California Cities Are Disgusting Cesspools, May ALREADY Have The BUBONIC Plague
California Cities Are Disgusting Cesspools, May ALREADY Have The Plague. According to Dr Drew, Los Angeles may already have the bubonic plague as rat infestation reaches absurd levels. This follows a typhus outbreak in the city. Los Angeles has a Democratic supermajority yet for some reason is unable to solve these problems, like the homeless problem, rat infestation, spread of disease, much to the outrage of many citizens and writers.In several op-eds, one being in the New York Times, we see people blaming liberal hypocrisy, politicians who don't actually believe in their progressive social justice values when it comes to their back yard. This results in no one actually caring about the problems and filth in these ultra progressive cities. While I can't say its definitively the result of failed liberal policies it sometimes feels that way. But we have to make sure the issue isn't just corruption.It's entirely possible that progressive policies and liberal policies fail but, its also possible these are corrupt far left grifters pretending to be progressive to get elected then doing nothing to help the poor in their cities.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Bubonic plague likely already present in Los Angeles, according to Dr. Drew.
He also went on to say that the city, the public health in Los Angeles is in a complete breakdown, and no city on earth should tolerate this.
The question is, why is this happening?
California has a Democratic supermajority.
You'd think they could get on, you know, on one track to solve these problems.
But no, not only is there filth throughout the streets, rampant disease, there are rat infestations with fleas spreading these diseases.
They have a serious homelessness problem as well.
And apparently they failed to pass a law, a housing bill.
to actually help many of these homeless people. Now, in a New York Times column that I covered
about a week ago, Farhad Manjoo says, blame wealthy liberals. And the reason for it is,
it's a supermajority. Why can't they get their act together and actually solve these problems?
It's a very, very interesting issue. But first, let's read about what's going on with bubonic
plague, because this may be the most alarming bit of information.
But I also want to talk about, you know, it feels like almost like a dark age is coming.
You know, with the decline of science, I should say, the rise of science denialism, this weird ideology, the culture wars escalation, it just feels like things are getting crazy.
And when you even have a democratic supermajority unable to solve these problems, what is happening?
Now, I don't want to be alarmist, but we'll read through some stuff.
But before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are multiple options for donating, including cryptocurrency and a physical address.
But of course, like and comment on the video.
The engagement really, really helps.
And share the link if you really want to support the video.
And subscribe if you have not already and you want more videos like this.
According to the Daily Wire, citing Dr. Drew, I say, Los Angeles is going down the drain.
The city, with a population topping 4 million and a broader metropolitan area with many millions more, is awash in massive problems, overcrowding, lack of housing, and high demand for free services among them.
But other far more serious problems are lurking, Dr. Drew Pinsky said on Thursday.
We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles right now, Pinsky told Fox News host Laura Ingram.
We have the three prongs of airborne disease.
Tuberculosis is exploding.
Rodent-borne.
We are one of the only cities in the country that doesn't have a rodent control program, and sanitation has broken down.
Pinsky said Bubonic Plague, also known as the Black Death, a pandemic that killed off millions in the 14th century, is likely already present in Los Angeles.
The plague is spread by infected fleas and exposure to bodily fluids from a dead plague-infected animal, with the bacteria entering through the skin and traveling to the lymph nodes.
Typhus, which broke out in the city last year, will likely return, Pinsky said.
Already, a Los Angeles police officer has contracted typhoid fever, which infects fewer than 350 Americans per year.
The various types of typhus are caused by a bacterial infection and spread by body lice, chiggers, or fleas.
In the 1600s, the disease decimated Germany.
This is unbelievable.
I can't believe I live in a city where this is not third world.
This is medieval, Penske said, according to Fox News.
Third world countries are insulted if they are accused of being like this.
No city on earth tolerates this.
The entire population is at risk.
Pinsky said the city simply can't handle the demand for services, noting that many homeless are mentally ill and don't want to accept housing.
The government is somehow insisting that housing is the problem, when in fact we have chronic mental illness, we have addiction, we have people who don't want to leave the streets.
They literally won't take the housing if we give it to them, and that's the population that's vulnerable and is going to get so ill this summer, it scares me for their well-being.
I have personal experience in this regard.
I worked for a homeless shelter back when I was a non-profit director.
And one of the problems we saw was that young people did not want to go to shelters.
They prefer to be on the streets.
They want to sleep under bridges in these areas.
So even when you would pull up and offer them resources and say, free room and board, no questions asked, they'd say no.
