, because a simple fact check proves their thesis is 100% false.
So why would they publish it then?
I think it's for money.
But that's what we end up seeing.
In this story, they talk about how you, they say, you are watching Fox News because Fox is manipulating all journalism.
They actually say in this video that journalism, journalists are pressured and scared of appearing as biased against conservatives.
So when conservatives say something, they just go and run with it.
Which is 100% not true, and Covington should be evidence to anybody that's not true.
A video of a kid smirking, and it got national attention.
That's it.
It was a kid smirking.
No fact-checking, no journalism, and they jumped on board.
The other day, a man named, I believe, Ian Bremmer, published a fake quote from Donald Trump.
It went viral with journalists commenting on it and virtue signaling to the resistance about how anti-Trump they were as well.
Was there any journalism or fact-checking?
No, there wasn't.
But I thought, as Carlos Maza says, journalists are pressured by the conservatives to talk about their talking points.
Just sounds completely absurd.
And to point out how insane this video is, he actually shows himself in the video.
It's in the thumbnail, but I'm trying to find it in the clip.
He shows himself bleeding from the eyes and ears talking about this in what may be more fringe insanity conspiracy nonsense.
Well, it'll be in the thumbnail, so I'll skip that for now.
Here's what they say.
We tend to assume that if a story is being covered by major news networks, it's because journalists have decided that the story is important.
That's the case.
But thanks to Fox News, that's not always true.
Fox was specifically created to treat right-wing pseudo-scandals as major news stories, whether it's President Obama saluting a Marine while holding a latte, or Hillary Clinton coughing during a campaign speech.
Fox News looks for opportunities to smear Democratic politicians and mobilize its audience to vote Republican.
Because as you all know, CNN didn't just run to the defense of Nancy Pelosi over one fake video.
I'm joking, they did.
And MSNBC didn't prattle on for two and a half years about Russiagate conspiracy nonsense, where at one point Rachel Maddow actually entertained the idea that Russia would shut off the electricity to Fargo in the winter.
Or that it was possible.
Sure, it's possible.
But this is crazy conspiracy nonsense from the left, waving their arms, talking about how Trump may be working for Russia.
An op-ed actually posted, I believe it was in New York Mag, arguing that they believed Donald Trump did work for Vladimir Putin.
You want to tell me that Fox News is manipulating, you know, The political sphere, I'm going to call you a conspiracy theorist.
But let's break this down.
In reality, everybody wants to talk about the hot take, the hot button issue.
They want to talk about what's going to get them traffic, for the most part.
Some people are focused on certain issues more so than others.
Some people say, Tim, why do you always talk about things like this?
It's what I see and what I think is important, because that's really all it is.
They decide what they think is important.
I think it's very important that the media has a very hard left bias, and they do, and I'll prove it.
I have more sources.
And I think it's important when they publish weird conspiracy nonsense that's easily proven false.
The same is true for most people.
I don't necessarily think all of the people at Vox are willfully lying to you.
I think they're just not that smart and are really bad at their jobs.
He makes mention of the Clinton email server and in the story actually insinuates the story didn't matter.
It was just that Fox News talked about it.
But that's not true.
The story was broken by the New York Times and the Associated Press.
Why did anyone talk about it?
Because two of the most reputable press organizations in the country said, here's breaking news.
There was no conservative pressure to do this.
That's what happened.
So what he's talking about in this video is actually just a regurgitation of an article written by Matthew Iglesias of Vox back in October, which is another example of what happens to desperate and collapsing media.
Because they're effectively collapsing.
They need content.
They need something.
So they dig back into their old archives and rehash old ideas that are easily disproven.
Let's look at this.
He says, Benghazi, the Clinton email server, rep Ilhan Omar's mention of 9-11, ended up being taken seriously by mainstream news outlets.
Very simply, Twitter outrage resulted in the Elon Omar thing, and they even recognize that.
So why would they act like Fox News played a role?
We can go to the Washington Post and look at this story.
They say, Since Clinton's private email account was brought to light a year ago in a New York Times report, followed by an Associated Press report revealing the existence of the server, the matter has been a source of nonstop national news.
So who am I gonna believe?
The Washington Post?
Or Vox.
Vox is... whether or not Vox is succeeding at this point is questionable.
Even Vox says they think they're going to be worth less based on the current evaluations of other companies.
The Washington Post, back in... what's the date on this article?
2016 talked about how the story was actually brought to light and became a national news story because of the New York Times and the Associated Press.
But Vox is pushing fringe insane nonsense.
The video is actually much more unhinged than that.
I'm not going to go through everything he says, but he talks about how journalists are gatekeeping.
You know, journalists prevent certain stories from reaching front and center.
He then goes on to show a series of Fox News hosts talking about various political issues.
The thing is, many of the issues brought up by Vox were simply Twitter outrage stories.
In fact, I covered much of these stories before Fox News even did.
For instance, Covington.
When Covington happened, I had a video out less than 24 hours after the incident debunking the narrative.
Fox News didn't get on the story for a couple days later.
Fox News is not driving the narrative.
What's happening is that, in my opinion, two things.
I mentioned they want to make money.
So they need clickable content.
They need to convince you that Fox News is manipulating you and all of the world around you is a conspiracy run by the Fox News GOP network.
When in reality, Vox is just ever dwindling and becoming more and more fringe.
So to the people who still exist in this tiny fringe sphere, they think everyone outside of it is part of this grand conspiracy and being manipulated by the political operatives of the GOP.
Just not true, as I've showed you with the Washington Post.
It was two reputable papers driving the story.
And we can even see it in the actual Wikipedia, where they say the New York Times article broke the story.
They talk about how the New York Times did it.
This was easily searchable.
When I saw this story from Vox, I said, here's what I'll do.
I'll Google search how the story about Hillary Clinton's email came to be in the public.
And it wasn't Fox News.
Would Fox News talk about it?
Of course.
Now, As I mentioned, the video from Vox is a regurgitation of an old article from Matthew Iglesias.
They do bring up some interesting points.
They talk about how the GOP does get a lot of positive, their polls are impacted by coverage from Fox News.
He goes on to say that the issue actually is, without Fox News, what would actually happen is that GOP would change their policies to fit the rest of the mainstream.
Quite simply, an interesting point brought up by Vox is that Without Fox News, there would only be liberal biased media.
And Matthew Iglesias actually brings this up.
He does mention in his original article that news media swings to the left.
Interestingly, and one thing I should have pointed out, they call it the hack gap.
As if conservatives are hacking mainstream culture by commenting on issues that other people talk about.
It's absurd.
But let's talk about the bias in these media companies and why, listen, How many conservative networks are there?
Not very many.
There's what?
Like Fox News, which is the top-rated cable news channel, and then there's One America News, which is relatively new, and it's much less viewership.
But the rest are overwhelmingly Democrat and liberal.
And don't take my word for it.
I'm going to show you numerous sources.
The media bubble is worse than you think.
We crunch the data on where journalists work and how fast it's changing.
The results should worry you.
A story on the fact that most journalists live in blue areas.
See the bubbles?
We also have this.
Objective papers networks stuffed with Democrat donating employees.
It is a fact that in numerous studies we find most employees at major papers and publications donate to Democrats.
Now you may think that a site dedicated to exposing and combating liberal media bias is biased themselves.
And I'll go ahead and agree with you, so we'll jump over to Ballotopedia, who says, Bellapedia also reviewed three other analyses.
The Center for Responsive Politics found that 65% of contributions from those identified as journalists went to Democrats in the 2010 cycle.
An analysis by MSNBC found that 87% of the 143 donors who made contributions from 2004 to 2008 gave to Democrats
or liberal causes, the Media Research Center found that 94% of donors
affiliated with five news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016. If
that doesn't prove a little liberal bias, I don't know what else does. So let's talk about the insane
conspiracies of Vox.
And again, I want to stress, he actually, it's kind of funny, like, I guess, you know, Carlos is making a joke.
He shows himself, like, pulling blood out of his ear, and the thumbnail is him crying blood.
I think they're losing the plot here a little bit.