Sometimes they would come, clean up, or take something, and then skip out immediately.
So it's true, Pinsky's right.
Even if you offer them housing, they won't accept it.
Now, I can't offer you a reason as to why they can't solve these problems.
Many people point to the fact that it's a Democratic supermajority.
Like I showed you that the opinion piece blames wealthy liberals.
There are other op-eds saying the exact same thing.
Blame the Democrats for this.
They're the ones in charge.
Is it because they're Democrats?
Is it because of their policies?
I'm not going that far.
What I can say is whatever it is they're espousing is not what they're doing.
They're not helping people and disease is getting worse.
The famed doctor also said California cities are suffering after allowing thousands of illegal aliens to flow in.
He said the liberal politicians running most cities are disgustingly negligent.
Homelessness is also exploding in San Francisco, the home district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat.
And they also have to bring on, I kid you not, a poop patrol because there is so much feces littered throughout the streets of San Francisco.
What is going on in California?
A federal count shows the number of homeless people increased by double-digit percentages in three San Francisco Bay Area counties over two years as the region struggled to tackle the growing problem, including 17% in San Francisco and 43% in the county that includes Oakland.
That's according to the Associated Press.
Meanwhile, A new map compiled by the group Open the Books, titled 2011-2019 San Francisco Human Waste Reportings, my god, features a little pin, appropriately brown, showing where city residents have reported human feces.
From the looks of the map, the entire city has been covered in poop.
Now it's funny, we say poop.
But really, what do we want to say when we try and keep this discourse, you know, clean and professional?
It's silly, feces.
Look at this.
Okay, so those listening to the podcast, you can't see this map, but I kid you not, in the downtown area of San Francisco, it is just jet black, right?
There are so many nodes.
showing a poop an instance of poop in the streets that it's just become a mass of black like like someone just took paintbrush and just scribbled black because they're all mashed so tightly together there is nothing to you can't see anything it's covering literally all of San Francisco they're saying from the looks of the map the entire city has been covered in poop this is a tweet from Lachlan Marque who says they mapped out every report of human feces on the streets of San Francisco At some point, something needs to be done.
Nancy Pelosi, this is her district, apparently.
What is she doing to solve these problems?
And I gotta say, you know, if this is what her home district looks like, why should we listen to anything she has to say in terms of policy?
Because clearly something is not working where she comes from.
They go on to say, a quote from Forbes, Since 2008, over 23,800 cases of human waste were reported
in the heart of San Fran.
There were 13 reports of human feces in front of City Hall, 17 events at the U.S. Marshal's office,
and 67 reports at the Tenderloin Police Station on Eddy Street.
Even the biggest companies that call San Francisco home have not been spared.
The largest concentration of complaints was in the area of Market Street, where the headquarters of companies such as Twitter and Uber are located.
Nearly a hundred markers also were clustered along the block that surrounds City Hall.
What an insane display of inequality.
These uber-elite far-left corporations, multinational, you know, massive billion-dollar corporations, the Democratic politicians, and this is what they're living in.
They're living in their ivory towers while their streets are littered with feces, and Dr. Drew Pinsky is concerned he believes bubonic plague is already coming back.
I don't care about politics in this regard.
Let's just do something about this insane nightmare.
Now, of course, one of the things that's been highlighted, this story from the L.A.
Times, I don't know if this is L.A.
trying to protect itself, like defend itself, they're blaming climate change.
They say climate change could bring bubonic plague back to L.A.
Longer, hotter weather patterns are extending the breeding season of rats and rodents, leading to a steep increase in their numbers in places like L.A.
New York and Houston, over the last decade, urban rat populations are up 15 to 20% worldwide.
If climate change really will bring about some, like, bubonic plague, and that wipes out a massive amount of human beings, then that's kind of course-correcting for the planet.
Wouldn't you think?
It's kind of like the Earth just...
These things evolve, humans produce too much CO2, methane, etc., planet heats up, spreads more disease more rapidly, increases, you know, water levels, whatever, humans get wiped out, things kind of calm back down.
There's a funny point made, I don't know if you've seen Avengers Endgame, but one of the points, I can't remember where it was brought up, it may have been in the movie, that since Thanos wiped out half the population, then the ecosystem healed dramatically, because humans were half gone.
Kind of Thanos' point, right?
So I do want to point out that Dr. Drew also said that LA Public Health is in complete breakdown and no city on earth tolerates this.