But let's talk about the actual gatekeepers.
In his video, he mentions the importance of journalists gatekeeping.
He actually does say—let me see if I can find this section.
Well, I had it earlier, but you may have seen it.
He said journalists are gatekeepers, and it's an important thing they do.
Social media companies have become the new gatekeepers for a while now.
And we have this story from 2016.
Gizmodo.
Gizmodo is not a conservative outlet.
Former Facebook workers, we routinely suppressed conservative news.
How about this?
From Jack Dorsey.
The company was too aggressive in banning some accounts.
We know that the media outlets are biased.
We know that social media employees are biased.
So why is it then that Vox is going to make this weird claim that is easily proven false?
Desperation?
Again, my two points for making this video.
Desperation.
complete desperation. They need money, they need clicks, they rehash old stories, but more importantly,
they are part of a fringe dwindling bubble that is not mainstream.
When you look at the victories across Europe for right-wing nationalism, when you look at Brexit
and Donald Trump, it's clear that the left has lost middle America and average Americans.
And are now part of some strange group that doesn't know what's going on.
The best example?
The predictions for 2016.
How did they not see Trump coming?
Very simply, they are not part of the mainstream anymore.
They're becoming fringe and getting crazier and crazier.
We can talk about their policies, which swing so far to the left doesn't even make sense for moderate Democrats anymore.
Why so many people have become conservative or voted for Trump?
Because the media doesn't speak to them.
These people believe that the ivory towers of New York represent the opinion of Middle America, and they don't.
But worse still...
As they can't capture actual people to watch their content, they become more and more desperate and grasp at straws.
And that's where it gets truly, truly crazy.
Let's talk about what these companies become, and how they truly are gatekeepers, and how they truly do have more power to manipulate than Vox would let on.
They'll claim Fox News is controlling the narrative, sure.
How about CNN?
Bringing on a VP from Facebook to talk about how they should remove a video of Nancy Pelosi they don't like.
Let's think about this.
Have you heard the news?
It's a video of Nancy Pelosi.
It's slowed down to 75%, so she's slurring.
It's kind of obvious to many people.
I can hear the audio artifacting.
You can hear that it's been screwed with.
But still, it has slowed down and many people believe it's a real video.
CNN and many other outlets have started lobbying Facebook, saying, we want you to remove this.
Well, Facebook isn't going to go that far.
They didn't remove it because it doesn't break any rules.
This is the Internet.
People regularly manipulate videos and make satirical videos and memes, mocking and insulting politicians.
Why is CNN so upset over one video of Nancy Pelosi?
Well, you could argue, look, they're just covering what they think is important.
I would ask then why they don't think it's important that for years, Super Deluxe made edits of personalities, politicians, including Trump, that were misleading, and nobody cared!
Did Facebook take down those videos?
Of course not.
But they certainly paint politicians in a bad light by stripping context out of what is being said.
Why is this one the one they target?
Well, CNN is becoming more and more desperate.
As I mentioned many, many times at this point, but as I brought up very early on in the story, CNN laying people off.
More layoffs are coming.
Well, CNN needs to build an audience.
So they're going full-on partisan.
Look at Jim Acosta.
What does Jim Acosta do?
He grandstands and he argues with the president.
He doesn't do news.
CNN is doubling down on going the activist route.
And this is absurd.
The fact that a major news outlet would complain to a VP at Facebook about a single meme video.
Just a... that's it.
Do they not know what the internet is?
But I'll tell you what gets really bad.
Because the truth is, this is how the swing actually goes.
Is Fox News controlling the narrative?
No.
Is CNN controlling the narrative?
Of course not.
Is MSNBC?
No, they're not.
But the tech giants do play a serious role, and they are terrified of bad press, but typically not from conservatives.
Look at the activists targeting Tucker Carlson's show and how many advertisers he's lost so far.
Has that happened to CNN or MSNBC?
Has MSNBC paid the price for two and a half years of fringe conspiracy nonsense?
They have not.
But I'll tell you what happens.
The lobbying effort works.
Because YouTube actually removed this video of Nancy Pelosi.
Facebook did go on to de-rank it, but Twitter lets it stand.
So I ask you, when these outlets, CNN, MSNBC, Slate, BuzzFeed, when they repeatedly reach out to big brands, targeting individuals on the right, getting them de-platformed and fired, Who are the real gatekeepers and who really controls speech and the narrative?
It's not MSNBC.
It's not Fox News.
It's activists.
It's certain media outlets pressuring big media companies and those media companies bend to the pressure.
So, it does happen.
Does Fox News allow— You know, Fox News probably gets some wins.
Conservatives get some wins sometimes.
But YouTube removed a single video.
Twitter, fortunately, let it stand.
But that's— These are the end results.
What Vox published is nonsense.
And they're a decently prominent site.
They're one of the top-ranked sites.
Well, I think they're like number 400, Alexa.
So they're really, really well-trafficked.
And they're funded by Comcast.
But they're going to tell you that Fox News, one of the only conservative channels, has more power over the political space than it really does, for one, They are losing their power.
They still have some power.
They can still, you know, control things.
But their views aren't really that mainstream anymore.
They are becoming the fringe weirdos that no one cares about.
So they're gonna convince you.
It's everyone else who's crazy.
But you know what?
I'll leave it there.
Final thoughts to wrap everything up.
No.
Fox News did not drive these narratives.
What Matthew Iglesias is saying is clearly fringe biased nonsense.
This guy, Matthew Iglesias, tweeted not that long ago That progressive media convinced people their taxes were being increased.
I'm trying to remember the story, so forgive me if I get it wrong.
I want to make sure I make that clear.
But he said it was good messaging that people wrongly believed that their taxes increased.
In fact, people did get a tax cut under Trump.
But he said it was good messaging on the part of progressives, meaning they misled you.
And that's what they do.
And as they become less and less relevant, they need to do whatever they can to get whoever they can to watch.
Rachel Maddow's ratings skyrocketed with Russiagate, and they collapsed afterwards.
She chased the fringe conspiracy nonsense in desperation.
And it's not paying off for her.
And it's not going to pay off for Vox.
But Vox is doomed anyway.
They'll probably be around for a while.
We'll see what happens.
But I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Comment below.
Let me know what you think about all of this.
It is what it is.
The media's collapsing, and they're becoming increasingly desperate.
More layoffs.
And there you go.
Comment below.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
More segments to come on my second channel, youtube.com slash timcastnews, and I will see you all there.
Let me tell you what the big problem today politically is.
We have a choice between socialist, regressive, identitarianism, And conservatives.
And what do you think regular people are gonna pick when presented with those two options?
If you're gonna ask me...
If I had to make a choice, and I don't right now, it's not that bad yet, but it's getting there.
Like, if there were seriously only two people, and one was a socialist, regressive, identitarian, another guy was conservative, and I had to choose, I definitely would choose the conservative.
Right now, we're not there yet.
We still have some people who are actually pretty good running.
But this is why I'm very much opposed to the violations of speech.
I'm very much opposed to the regressive left.
I mean, it's not so much, like, that's not so much a reason why I'm opposed to them, but I am.
In this story from the College Fix, university gets legal warning for enforcing speech rules against conservatives, but not socialists.
The main culture war talking points we see are intersectional feminists and everyone who opposes them.
And so that puts moderate liberal types like me against them.
That's what I brought up in the beginning.
But in this story, the reason I bring it up, is that there were socialists tabling and
they were allowed to do it with no problem and the conservatives, when they tabled later,
were threatened and shut down and told they had to go to a free speech zone.
So this is the inherent problem.
There is institutional bias in favor of what I perceive to be a regressive religion, a
non-theistic religion essentially.
And conservatives, who are closer to the mainstream, can't table and talk about what is absolutely mainstream conversation.
So that's, to me, worrisome.
Now, before we get started with this story, make sure you go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course, Share the video, comment, and like because the engagement really helps.
So let's check out this story from The College Fix.