This story from Fox News is actually much less comprehensive.
But he says we have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization.
The question is, why?
Why is this?
Well, I reported this a while ago in a video I made about Democrats being hypocritical, citing this man Farhad Manjoo in the New York Times.
So again, while I can certainly have my opinion, I don't pull these opinions out of thin air.
I don't make videos about these things just because I'm trying to frame something a certain way.
Quite literally, I saw this story and said, wow.
And then a story came out saying bubonic plague might be back in LA.
And I said, maybe that's a problem that's going to affect 13 million people that we should probably talk about and figure out why it's happening.
Okay, now he says, Farhad, he blames the wealthy liberals that abandoned their progressive values in their own backyards.
But we also have this story.
This is from Curbed Los Angeles saying, the May massacre of California's housing bills.
Democrats hold a supermajority, but failed to exercise any of their power to fix the housing crisis.
I will tell you why this is an issue.
Sure, there's a rat problem.
Rats have fleas.
These are spreading disease.
You know, warmer, longer seasons, whatever.
If you can't get a housing situation solved for these homeless people, or do something about this, This is going to spread bubonic plague, assuming it exists, if you take Pinsky's word for it.
Typhus.
Typhoid fever.
Already here.
There was already an outbreak.
You got a bunch of people living on the streets, they're going to get sick, and that's going to start infecting people who aren't homeless.
So, first, the one thing you gotta do, full of a god, get rid of the rats, okay?
Now, it's not all bad news.
This story from NBC4, Los Angeles, L.A.
cracks down to clean up rat-infested, garbage-filled street.
It's only one street!
But hey, hey, it's not all bad news.
I can't say this is going to be a major solution for all of LA.
disease-carrying rats out of an alley between downtown LA's fashion and
produce districts. I can't say this is going to be a major solution for all of
LA. It's one alleyway, but at least it's something, okay?
I don't want to be like, you know, waving a sign saying the end is nigh.
There's something else here I want to make sure I cover.
I don't think this is effective.
Is this going to do anything?
I mean, it's good you're keeping the rats away from the produce district.
My god.
If you want to talk about how to spread disease, that'll do it.
But why does LA not have a rat patrol?
Seriously, San Francisco actually has a group of people, it was reported in one story, they get paid $184,000 a year to do poop patrol.
That's how bad it is in San Francisco.
You know, I do want to stress, I always want to make sure I clarify this as well.
The weather is really nice in California.
It definitely attracts people.
But New York City has more homeless people, according to a Forbes report I covered last week, more homeless people in New York than LA.
So it's not weather.
Weather is not the reason that LA has these problems.
While I can certainly agree with Pinsky, That in my experience working for these shelters and these non-profits, homeless people don't want to take shelter.
It doesn't mean there's no solution.
It means something needs to be done and you're not doing it.
How we're at a point where Los Angeles, one of the biggest urban jurisdictions, the county, is rife with disease and trash and rats and homelessness and it's not being solved, it blows my mind.
Maybe Farhad from the New York Times is right.
These wealthy liberals do not actually hold the values they claim to espouse.
Nancy Pelosi, what is she doing?
Her home district is covered in human waste!
All of this is really scary to me when we hear about literally bubonic plague being possible because of the rats.
And it's not just the hyperbole from someone like Drew Pinsky, it's literally a concern written in the LA Times that climate change could bring bubonic plague back to LA.
And you've got, it's not just Dr. Drew saying this, I reported this in a video like two weeks ago, that there was a fear bubonic plague could be in LA right now, and now Drew feels the same way, and they're even reporting Climate change could be a factor in this.
We're not just playing with hyperbole right now.
There's a serious concern that bubonic plague is going to come back.
So those are the core issues I want to make sure I talk about.
I don't know what the solution is.
I'm not going to pretend to be an Irving planning and expert or anything like that.
What I can say is how LA and San Francisco are dealing with these issues, and other cities aren't, how they don't have a way to deal with rats.
They're only dealing with one street, apparently.
It's mind-blowing.
But I will stress, I hear about these things and I have a fear that with the rise and the escalation of the culture war, we're really moving towards a dangerous future and maybe some kind of dark age.
Now, what a dark age is, I don't necessarily know because people have different definitions based on their ideology.
But I think the spread of disease, the breakdown of social cohesion, and the denial of science, the rise of zealotry and dogma.
And we certainly see it.
This is a story from just a couple days ago.
ago, self-censorship on campus is bad for science.
Amid heightened tensions on college campuses, well-established scientific ideas are suddenly
meeting with stiff political resistance.
In this story, Luana Miroja talks about how students are denying established biology in
favor of social justice.
So I think about where this brings us.
This wasn't the first time we heard this.
This is a story from January of 2018.
The left is also guilty of unscientific dogma.
Yup.
It's been getting worse.
The left denying science.
I'm not gonna act like the right doesn't.
Everybody denies their science in certain ways.
Not everyone on the left and not everyone on the right, but they have their factions and they have certain things they deny.
I'm not trying to say that science is always right.
Quite the contrary, science is actually typically wrong and that's what makes it work.
You slowly improve your knowledge.
There are people, it doesn't matter what you believe, it doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal, there are anti-science people and they're all over the place and they're becoming more prominent.
What's scary to me is the left, they're in universities and they're impeding science while claiming to support it.
They're calling biology unscientific. And then we have the rampant spread of
disease. We have some people blaming the Democrats in this one story, the housing crisis.
Democrats hold a super majority. They failed to exercise any of their power to fix the housing
crisis. Blame the Democrats there.
That's an opinion piece from Alyssa Walker. We have the New York Times. It's not a, I
don't think it's a conservative right wing, you know, or necessarily a partisan thing
to say.
The Democrats do not have a handle on these issues, and there is a rising faction of people who deny science, and this stuff freaks me out.
It does.
I don't know what else to say, you know.
I think it's not going to improve.
I have little hope that these problems will be solved.
It kind of feels like dominoes falling over.
Just over time, these things happen this way, and so long as people can't see beyond their personal interests, they're unwilling to plant a tree whose shade they know they will never sit in, then it all just falls down.
Who's gonna deal with the rats and why should they?
I bet they just leave.
You know, someone's gonna be in LA and say, well, I'll just move.
And where does this bring us?
It brings us to an era where social cohesion breaks down and then we end up in a kind of
dark age where different factions have fractured in different areas.
I don't know necessarily what that means.
I'm not trying to say like the US will no longer exist or something.
No, it just means that certain institutions are no longer cooperating.
We're seeing the New York Times telling their reporters not to appear on CNN and MSNBC and
I'm like, that's a breakdown to an extreme degree.
I don't want to ramble too much and get into a bunch of other issues, but it just, it really does feel like this is another piece, another straw in the camel's back, and eventually that camel's going to collapse under that weight, and then where are we?
I don't know.
Let me know what you think about this in the comments below.
We'll keep the conversation going.
If you're listening on the podcast, leave a review.
Let me know what you think, and I will have more segments coming up on my second channel at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
For those listening on the podcast, again, the arrangement may be different, but thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
In today's episode of I Hate Everyone and Everything, and Millennials are whiny babies who can't function without someone taking care of them, we have the story about the Vox host, Carlos Maza, trying to get Steven Crowder banned from YouTube.
Make no mistake, this is an issue of a public figure, Carlos Maza, on one of the biggest platforms in the world, Vox.com, who regularly gets over one million views on his videos, angry that other people Talk about him and send him mean things on the internet.
Listen, it doesn't matter who you are or what you believe.
When you're getting a million views plus on your videos, congratulations, you will be harassed.
I bring this up all the time, but you don't see me trying to get people banned.
It's just mind-bogglingly frustrating.
So here's the thing.
Crowder.
Should you be mocking him, calling him, you know, certain things?
I do not believe so.
However, I am also not a comedian, a political comedian, so I really... I don't know where the line is.
And I think if they do ban Crowder, that would be absolutely insane.
At the very least, they can ask him to tone down the identity-based, you know, impersonations.
But I gotta point something out.
Sure, it would be fair to be like, let's kind of de-escalate this, everybody.
In this story from The Verge, I kid you not, they say this.
Crowder's videos routinely contain egregious violations of YouTube's policies against cyberbullying, included repeatedly referring to Maza as an anchor baby.
Stop.
Carlos Maza referred to himself as an anchor baby in a recent video.
A lispy queer, Lispy, I think, is in combination with queer, but Carl Smaza refers to himself as a queer, and a Mexican, among other derogatory terms.
Calling somebody a Mexican is not a derogatory term!
What is this?
Is that really what they're upset about?
No, I think what he's really upset about is that he's getting criticism.
Aww.
And unfortunately for Crowder, He is flaunting the line.
He does impersonate Carlos Maza and refer to him in such a way that Carlos Maza can use that against him.