The campus speech policies at Transylvania University are getting unwanted national attention at a time of transition for Kentucky's oldest university.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, known as FIRE, they're an awesome organization by the way, warned the administration earlier this month that its policies promote viewpoint-based decision-making and enact prior restraints on student speech in violation of its other promises to students.
The private university has a single free speech zone, and students must fill out paperwork and get approval before using it.
Now, personally, I disagree with the idea of a free speech zone.
I have a permit, it's called the First Amendment, and you see people on the left say the same thing, people on the right should be saying the same thing, completely, I believe, 100%.
We have a right to peaceably assemble.
The Constitution doesn't say where or when, so they, you know, set up free speech zones.
No, no, no, get out of here.
If I want to gather and I want to talk about something, you can't stop me, especially in a public university.
The precipitating event for FIRE's involvement was the administration's shutdown of a Young Americans for Freedom free speech tabling event.
Talk about ironic!
A day after it allowed the Young Democratic Socialists of America to table for their own cause.
Conservatives table for free speech and have their free speech restricted.
That is quite literally like seeing a fire truck being set on fire by a university.
Jeez.
Alex Drury, chairman of Transylvania's Young American for Freedom chapter, told The College Fix that theirs is the only conservative libertarian group on campus.
It has tried to host a number of engaging events, but most fall short due to the extreme bureaucracy in place at the university.
He said the Transylvania University has a number of anti-free speech policies which discourage the free speech of all students.
The administration has to know literally every written word on signs and literature on campus and every message you are trying to spread so they can make sure they know exactly what you are doing and when.
And this is why free speech is so important!
Look at what's happening right now with the ideological bias.
Let's say your favorite color is blue and my favorite color is green.
And then the rule is put in place saying, you are not allowed to discuss your favorite color.
Okay, we all agree there's a rule.
I show up and I start preaching about why green is the best.
No one comes to shut me down.
A bunch of people hear me, we have conversations.
Tomorrow you show up saying blue is better and they immediately come and say, no, no, you're not allowed to speak.
That's how the authority, the system, will use the rules selectively to allow their ideology to grow.
And what the left doesn't seem to understand, and I say the left because passive liberals pretty much aren't paying attention, but the regressive leftists who oppose free speech don't seem to understand, that as soon as you enact these policies, yes, you're trying to use the rules for thee but not for me to your advantage.
Assuming you can maintain that position of authority, sure.
But eventually someone else will come in, and they'll say, we're gonna do the exact same thing you did.
Restrict the left, and only allow the right.
And they can claim some, you know, technicality.
They can say, oh no, it was because of X, Y, or Z.
And then what they'll do is, plain and simple, the people who run the system will allow those they like to speak, those they don't like not to speak, and it's exactly what we see on Twitter and Facebook.
So think about it.
If you're a conservative and you're trying to speak about something that is way closer to the mainstream than the fringe regressive psychosis, they'll shut you down.
They will shut you down.
If you say that you have an issue with biological males competing against biological females, shut you down.
But if you say ridiculous things on Twitter, just like talking about weird... There was one tweet that was, you know... You know the meme where it's like, damn white people on their shuffles deck pulls out card X?
There was one about how someone donated t-shirts to a community center run by some black individuals, And they blamed white people saying, we don't need t-shirts and now we have garbage to dispose of.
And it's like, that's the kind of insanity.
That's not against the rules.
I'm just saying that's the stuff that goes crazy on the left.
And a lot of what they do, they're allowed to break the rules.
Like the easiest example, Sarah Jong for years.
Just going on racist tirades.
Totally okay!
That stuff's fine.
Twitter runs the system and claims, no, no, we're not biased.
See, we took this people down.
Then they ban the Krasensteins.
If you don't know, they're the anti-Trump personalities.
And then say, see, we ban people.
That's the game they play.
But all they have to do is let 1% of their side through the cracks, and their ideology has a massive advantage.
This is why free speech is a right.
Because we don't want Authority figures and massive, you know, unaccountable systems or people to restrict the free exchange of information.
That is regressive, not progressive.
These people are trying to bring us back to the dark ages when we weren't allowed to learn things.
And it's perfectly exemplified by what happens in this university.
Conservatives wanted to have a free speech table and it was shut.
They were told they had to move.
They had to shut it down and go to a free speech zone.
Meanwhile, the socialists are okay.
They say, the administration has to know literally every, oh, I read that part.
The student body sides with Young Americans for Freedom against university's restrictions on free speech
according to the results of a survey that they distributed.
Nearly nine in 10 students hold negative sentiments toward the policies.
The survey response rate was just over 10%, 103 students out of the university's 989.
Free speech is an issue important to all students, jury said.
And the fact that this administration has so blatantly tried to restrict it,
that has really angered a lot of students, faculty, alumni, and donors.
The administration refused to talk to the fix before graduation on Saturday,
even to answer questions about potential policy revisions as opposed to the Young Americans for Freedom incident
itself.
This is one university, and it's the Kentucky's oldest, it's not the biggest in the country, but I think it's important because how many times, how many stories do we see about the bias at universities until it becomes completely apparent, like this is This is blatant.
That, you know, rules for thee and not for me.
How many stories about various universities, bias, Title IX, etc., do we have to hear until we realize, yeah, these people, the staff, the faculty, are very regressive.
And it's why I think, you know, you'll hear more nuance from the so-called squared hoax people like Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay.
Who, uh, accurately point out, listen, the right is not perfect.
The left is, is being, you know, at universities is being dominated by grievance studies, and that's dangerous anti-science.
But what ends up happening to a lot of people is when they see this, they align themselves with more than just free speech.
And so I'll make a point about something because people are like, they don't, you know, they say things like Tim's on the left or how is Tim actually liberal, blah blah blah.
Because it's not about tribe.
I don't care about your tribe.
I don't care if you're following the conga line because everyone else is dancing around.
I have things I believe based on my research.
And I will point to the crazy rule-breaking, you know, the people who claim to you know, enforce the rules but then defend their own side
to break the rules.
I'll call them out. I don't care. I got no tribe and I don't care.
Okay, I have principles and they're things that I believe in.
So I think one of the dangerous things about what the left does in terms of this
is there are a lot of people I know who will see a story like this and they will say,
I believe in free speech.
Therefore, you know, they'll go and move themselves.
It moves people to the right.
More importantly, though, it's not like most people joining, you know, becoming right-wing or conservative because of these problems are doing it for tribal reasons.
It's also because when you do this, you guarantee the only ideas people can hear.
in like actual conversation, not in these specific, you know, university institutions,
is going to be from, hold on, let me clarify, let me back up.
The left doesn't like doing interviews.
The left doesn't like sitting down and having conversations to a certain degree, right?
I don't want to say everybody, but there are enough people who won't do it.
And so what happens is you have conservatives who always want to talk, always want to challenge
ideas, and then when you see the censorship, you're going to have people saying, but I
believe in free speech.
They're going to go and talk to these individuals, and then they're going to hear more ideas, and it's going to be a powerful recruiting tool for the right.
You can't restrict people's freedom.
People don't like that.
And when you do, you're giving fuel to the other side.
So the good example is the video I made the other day on my main channel about how the
anti-Trump artist gets banned from Facebook.
That's the censorship they called for and now Facebook's enforcing it.
And then you have Lauren Southern's documentary, which got censored, and then Streisand's
effects and gets hundreds of thousands of views.
So anyway, let me wrap this up because the point I'm trying to make is it's not surprising
that we see another story about universities shutting down conservatives or restricting
them in some way, being anti-speech, but allowing socialists and democratic socialists to skirt
the rules.
Because that's everything we see on social media.
So, ultimately, I think this thing is going to backfire.
It's bad, but regardless of whether or not it does, we gotta defend free speech and the right to express our ideas and talk to each other, plain and simple.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got more segments coming up later in the day.
For those on the podcast, it'll be starting shortly, and I will see you in the next segment.
I'm currently of the opinion that most of the people running in the Democratic primary are doing it to sell books and just to build some brand recognition, but they don't think they're actually going to win.
In this story from NBC News, look over here, Democratic candidates struggle for recognition in outsized field.
Some contenders are having a tough time busting out, experts say.
That's what happens when there are too many choices.
Well, for those of you that are watching on YouTube, take a look at this image.
What is this?
Like, there's 21 people here, and this is not even, I don't believe this is even everyone who's running.
And the funny thing is, most of them, like, Kirsten Gillibrand's polling at like 1% or 0%.
Like, what are you doing?
I guess, I guess, you know, some of these people thought they might actually have a chance, announced they were going to run, and then fizzled out.
What do you do?
Do you just bail out of the race immediately?
Well, there's, uh, what's his name?
I think it's Richard Ojeda?
Who is, uh, from West Virginia.
He was, like, one of the first people to announce, and then he was also, like, one of the first people to say he's not going to run.
But I'll tell you one thing that's really funny.
When we pop over to 538's Democratic presidential primary polls, they include Hillary Clinton on this list for some reason, which is scary.
But they do show Biden, like, basically Biden owns the field.
Every poll, non-stop, it's Biden, Bernie Sanders, and then even Elizabeth Warren dominates.
So, here's what I want to do.
I want to take a look at this story.
Look at this caption on this photo, seriously.
2020 Democratic presidential candidates.
I am not going to read this list.
Never gonna happen.
Before we get started, and I critique This big field of no-name randoms.
Go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address, but of course you can just share the video, like and comment, engaging with the video really helps.
But let's see what NBC News has to say about the fact that there's a bunch of random people running that, like, we're never gonna win.
And I want to point something out.
You know what?
Here's what I'm gonna do.
Bernie Sanders.
I'll start with Bernie Sanders.
I think Bernie Sanders has a real chance.
Absolutely, people love Bernie.
He's been consistent on his policy positions for the most part.
I was a bigger fan of him several years ago, but, you know, he's a legitimate contender.
Kamala Harris is another establishment figure I think is a legit contender.
Elizabeth Warren, yes, but she's probably fizzled.
Cory Booker I think doesn't have the staying power.
Now let's talk about the rest of the people who have absolutely no chance, even the people that I've actually supported, who I don't think will win, but here's the thing.
Klobuchar ate Sal with a comb.
What?
Kirsten Gillibrand has gone hardcore far left, and it's not working.
I don't know who this guy is.
Beto O'Rourke has zero policies.
Tulsi Gabbard, absolutely 100% principled, good person, I'm supporting her, and of course the establishment will never, never allow it.
But you know what?
It is what it is.
Don't know this guy.
I know this guy because he—this is Eric Swalwell.
He recently said that he was, like, apologizing for being a white man, basically.
Like, he didn't say that, but He talked about how, as a white man, he has blind spots and yada yada yada.
Don't know this guy.
There's Pete Buttigieg.
Pete Buttigieg actually looks like some dude I know.
I don't think Buttigieg has a chance to win.
Don't know him.
Don't know him.
Andrew Yang.
Andrew Yang I also don't think is going to win.
What can I say?
But I'm definitely supporting Yang because...
He's really, really thought out his plans.
He's engaged with conservatives and liberals.
I think he's doing a really good job of being, like, he's a principled guy who has real ideas, and that speaks a lot.
Like, he went on Ben Shapiro's show, and that was a really, really great conversation where Yang presented a bunch of his ideas, Ben agreed with some and pushed back on others that I think show some of the vulnerabilities in Yang's positions, and that's the way it should be.
It's brilliant.
No idea who this lady is, or this guy.
And that's Joe Biden, who's probably gonna be the nominee and won't win.
There's a reason why he didn't win.
He was vice president, you know, sure.
But let's see what NBC News has to say.
say outside the handful of best known candidates, the rest of the 2020 Democratic field risks
melting together into an indistinguishable blob in the summer heat.
Wow. Okay, NBC.
Candidates kept jumping into the largest presidential primary field in history because voters kept telling pollsters they wanted fresher faces and gave no one a commanding lead like the one Hillary Clinton enjoyed heading into the 2016 primary.
But former Vice President Joe Biden's stronger-than-expected start suggests voters might not have wanted so many options and may be more comfortable picking a familiar face after all.
Sure.
But you know why they're doing it?
They're doing it because they're going to sell a book afterwards.
The only reason I know who Pete Buttigieg is, is because he's running.
And that's the thing.
Buttigieg is the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.
I think he still is.
And that's it.
He's the mayor of a small town in Indiana.
I'm pretty sure it's South Bend.
Not even the biggest city, I don't think.
And it might as well be Chicago.
I mean, it's not that close, but still.
And now he's nationally famous.
Now he's got crowds forming.
So here's what's gonna happen.
I think most of these people know they're not going to win.
A bunch of them want to make money.
A bunch of them want to go on TV and build their profile.
It's going to help them in lower level elections.
This is just them getting press.
I doubt they actually want to be president.
And you know what would be really funny?
If one of these like random no-name people actually gets the nomination.
The race is still wide open.
Frontrunners Biden and Bernie Sanders together have less than half the vote.
That leaves the rest of the pack praying for a breakout moment, needing to capture the attention of increasingly distracted Americans by competing not only with one another and President Trump, but also with Netflix and Candy Crush and everything else trying to monetize our time.
Sure.
Democratic primary voters might be suffering what social scientists call choice overload, which can turn much of the field into background noise.
But I'll make another point.
Why are there so many Democrats?
Well, let's take a look at this list and keep looking at this photograph.
It's hilarious.
But the ideology between these people is very, very, very different.
The Democrats, in my opinion, Don't have a cohesive, like, group anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, most of these people have completely opposing views on many different issues.
Sure, they're all mostly to the left.
But I think what we've seen is the Democrats have fractured completely.
Hillary, like, you know, I think about 2016.
Who was running in the primary?
Hillary Clinton.
And then, I don't even remember anybody else, Bernie Sanders.
There were, like, what, two other dudes who, like, dropped out right away?
There was basically no one the Democrats had.
There was no rising star personality.
There was no charismatic leader.
And for that matter, Barack Obama was a rising star very, very quickly.
Hillary Clinton, old guard, couldn't do it.
Now what do they have?
They have a bunch of random people, and the Democrats are spread so thin, there is no unified party.
I do not see them winning.
No way.
And that's not even including the economy, and Trump's approval going up.
They say Barry Schwartz, psychologist who wrote the best-selling book, The Paradox of Choice, Why More is Less, said, Absolutely, Joe Biden's gonna take it.
There was a funny, there was a study I read about once where they told people to fill out a questionnaire and they said, this is the study.
brands they know best, glancing right over the rest.
Absolutely, Joe Biden's going to take it.
There was a funny, there was a study I read about once where they told people to fill
out a questionnaire and they said, this is the study.
If you complete it, you get a free t-shirt.
But the real study was one group got a green t-shirt.
Another group was given a choice between a yellow or a green t-shirt.
Here's the interesting thing.
The people afterwards, when they were given the green t-shirt, rated their prize as like they were happier with it.
than those who had the choice. Because when given a choice between yellow or green,
afterwards some people second-guessed themselves and felt like maybe they should have chosen the
other one. Being given no choice resulted in happier people.
That's kind of scary, isn't it?
Choice makes people unhappy. Instead of choosing on the basis of policies or past performance,
which are hard to evaluate, people may choose on the basis of something that is easy to evaluate,
like familiarity.
Schwartz told NBC News, so yes, I'm guessing that Biden benefits from such a large field.
While Schwartz cautioned the research does not come from the world of politics, some social scientists have argued this dynamic helped explain Trump's victory in the crowded 2016 GOP field.
Also, Trump dominated the press.
He manipulated the press, and it worked very, very well for him.
They say it's easy to see why Democratic primary voters would be overwhelmed by a field that remains largely unknown to them.
Seriously, do you think Democratic voters are going to go through each candidate and read their policy positions?
No way!
Never going to happen.
There's going to be a bunch of low-tier people, the Democratic primaries.
It doesn't matter if there's 50 candidates.
All that matters is that Joe Biden gets a little bit more than everybody else, and he will.
No matter how many candidates they add, Joe Biden will likely always get more votes than any of the other candidates.