Listen, if Carlos is going to refer to himself as an anchor... He did.
There's a video about... I think it's about Republicans becoming more extreme.
He says that he is like... I think he calls himself an anchor.
I could be wrong.
I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth.
But he does refer to himself in these ways.
So, if he can call himself that, and then you say, okay, I'll call you that, and then you go, how dare you?
That's hate speech!
What are the rules, man?
So, this whole thing is insane, and you're gonna love this.
Oh my god.
So, first of all, somebody doxxed this guy.
That is wrong.
Absolutely wrong.
I've criticized Carlos Maza's videos on various occasions.
I never talk about him.
I don't care about who he is or where he's from.
I care about the information he's presenting, and I want to address the information.
So first and foremost, I do disagree with Crowder in that regard, but again, I understand, you know, this is political comedy, so where the line is, don't look at me.
I mean, you can't have Karl Smaza refer to himself as a way and then get mad at Crowder for doing something similar.
But somebody doxxed him.
Wrong.
Absolutely wrong.
But here's what blows my mind, right?
So he talks about how he started getting, he got a phone call, says, why do you hate?
He hangs up.
He couldn't even process the call before more than a hundred text messages spammed his phone, all with numbers, all at the same message, debate Steven Crowder.
He says, I just started blocking numbers, but my phone was basically unusable because it kept blowing up.
Even when I'm writing scripts now.
It's almost like looking over my shoulder thinking, is there a way to write this that will allow me to not get blowback for this?
This is how I used to act in high school when I was brutally harassed for being gay.
I'm still constantly looking over my shoulder.
Way to use your identity as a defense.
I completely disagree with that.
You're not addressing the idea and the problem of doxxing.
You're trying to make an emotional appeal to people to use your marginalized identity to defend yourself.
But you want to talk about how to avoid getting blowback, how about you actually fact-check your stories?
Let's do this.
I recently made a rebuttal, a bit.
It was more than just his comment, his video.
But he made a video called, You're Watching Fox News, You Just Don't Know It.
And he's got a photo of himself with his eyes bleeding.
This video is insane conspiracy nonsense where he alleges that Fox News is hacking the media space and pushing stories to the forefront.
Notably, the Hillary email scandal.
Oh, Fox News pushed it to the forefront?
I'm sorry, that story was broken by the New York Times and the Associated Press.
You live in a fringe conspiracy nonsense world.
So he makes videos like this that are easily, easily fact-checked.
When he said the Hillary email scandal wasn't really news or something to that effect, And then all of a sudden Fox News pushed it and it became news.
I said, okay, let me search for this.
Almost every single source I found referenced that the story was being pushed heavily by large mainstream news sources like the New York Times and the AP.
They broke the stories.
Washington Post picked up the story.
Washington Post, a year later, did a big breakdown on the server scandal and the email scandal.
How are you going to claim that Fox News made that happen?
That is insane.
So you want to talk about not getting blowback?
How about you don't put out weird conspiracy nonsense where your eyes are bleeding?
It's such an insane world we live in.
When you have someone who's on a platform with six million followers.
Look at this video.
A million views.
We go down here.
It's one about Tucker Carlson.
A million views.
Oh no!
Imagine how much harassment Tucker Carlson got when you made that video.
When people showed up to his house.
You want to complain about getting text messages?
You got a phone call?
I went skateboarding one day and I was being threatened by a group of guys because of fake news nonsense that was published about me.
You want to talk about how you're at the mall and someone started texting you?
My phone, at one point, when someone got my number and I changed it, wouldn't stop ringing.
Yes, been there, done that.
What did I do about it?
I moved on because I'm an adult.
You want to complain that you're at the mall and you got text messages because they want you to debate Steven Crowder?
Oh, I'm so sorry!
I'll think about that the next time a group of people threaten me with physical violence because of the trash people like you put out.
Think about this.
People showed up to Tucker Carlson's house, were banging on the door.
That's illegal, okay?
Political affiliation is protected in Washington, D.C.
And according to Tucker, the door was cracked.
His wife was hiding in the closet.
Other people contest that.
They said the door wasn't cracked.
He's exaggerating.
I don't care.
People show up to the dude's house, okay?
You want to talk about what you're... This is insane.
These people stand up on this massive platform, get over a million views, targeting people they don't like, pumping out nonsense, fake conspiracy nonsense.
Fox News made the email scandal happen.
Are you nuts?