Maybe Bernie Sanders, but the point is, if you have 50 candidates and they each get, you know, 5 votes or something, or 5%, Um, or that doesn't make sense.
But it, the point is you get it.
If most people, even, even only 10 out of a hundred vote for Joe Biden, that 10 votes will be higher than the rest of the field.
You know, depending on how many candidates you have.
Voting for president is like voting for a parent.
You want somebody who's strong.
You want somebody who you can complain to and who'll be sympathetic.
Garcetti said, I think Joe is somebody that people feel has been part of their family.
I don't know anything about Joe Biden.
And I'm certainly not going to vote for him simply because I heard his name.
But you guys know who I'm probably going to vote for.
Here we go.
When a Twitter user jokingly conflated Rep.
Tim Ryan of Ohio with Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, two 40-something white men running underdog presidential bids, Moulton responded with self-deprecating humor.
No, Derek, this is New York City Mayor Eric Swalwell, Moulton said, intentionally mixing up New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Rep.
Eric Swalwell.
And the other funny thing is that de Blasio's polling at like 0%.
So, we get it.
The story concludes by saying, the debates become the moment for candidates to break out.
It'll be a little like Hollywood squares, but I just feel like voters are going to watch this thing
with fresh eyes.
Still, no one really knows, he added with a laugh, recalling his unsuccessful first congressional run, yada yada
yada.
Okay, here's what's gonna happen.
The debates are gonna happen, and I'll tell you this.
Here's my advice to you, Democrats.
If you want to come out on top, you need screen time.
The way you get that?
Be a bad person.
One of the reasons Trump was able to dominate the press and win in the GOP primaries is because he's a boisterous, loud man, and he routinely insults.
He would give people labels.
Who do you think they want to point the camera at?
You think CNN cares?
CNN wants ratings and money.
All the networks do.
Be entertaining.
Trump is entertaining.
A lot of people don't like him, a lot of people like him, but Trump is a very polarizing figure.
So those that love him are gonna watch him, and those that hate him are gonna watch him!
The network's gonna be like, who should we put on primetime for the debates?
And one of the biggest factors is gonna be how much money can we make.
So if you're a Democratic candidate, all you need to do is do something really weird that gets you a ton of attention without outright destroying your campaign, and they will put the camera on you again.
That's why Trump would come out and be like, I'm calling for X, I'm doing Y, I'm saying this.
Because by doing that, he's priming the debates.
Listen.
If before the debate, a Democrat comes out and says, I think X should happen and it's a crazy plan, then come time for the debates, they're going to take that opportunity to interview you on the things you've said.
Long story short, the point of this video, before we wrap up and move on, is that I really doubt half these people want to be president.
No.
I think they want to make some money, they want to run for re-election, and this is the best opportunity to advertise themselves, and they can call themselves a presidential, you know, candidate or something in the future.
Bravo.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
I felt like it was about time to talk about the absurd number of Democrats, but stick around, more segments to come, and I will see you all shortly.
I got a couple stories in this segment, but I love talking about survival, the real world, wilderness.
Because, first of all, I am no mountain man.
I am no survival expert.
But I have been homeless, and I do understand how harsh the real world is.
And I feel like there are a lot of millennials that need to understand this.
And so I got a couple things to talk about.
This story about a woman, a yoga instructor.
She fell 20 feet, broke her leg, and for 17 days was lost in the wilderness in Hawaii.
Her skin was rotting.
Full disclosure, if you're not prepared to talk about harsh realities and the real world, then don't watch this video.
She had to eat moths, insects, to survive and drank from a dirty stream.
Because she was doing what it took to survive.
The other story I want to talk about is... This is from the Daily Mail.
It's kind of a breakdown of the harsh realities of Mount Everest and the tourists who don't have training but want to go on these ridiculous adventures.
Now, here's the main point as I talk about these stories.
This woman, to me, is respectable.
This is heroic.
I have tremendous respect.
I don't even know how to describe it.
For what this woman did to survive and how she survived through this.
I mean, it's horrifying.
It is.
But the world is the real world.
It's just so dangerous and harsh.
And it's unfair and it's cruel.
But something has happened.
We live in this beautiful bubble.
Beautiful, beautiful bubble.
With police, with fire service, with ambulances.
And so I think about issues pertaining to the left and the right and perspectives on these issues.
And the first thing I'll bring up.
Actually, the first thing I'll bring up is, if you want to support my work, TimCast.com slash donate.
You can donate through PayPal monthly, cryptocurrency, physical address.
But seriously, just liking, commenting, and subscribing, sharing the video really, really helps.
The first thing I want to say is, we constantly hear stories.
About these young millennial types who go to extremely dangerous places like, you know, they'll go to Morocco.
Yeah, really dangerous.
They'll go to Congo, and they'll get kidnapped, murdered, tortured, etc.
Horrifying, horrifying realities.
Because people don't realize, when you grow up in the beautiful urban bubble of America, with safety, like violent crime is on the decline, it's been repeatedly on the decline.
It's been, I should say, non-stop on the decline.
These young people don't seem to understand how hard the world really is.
And then you see these people claiming, you know, all of these things are human rights, you know, like, I don't know, everything's a human right.
In reality, here's what I tell people.
Look at this woman in the wilderness for 17 days, and I'll tell you what you have a right to.
Here, she can speak, she's free to move, she's free to live, and do what she wants.
But guess what?
There was no food.
There was just bugs.
She was injured.
You wanna talk about what you have access to, what your rights are?
Was there anyone there to provide her healthcare services in the wilderness?
Absolutely not.
The only reason she survived is because she willed it so and did what she had to do.
At a certain point, she said, I kid you not, I'm going to eat a moth.
How many people do you know, young people, would never put a bug near their mouth?
I always laughed.
You know, I always laughed watching Fear Factor.
unidentified
When they're like, you gotta eat the intestines of a goat!
Granted, there are some weird organs of weird animals, but I'm like, you're talking about eating food, dude.
Eat an eyeball.
It's like, okay?
Seriously, man.
We are so conditioned to the comforts and consistency of modern life that you need to actually understand what you have a right to.
And I think when you look at stories like this, The woman who's lost in the wilderness.
When you look at the stories of the people who die climbing Mount Everest, tourists who are not trained and not prepared, or the stories about people who go on these adventures into dangerous places and get killed by dangerous people, it makes me realize a lot of the political values held by young people, and some old people, are based on a lack of understanding about the world.
And that's an interesting point to bring up about the Second Amendment and firearms and things like that.
I told a friend, I had a friend tell me, nobody ever needs to have a firearm.
There's no reason for it.
Surprise, surprise.
This is a friend who grew up in Los Angeles, for the most part.
A big city with many, many police officers.
In fact, this military base is not that far off.
So sure, think about this.
You're at home.
Something happens.
You break your leg.
You yell at the top of your lungs.
You're in Los Angeles.
If you fall and break your leg, you yell.
Someone's going to hear you and run to your help.
Run to your aid.
Now imagine you're in a rural area.
You're 60 miles out from the main highway.
You're in a flyover state.
You're not off a major interstate.
You fall and break your leg.
You yell.
There's no one.
And that is going to give you a dramatically different perspective on what rights you have.
It's going to give you a dramatically different perspective on what you need to survive.
So I look at this story from Everest.
Let's talk about the Everest story.
In this story, they talk about a man who became the 11th person to die on Everest just 10 days after struggling past a traffic jam of mountaineers trying to climb Mount Everest.
This is a New York Times story.
Look at this.
Camp tents littered all over the place in one of the most dangerous places on the planet.
I think it's like a 10% mortality rate.
I want to show you this photo.
Look at this.
This photo is making the rounds.
A line of people trying to reach the summit.
It's only getting more and more dangerous.
But one of the biggest issues with this story, for one, one thing I want to make sure you understand, 11 people died climbing this.
The Sherpas are talking about how some of them didn't even know how to put on their shoes.
These are people This story is very similar, in my opinion, to those who go to Morocco and, you know, end up getting beheaded or something.
This is not a game.
This is not a joke.
But there are people who live in their comfort, in their luxury, out of shape, and they think, I have money.
I want to go to Everest.
Someone, uh, in the story there's a quote from someone who scaled the mountain saying, why is it that for the Iron Man, for instance, you have to qualify?
They don't want you doing these arduous physical, you know, strenuous events unless you can actually qualify for it.
But Everest people just show up and think they're gonna get ferried to the top.
And what happens?
They don't make it.
You can't breathe up there.
I think people are living in, you know, they're further... Man.
Let me tell you another story, okay?
I remember reading a story about a family that's on the beach, and a black wolf came out of the woods.
And so they rushed out, I don't remember exactly where this was, it was years ago I read this story, maybe it's apocryphal, but it was a black wolf.
And they run out into the ocean, and climb up on a rock, shivering and freezing as the wolf paces back and forth, not going in the water.
And I read that story, it was like a devastating ordeal for this family.
It was something like, you could probably look up the actual story, but it was a devastating ordeal.
I'm not a historian.
who were terrified and they were where they were in dive hypothermia.
And I thought about what life would have been like a couple hundred years ago,
when people didn't have the luxuries of the modern world.
We didn't walk around wearing flimsy thin layers when we actually wore thick hides.
When people actually carried weapons often where they went.
Would a man and his family be able to fend off and survive a wolf attack,
or would they huddle in fear?
I'm not a historian, I'm not an expert, but a story like that combined with what we're seeing in
terms of people going on ridiculous adventures says to me that this photo represents people
truly not understanding mortality and just how unfair the world really is.
In this story, they talk about the sheer selfishness of people.
This is the important point.
Someone just quoted, they're saying that when they were climbing down from the summit, they saw people collapsing, wheezing, because they were running out of oxygen and you can't breathe.
And everyone immediately grips their oxygen to themselves instead of helping others.
One person says, I thought about helping other people and then realized I was jeopardizing my life by helping these people.
This is what the world really is.
Fortunately, humans are smart.
Humans are clever.
We've invented things to make sure we can survive together.
And cities are a representation of how comfortable things have become.
I kid you not!
I can experience food from every continent within like two miles of my house.
How amazing is that?
I can look into this little black rectangle, the microphone on it, that's what it looks like, you can't see it.
And talk to you guys all over the world about what I think.
The luxuries we have.
You have no right to technology and materials and all of these things.
You don't.
You have no right to someone helping you.
And so what happens when you live in a city and you are used to seeing police?
You are used to seeing ambulances?
You start hearing people chant that all of it's a human right.
I'll tell you what.
Why don't you go off the grid?
Go off the grid and then tell me what rights you have when you fall and break your leg.
Tell me what rights you have when some crazed lunatic with a hatchet comes staggering towards your car and you have no way to defend yourself.
It's the epitome of arrogance that I hear from many of these people.
So let me explain something about my personal politics and ideology.
I've lived in cities.
I understand the mentality about, you know, the Second Amendment.
There are cops, you know, within a few minutes.
It's probably, you know, they'll probably be too late for any serious incident, but there's people around who can hear you and who can help you, and you're concerned about accidental discharge and things like that.
I've also lived in rural areas without police.
And so I've always tried to make sure that I understood the true laws of nature and what is and isn't allowed.
There are a lot of people who would say to you, health care is a human right.
Absolutely not.
I certainly think in any modern society we should do the best we can to provide healthcare to our citizenry, and I do not agree with a profit motive backing healthcare.
That doesn't mean you have a right to anyone else's services or the resources required to produce, you know, the outcome you want.
You have no right to it.
Your rights probably, for the most part, I'm sure there's nuance here and someone's gonna call me out.
Think about what you can do when you're on the peak of Mount Everest.
You don't even have a right to oxygen.
The air is too thin.
You gotta bring your own.
And if somebody else is gasping and wheezing, they're gonna grip it tight.
I'm sorry, if you're gasping and wheezing like we heard in the story, people aren't gonna share their oxygen with you because you don't even have a right to the air you breathe.
You have no right to it.
There's an argument to be made for, you know, the expanding population, keeping water clean, keeping the environment clean.
But to act like you have a right to anything other than what you can do to me is mind blowing.
And I think what we see from this, these stories, I know I didn't really read them or anything, but this story from this woman.
I think represents, truly, the nature of this world.
The only reason you're not crawling towards a stream with broken legs and eating moths is because you're standing on the shoulders of giants.
The people who came before us, who planted a tree whose shade they knew they would never sit in, so that you can live in luxury.
Unfortunately, many people lose sight of this, and then start talking about how all of these wonderful things built by other people to make your life better are your rights.
No.
They're your privileges, and you should thank your ancestors and your history every single day.
I was thinking about the moral foundations.
And one of the things that, if you're not familiar with Jonathan Haidt's research, sanctity, and I think that's, I don't know if sanctity is the right one, but liberals only really have care-harm, care-fairness, and conservatives follow all five moral foundations.
In the moral foundations test, they ask you a question about finding an old flag that your grandpa flew, you know, during the war or something.
They say, like, this woman finds an old flag and she uses it as a rag.
To me, I said that was absolutely not okay.
Apparently, that's more associated with conservative morals than liberal morals, because liberals would say, it's just an old flag, who cares?
And that's, I think, dangerous.
And I think this kind of describes my personal ideology.
I believe heavily in fairness and taking care of people and protecting people when you can, but I also recognize reality.
And I recognize the importance of knowing where we've come from, so that when you look at a situation like this woman, who ate moths and drank dirty water, she did what she had to do.
Respectable, again.
You realize that that flag, that dirty old flag you found, is a representation of all of the hard work and sacrifice of those who came before you so that you can sit back in your lounge chair eating a honey bun from a local market you bought for 50 cents, drinking your iced coffee, your iced mochaccino, watching Game of Thrones.
That comfort and luxury in your climate-controlled environment came from everyone before you, and you are only ever allowed to have it because of the sacrifice of others, the people who lay down their lives.
And to make- I can make it even more silly.
We can talk about those who fought in war to defend our rights, those who stood up to the government to fight for civil rights.
We can also talk about the people who ate the wrong mushroom.
And now you can enjoy a nice shiitake mushroom salad or mushrooms on your pizza.
Everything you have comes from those before you.
And it's important not to lose sight of just how harsh and cruel the world can really be.
So I'll end by saying this.
Go for a hike.
Go off into the middle of nowhere, but prepare yourself, download a survival guide, and recognize the only real rights you have are your responsibility to make yourself survive.
That doesn't mean I am a staunch conservative who doesn't believe in helping people, and by no means.
I believe we also have a responsibility to help our fellow men.
But no one has a right to my aid.
Because when you're on top of Mount Everest and you're gasping for air, you can't expect anyone to give you any of theirs.
They tell you on an airplane, secure your own oxygen mask before securing that of those next to you.
And that lesson is true for everywhere in life.
So when you're in the middle of nowhere, when you're in a city, no matter what, you need to realize the inherent truth of the world is that you have no right to anything from anyone unless you do it yourself.
And I guess I said I was going to end, but I'm with one final thought.
That's true for any kind of success ever.
You have to earn it.
It's yours.
No one will ever give it to you.
Anyway, I saw these stories, and I really do love talking about the issue of survival and the real world and all that stuff, so thanks for hanging out.
Stick around, I got a couple more stories coming up for you in a few seconds!
I will see you shortly.
Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institution may be the king And I'm saying that with a little smirk on my face because what Marc J. Perry has been doing very, very often, as well as some other people, is filing Title IX complaints against programs for women, interestingly.
And I've interviewed Marc about this before.
He's a very interesting fellow and he brings up very good points.
The issue of Title IX, if you're not familiar, Title IX is often used in circumstances where a man is falsely accused by a woman of impropriety of some sort.
And initially, Title IX is supposed to make sure there's no sexism at universities.
And now it's used in many instances to say that if a woman doesn't get justice, that's discrimination against her.
What ends up happening is we see the rise of a lot of programs where it's like women learn to code at the university or women's dance and things like this.