It's called the New York Times, dude.
Google search it.
And then they're shoveling their trash over the wall, and when someone shovels some trash back, they go, ah, help, I'm under attack.
Here's the best part.
Here is the best part.
My god, why are millennials such, such just, oh my god, I'm so, it's so annoying.
I read this story and I felt like, I'm like, oh my god, millennials.
Not all of them.
Not all, I mean, most of you guys who watch me are millennials.
So at least we're not insane children.
Look at this.
Mazza doesn't blame Crowder.
There are always going to be bullies, he said.
The only difference between bullies in middle school and YouTube, he argued, is having a principal or teacher step in and remove the bully from the equation entirely.
They realize one side is being the aggressor, that's unacceptable, and they enforce actual penalties on the bully.
In what WALL-E world did you grow up in?
My God, this reeks of such disgusting privilege.
The guy who tries to claim he's a marginalized, you know, figure.
You want to talk about being marginalized?
How about being a mixed-race high school dropout from the south side of Chicago, and you have the police kick your door with their guns drawn looking for somebody who doesn't live there?
How about getting surrounded by, like, 12 police vehicles pulling you out, taking our credit card information, our passports?
You want to talk about what's fair?
I think it's hilarious that he wants someone to step in.
You're an adult, dude.
Grow up.
No one's going to step in for you.
You want to file a defamation suit?
Go for it.
We have a First Amendment in this country.
But look at how they behave, like children.
Why won't the principal step in?
Are you in high school, dude?
No, you are not.
You're an adult, and in the real world, we have a legal system.
And guess what?
You can't just go and shut down people who are mean to you.
It's funny to me when I see this complete trash.
And I think my politics is perfect.
Like this really does explain my politics in a lot of ways.
I grew up in Chicago.
I totally get systemic racism, these injustices.
And that's why my politics are like center left.
I'm not left.
I'm not far left.
I'm just like right in the middle, leaning to the left.
Right?
But here's the thing.
I've dealt with the cruelty and the unfairness of the world.
I've been homeless.
I know what actually happens in public when two people are fighting.
The principal doesn't step in and say, this one's clearly the bully.
He says, both of you are suspended.
And you say, but I was being attacked.
He said, I don't care.
You were fighting.
GTFO.
I've had cops screw with me.
I've had cops try and plant drugs in my car.
Let's talk about what happens when you beg the authority to be fair.
This is complete insane behavior.
And he doubles down.
So, here's the original thread, where he also claims that the satirical shirt, Socialism is for Figs, there's even a fig on it, because clearly trying to make a joke is actually a slur.
But this is, you know, he basically went on and says, YouTube doesn't care, they don't care about us.
Here we go, Carl Smaza, who has terrible ideas, who publishes insane conspiracy, and does the same thing Crowder does when he targets people like Tucker Carlson.
And he thinks he's above it, and then as soon as anyone points the finger back, he starts complaining that because he's a queer, he's under fire.
That's the real reason.
This is completely pathetic behavior.
Now, I will stress, please leave the guy alone, okay?
I think he's a...
He's a whiny child.
He can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
He has one of the most powerful platforms in the world to espouse his message, even when it's a weird picture of him bleeding from the eyes.
And in the video, he pulls blood out of his ear, and he talks about ridiculous conspiracy nonsense that makes no sense.
He acts like MSNBC and CNN aren't overly partisan.
They are.
Even the New York Times is no longer allowing their reporters to appear on those shows.
It is not Fox News.
When you publish crap like this, don't be surprised when people fire back.
But, here we go.
He says, for the record, it's been over 24 hours since I tweeted this.
Every social media page I have is being bombarded.
Crowder has accused me of being part of an NBC conspiracy, re-upped his harassing videos,
and generally laughed this all off.
Still nothing from YouTube.
You can't ask these people to behave better or even apologize.
YouTube incentivized harassers to double down and continue their abuse
in order to keep their followers engaged.
YouTube's anti-harassment policy is meaningless if violators know they'll never lose their channels.
YouTube helped Crowder build an army of engaged, aggressive fans willing to mobilize on his behalf.
He is currently convincing them that I'm an NBC operative, excuse me, trying to shut him down to stifle competition.
His fans believe him.
YouTube created a monster it's afraid to stop.
That, Carlos, is called an opinion, and people are allowed to have them.
So, Steven Crowder's view is that Vox, whose valuation probably has tanked by their own reporting, right?
Disney has written off everything they put in Vice.