Well, Mark Perry's opinion, and I could be wrong, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my understanding, based on the Title IX complaints, is that making programs only for women violates Title IX as well, because it's gender discriminatory.
So there's apparently some updates posted by the American Enterprise Institute.
They say, Title IX update, OCR opens investigations against Georgia Institute of Technology and Florida Institute of Technology.
He writes, Mark writes, Following my requests for review, the Atlanta Office for Civil Rights, OCR, has opened investigations against the following universities for offering, promoting, sponsoring, and hosting programs that I allege violate Title IX's prohibition on discrimination.
He says, the first, Georgia Institute of Technology, is being investigated by the Atlanta OCR for these 10 discriminatory single-gender, female-only, no males allowed programs.
So, Before I read any more into this, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option.
Cryptocurrency address says physical address.
Sharing the video, liking and commenting does a lot to help the video because the engagement is really, really good on YouTube.
And subscribe if you haven't and you'd like to.
So he says first.
Georgia Tech's Engineering Career Conference, ECC, is an annual discriminatory, single-gender, girl-only, no boys allowed program for junior and senior girls only in high school.
ECC is designed to give high school girls only information about the multiple engineering disciplines offered at Georgia Tech to help them decide if they'd like to study engineering in college.
This is one of the big challenges we see in the equality debate.
Men's rights activists typically point out things like this, and they would be correct to point out a girls-only program is sexist.
Period.
And it's a violation of the law.
Civil rights says, you know, sex discrimination not, like, only against women.
However, for some reason, men's rights activists get heavily criticized for bringing these things up, or challenging these notions.
Which is weird, because that would imply they're not actually fighting for equality, they're fighting for exclusivity at the very least.
Now, you might hear from some people, you know, MRA, anti-SW, whatever, that it's female superiority or anything.
Well, exclusivity.
You can argue that if you want, but at least here we're talking about exclusivity.
They say, Georgia Tech's Student Exploring Engineering, C program, is an annual discriminatory single gender, girls only, no boys allowed.
It's very specific.
It's very analytical.
Program for freshmen, freshmen and sophomore high school female students.
C targets 100 freshmen and sophomore high school female students only, who have demonstrated aptitude and interest in STEM fields.
Georgia Tech's Technology Engineering and Computing Tech Camp, once again, you get the drift.
He talks about annual single, you know, yada, yada, yada.
We'll read through some of these though.
I want to get to the bottom line update he has.
So they've got an engineering... Let's do this.
They've got the Junior Tech Camp.
Georgia Tech has the Engineering Career Conference.
They've got the M&M Mentoring.
Georgia Tech has Helen Grenga Outstanding Engineer Award.
They have the Women in Engineering Faculty Awards.
Women in Engineering Corporate Open House.
He then goes to Florida International University.
So I want to point out, this is a list of programs that Presumably do violate Title IX in providing exclusive, like gender-exclusive programs, and they're not supposed to be able to do that.
So, look, it's simple.
Mark J. Perry is calling out this double standard.
Florida International University is being investigated by the Atlanta OCR for the following Florida Tech girls in engineering, mathematics and science, GEMSCAMP.
He says, it's an annual program that takes place every July.
Eligibility for that gender exclusionary is restricted to female students only.
in grade 9 through 12 and boys in grade 9 to 12 are excluded from this program.
Therefore, in violation of Title IX, this exclusionary girl-only fit educational program
does openly discriminate based on gender.
Now here we have a quick legal review of Title IX.
Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex and education programs or activities
that receive federal financial assistance.
Title IX states no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal finance assistance.
Mark writes, In all cases above, it seems clear that some students on the basis of sex are excluded from participation in the programs, are denied the benefits of those programs, and are subjected to discrimination in all of those single gender girl only programs.
The complaints request any of the following forms of relief deemed proper by the OCR.
The abolition of the gender-discriminatory, single-gender, female-only, no-males-allowed programs above within a reasonable period of time.
Two.
The conversion of the... He goes on, right?
The conversion of the single-gender, girl-only programs above into gender-neutral, gender-inclusive, gender-blind programs within a reasonable period of time.
Three.
The creation of comparable single-gender all-male programs to offset the current gender favoritism for females and gender discrimination against males in the programs above in violation of Title IX.
Now, here's an interesting point.
If they opened it up to everybody, that's probably the best solution for one reason.
And when I interviewed Mark Perry, it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure he brought up the point about transgender individuals.
That these programs aren't just discriminating against males, they're discriminating against transgender individuals.
Or gender non-binary individuals.
In these instances, they're saying girl only.
Well, what about a non-binary individual?
Would the program restrict a non-binary individual?
What about a biological male identifying as female?
So Mark J. Perry is actually approaching this not from a men's rights point of view, but from a double standard social justice point of view.
He brings up a really interesting point, which In the end, we'll actually create, in my opinion, number two is the most amicable solution.
But he does bring up a good point with number three.
Now, I think the abolition of these programs is a bad idea.
There's probably a lot of, you know, young women using these programs who like these programs, who like being with only women.
This is an interesting conundrum.
If women want to have a program only for men, should they be allowed to do it?
If men want to have a program only for men, should they be allowed to do it?
And this is one of the challenges.
Publicly, under Title IX, probably not.
But shouldn't they be free to?
It's a tough question, it really is.
But that's why I think another good solution is an alternative.
A men's only version of all of these things.
But he says in the bottom line...
It's very disappointing that as much as we hear from America's universities about their pious virtue signaling commitments to diversity, equity, inclusion, and their alleged zero tolerance for any type of discrimination based on gender, that there are nonetheless so many universities that so openly practice gender uniformity, gender inequity, and gender exclusion in programs like the one identified above, and so openly discriminate based on gender in violation of Title IX, Now that my efforts have resulted in seven universities being investigated for violating Title IX's prohibitions on discrimination, he says Michigan, Wayne State, Clemson, Brown, Rutger, Gitt, and Fitt, with several dozen more complaints under review by OCR, let's hope the hypocritical double standard for selectively enforcing federal civil rights law in higher education will be successfully challenged and resolved.
Question.
Or cue.
I don't know what Q means.
Aside from the fact that it's clearly illegal under what moral code and under what set of ethical principles of fairness, justice, and equity has it become so acceptable to promote, fund, and sanction so much gender favoritism, bias, preferences, prejudice, and discrimination?
And it's a good point.
Another really good point to be made is many people argue that women need these programs because they are a marginalized group.
But I tell you, good sir or ma'am, that is not true anymore.
Men are now the minority in colleges.
Therefore, what we're seeing here is the majority gender in universities and colleges receiving programs to benefit them as they are already the majority group.
Men have become the marginalized group at universities, not all of them, but many of them.
In which case, based on the logic of the social justice groups, the intersectional feminists, they should absolutely call for these programs to be shut down and absolutely be calling for programs to increase the amount of males and men, men in general, So no.
In fact, you could successfully argue, under the rules of intersectional feminism, these programs should be completely abolished, as he says in point one, because they favor the majority.
Meanwhile, men are dropping out.
They're not even going.
They are the marginalized group.
So anyway, we'll see what happens.
I'll cover some of this stuff every so often.
I thought it was interesting that we're seeing more of these updates, and it brings up an interesting question about double standards, which you can comment to.
I'm going to leave it there, but we've got one more segment coming up.
Actually, possibly some big news, so stick around.
The segment will be up in a few minutes for those on the podcast.
It is going to play shortly.
I consider this to be an outstanding victory for free speech advocates.
Now, victory may be not the right way to frame it, but this is a major move in the left, the actual intersectional left, stepping up and saying, you know what?
We don't think there's bias against conservatives, but there is a problem of people being banned on these platforms, and the TOS, the terms of service, are not being handed correctly.
Regardless of your political affiliation, I look at it this way.
You got a bunch of people standing up for free speech.
You got the moderates, you know, liberal types.
You've got conservatives.
But now you're even getting, my word, the intersectional feminists writing out with the EFF, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, saying, it sounds like they're saying there's no conservative bias.
They point out the bans on their side.
Good.
You know what?
How many stories have I done, like the other day, about people on the left getting censored?
And we call it the backfire.
It's a backlash.
Censorship will always be used against you.
Well, guess what?
Fortunately, they eventually do learn, not all of them, but at least the EFF now coming out, producing what looks like some kind of tool, some kind of support platform showing you the various censorship, and calling it out At an organizational level.
Now, before we read into this interesting news, TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a cryptocurrency option, a physical address.
But of course, share the video, like, comment, subscribe.
The engagement really, really helps.
But let's get back to the story.
The EFF has announced Today we are launching Tossed Out, a new iteration of EFF's long-standing work in tracking and documenting the ways that terms of service and other speech-moderating rules are unevenly and unthinkingly applied to people by online services.
As a result of these practices, posts are deleted and accounts banned, harming those for whom the internet is an irreplaceable forum to express ideas, connect with others, and find support Spot on.
I commend you, EFF.
I don't care what your politics are.
I don't care if you think there is or isn't bias.
If everybody can stand up and defend free speech, we will win and protect free speech.
Tossed Out continues in the vein of OnlineCensorship.org, which EFF launched in 2014.
To collect reports from users in an effort to encourage social media companies to operate with greater transparency and accountability as they regulate speech.
Now, I disagree.
They shouldn't regulate speech, but I do appreciate the pressure from the EFF.
Tossed out will highlight the myriad of ways that all kinds of people are negatively affected by these rules and their uneven enforcement.
Let me clarify that last statement, though.
Some speech gets regulated.
You know, you can actually say things that are against the law, so I'll put it that way.
I'm just talking about the expression of ideas.
BFF writes, Last week, the White House launched a tool for people to report incidents of censorship on social media following the president's repeated allegations of a bias against conservatives in how these companies apply their rules.
In reality, commercial content moderation practices negatively affect all kinds of people.
That's true.
Especially people who already face marginalization.
We've seen everything from black women flagged for sharing their experiences of racism to sex educators whose content is deemed too risque.
Tossed out will show that trying to censor social media at scale ends up removing legal protected speech that should be allowed on platforms.
Oh my god.
This is a good day.
This is fantastic.
Legal protected speech should be allowed on platforms.
Ah.
It feels, you know, a certain part of my heart warms up when I see, like, you know, the intersectional types, EFF, coming out in agreement.
This is a victory.
Whatever you want to say, it's a victory.
Tossed Out's debut today is the result of brainstorming.
Well, what's the official launch of this?
May 20th, so this was last week.
They say, the debut today is the result of brainstorming, research, design, and writing work that began in late 2018, after we saw an uptake in takedowns resulting from increased public and government pressure, as well as the rise in automated tools.
A diverse group of entries are being published today, including a Twitter account parodying Beto O'Rourke being deemed as confusing or deceptive, a gallery focused on creating awareness of diversity of women's bodies, a Black Lives Matter-themed concert, Oh my god!
an archive aimed at documenting human rights violations.
These examples are the ones added in the future, and the ones added in the future,
make clear the need for companies to embrace the Santa Clara principles.
Oh my God!
This is awesome.
We helped create the principles to establish a human rights framework for online speech moderation,
require transparency about content removal, and specify appeals process
to help users get their content back online.
We call on companies to make that commitment now rather than later.
So let's pull this up and go through it.
And maybe it's not perfect.
We'll see.
People rely on internet platforms to share experiences and build communities, and not everyone has good alternatives to speak out or stay in touch when a tech company censors or bans them.
Rules need to be clear, processes need to be transparent, and appeals need to be accessible.
Well, let's go over the Santa Clara Principles.
They say, the principles on transparency and accountability of content moderation practices as a culmination of one of the series of the, well, do they have bullet points?
I don't want to go through, there we go.
Here are the principles.
One, companies should publish the number of posts removed and accounts permanently or temporarily suspended due to violations of their content guidelines.
Two, Companies should provide notice to each user whose content
is taken down or account is suspended about the reason for the removal.
Three, appeal.
Companies should provide a meaningful opportunity for timely appeal of any content removal or account suspension.
So, I don't think this is all-encompassing, but let's, uh, these are good.
It's a good start.
It's not perfect.
Let's read appeal.
Companies should provide a meaningful opportunity for timely appeal.
They say, human review by a person or panel of persons that was not included in the initial decision.
An opportunity to present additional information that will be considered in the review.
Notification of the results of the review and a statement of the reasoning sufficient to allow the user to understand the decision in the long term.
Independent external review processes may also be an important component for users to be able to seek redress.
It's not perfect.
This, to me, the Santa Clara Principles, looks like kind of a proto-Constitution.
We need something better.
We need free speech guarantees.
But I do think it's absolutely fantastic to hear that the EFF has said... I want to find this one more time.
Legal speech.
Here we go.
Legal, protected speech that should be allowed on the platforms.
Did you know that hate speech is legal and protected?
It absolutely is.
Under the First Amendment, it is legal, protected speech.
This is absolutely incredible.
It's absolutely incredible.
Now, they show this.
Tossed Out has a series of examples of people who are wrongly banned.
We have seen... Actually, let me clarify something.
The EFF, while they may imply in the beginning that they put censorship on quotes in reference to bias against conservatives, they go on to say in reality it affects everybody.
Well, that is true.
It does affect everybody.
But it is also true that conservatives are more likely to be impacted for one simple reason.
Whatever your argument is, Support or oppose the trans right activist movement.
These companies have rules against misgendering.
That is something that is specific to a progressive ideology that many liberals don't even hold.
I've talked about this many, many times, but it shows you there absolutely is a bias in the rule against conservatives.
But that doesn't matter right now.
It doesn't matter.
So long as the EFF and other organizations are willing to call out censorship and speak about protected legal speech being allowed on platforms, I'm gonna say, hey, I don't care if there's bias or not.
By all means, let's defend legal protected speech that should be allowed on these platforms, right?
Now, I will say, the EFF doesn't seem to get into the detail on hate speech, so maybe they're trying to dance around the issue because certainly many people on the left are pro-banning hate speech, but so long you get an inch,
take it.
Take it. Absolutely. A lot of people, you know, when we see things like this,
we'll say, oh, so what? Too bad, right? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out recently condemning the big
tech giants, saying, I don't care where the surveillance is coming from. I oppose it.
She basically said, it doesn't matter if it's the government or five tech giants, we shouldn't allow this massive surveillance system.
And I'm like, bravo!
A lot of people were quick to say, oh, now you come crawling.
Conservatives have been challenging this for a while, but you keep saying private platform, private platform.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I'll tell you my ideology, my principles, my behavior.
If someone steps up and in any way benefits what I want, I'm not going to attack or criticize them.
I'm going to shake their hand.
The people who work at the EFF, some of these people have actually called for banning hate speech.
And now here we are today.
Finally, they must have realized the error of their ways when many of their friends and many of their activists were unfairly banned by arbitrary rules.
So they're late to the party.
I don't care.
They're here at the party.
Are they standing inside dancing around?
No, they're hanging out close to the door.
They're not as involved as everyone else, but I'll take it.
I will take it.
And I hope you consider it too.
We should encourage good behavior.
If the EFF and other left-wing activists want to come out and say, you know what, fine, legal speech should be protected, then let's go for it.
I consider myself on the left.
I always have.
But it doesn't mean I'm part of anyone's tribe.
I don't care for the left or the right tribes.
I care for my principles.
And it was always said...
That the saying was, I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
That used to be a liberal talking point.
It was something we all agreed on, conservatives too.
But the liberals for a while have just abandoned it.
But at least now, at least now they've recognized the error of letting massive private companies, so I'll tell you what, if anyone ever comes to you again and says, but my private platform, say, how about EFF.org, Tossed out.
EFF.org slash tossed out.
Send them that and say, but my private platforms.
Because now, the left is joining the fight.
Not perfect, but whatever, I'll take it.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll leave it there.
I will see you all in the next episode of the next segment tomorrow at 10 a.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
Or, for those that don't know, it's on iTunes, Spotify, and if you're listening on the podcast, leave a review.