They've said their investment's a loss.
In that article written by Vox, they say Comcast probably views their investment in Vox as a loss at some point, or less than it originally was.
NBC put in $200 million, I believe, into Vox.
And here you have a guy.
How many followers does this guy have?
Carlos Maza with nearly a hundred thousand followers, whose videos regularly break one million views.
Here's another one.
Why you still don't understand the Green New Deal.
Nearly a million views.
And he's upset.
This is the epitome of this, like, I don't know where this guy comes from or what his deal is, but he is the snooty elitist people.
Like, I can't stand these people, right?
The snooty elitists who are wrong and can dish it but can't take it.
Welcome to the real world, dude.
Let me know.
First, I will stress, nobody should be harassing people.
Nobody should be messaging this guy.
Nobody should be texting him, debating anybody.
That is insane nonsense.
I care not for this guy's identity.
I don't care where his parents came from.
I don't care the circumstances in which he was born.
Just the content of his character.
And I will tell you this, that the content of his character is shown to be less than good, to say the least.
I think he pumps out hyper-partisan nonsense.
Some of it's fine.
I have no problem.
He's allowed to have his opinion and frame things the way he wants.
He made a video talking about how Republicans have become more extreme, but it conveniently stops at a certain year.
There's an argument being made that Republicans don't work with Democrats anymore, and I think the issue is actually that, while yes, the Republicans have moved slightly to the right, the Democrats have just went straight to the left.
But I digress, I don't want to talk about that.
The issue is, by all means, say whatever you want, put out your opinions.
In this video, his latest video, which is the subject of, like, much of the criticism, he's gone really, really off the deep end.
He makes the argument that YouTube is helping create, you know, engage these people and that, you know, he says YouTube incentivizes harassers to double down.
What do you think you're doing?
What do you think you are doing, Carlos?
No, seriously.
When you make a video where you seriously contend that Fox News controls the political narrative, don't you think you're going off the deep end?
Like, you're so desperate to produce some kind of content that will grab people and engage them that you make some insane nonsense about Fox News controlling the political narrative.
As if CNN, MSNBC, HLN, etc, etc, etc don't exist.
They do.
It's completely absurd.
So, now you have someone standing in the kitchen, they can't take the heat.
You have someone shoveling trash over the wall, and they freak out when it comes right back at them.
And you have someone whose only defense of their bad ideas is, I'm being harassed because I'm gay.
That's it.
You can't use that as an argument.
You can't use that as a defense.
It says nothing about your ideas.
And trying to get Steven Crowder banned because people don't like you is absurd.
We do have a serious problem with the internet and, I don't want you to call it, but man, when crowds get angry and start just like targeting you and harassing you, it can get really bad.
And I've actually had to talk with police departments about threats of security and things like this and protect my home and my friends because of how bad it's gotten.
I don't know if anyone's ever physically threatened Carlos Maza.
That would be an egregious violation of any social norm and law, and it should never happen.
In fact, Carlos is welcome to sit down for tea and crumpets with me or, you know, my friends at any point, and we will make sure that no one ever insults him for who he is or any of these things.
But I'll tell you what.
I will criticize you for your work, and that's something you should expect.
And I will be fair.
I believe Carlos would recognize that, too.
I think if you remove the mocking him and his lisp and the way he speaks, he wouldn't really have anything else to say.
I think he would agree with that.
You know, fine.
He's being criticized.
What can you do about it?
However, the fact that he's latching onto that to go after Crowder, I'm sorry, dude.
People are mean.
I get made fun of all the time.
People are posting fake photos about me.
People pull things out of context.
They pull quotes out of context.
And because of this, I get threats of violence.
I get confronted by people in the street.
I can't even go skateboarding.
I mostly can't, right?
It happened one time.
The point I'm trying to make is, I have gone out into the world, and I have had people threaten me.
Yep.
Has that happened to you? Maybe. Maybe. It's wrong. It shouldn't happen.
But, but, but, but, you know, it's absolutely insane that...
I've had people, like alt-right people, just drag and rag on me as being like a disgusting mixed race, all of this
other nonsense.
I don't care. You can call me whatever you want, dude. I'm an adult.
Sticks and stones, man. Sticks and stones.
So, ultimately, Stephen Crowder did issue a response.
Um...
I'm actually concerned they might actually ban him.
Seriously.
Because he's made a ton of videos rebutting these strikethrough videos, and yes, Steven mocks Carlos Maza personally, but in his imitation calls him names and refers to him in such ways, that I think the appropriate response from YouTube would be to say something like, For the sake of simmering things down, don't call him, you know, names.
Target his ideas.
That's what Crowder mostly does.
He criticizes the video, but he mocks Carlos as an individual.
The thing is, You're allowed to mock someone.
You're allowed to imitate them.
You're allowed to, you know, you're allowed to.
Especially on YouTube, you're allowed to do it.
Crowder is a political commentary show and Crowder is commenting on a channel that is twice the size, almost twice the size of his.
Is this Crowder punching up or punching down?
In fact, I would say it is two high-level public platforms having a disagreement.
Crowder put himself in a weakened position because this guy's weaponizing his identity.
That's wrong.
Carlos shouldn't do that.
It's just, look, it's gonna happen.
Should Crowder be banned?
100% absolutely not.
But I think Crowder should probably try and, you know, be more careful.
I know a lot of people are going to disagree with that and they're going to say, no way, it's not fair.
But you know what, man?
You don't earn points by doing the mockery and stuff like that.
I was thinking about what differentiates people in the intellectual dark web from other political commentators.
And I think one of the big issues is not targeting someone's identity for humiliation or mocking the way they speak.
Why is Ben Shapiro intellectual dark web and the Weinsteins?
They disagree on a lot of things.
And I think it's because maybe Ben Shapiro has, but more recently, I recognize the guy's been in politics for a long time, but does he make fun of people and insult them and say names about them?
Sometimes I think he kind of does, and that's why I'm interested in Ben Shapiro, but you look at a lot of these IDW types, they don't.
They don't.
There are a lot of people, I think Sargon, if you're familiar with Sargon of Akkad, he used to very much so insult and attack and make fun of people, ridicule them.
And it was a big thing that we saw from a lot of political commentators as political YouTube started getting more prominent.
And I noticed that, and I completely, completely disagree with it.
Because for me, I would absolutely have a... I sat down, we did a livestream, I did a livestream with David Pakman, and we had a very great conversation.
I try, when I have conversations and when I disagree with people, I try to make sure that we're not playing silly games, and we can break through some of the tribal walls.
So, you know, David was criticizing a lot of my YouTube content, and absolutely.
By all means, please do.
Criticize me.
I will answer to any question.
I will try and give you my view and my justification of, you know, why I do what I do.
Certainly, we all think we're the heroes of our own story, and that's what we should be doing.
I understand that Crowder's trying to make people laugh, though, and he uses politics.
So if we're looking at... It's a really interesting situation.
Two very high-profile personalities, and one is saying, because of my identity, this guy should be banned.
YouTube, I'm being harassed.
That's when I'm like, wow.
You've lost the argument, have you?
You know?
Crowder might be a mean guy.
Like, let's- let's say this.
I think- I guess what I should say is, like, I don't think Crowder should- should- should do this because... It's mean, right?
But that's just me.
I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do it.
But it's an issue of...
This guy's really mad that Crowder's mean to him.
You can't blame people who don't like Carlos for Crowder.
You know, if Crowder wants to criticize Carlos, he's allowed to.
I'm allowed to.
Anyone's allowed to.
And if somebody who watches, you know, goes nuts, like, how is that my fault?
How is that Crowder's fault?
We've both, as well as many other people, repeatedly condemned all of this bad behavior, harassment, identity attacks.
We've all condemned it.
Right?
Crowder uses it to make fun, but We're in this area now where it's like, there are some people, there are some people who think they're above being criticized.
So I'm gonna put it this way.
How many followers do I have on this channel?
Like 380,000 subs.
I've got 466,000, 467,000 on my main channel.
We've got 122-ish on Subverse.
466,000, 467,000 on my main channel. We've got 122-ish on Subverse.
I- I collectively am close to breaking a million subs across my social media, but I do have a big Twitter
following.
Carlos has a decent Twitter following, nearly 100,000, and access to 600 million subscribers on Vox, and he routinely breaks a million views.
I do not.
Carlos is getting ten times the viewership I do.
Ten times.
Why does it matter if we're punching up or punching down?
Carlos is free to criticize me all day and all night.
He won't, though.
His show is too big to criticize me.
It would be a waste of his time and a waste for his audience.
But when it comes to Crowder and Carlos, they're on somewhat equal footing.
So my advice to Carlos would be to, and I mean this literally, grow up, okay?
And I'm not saying that as like a silly thing, like quite literally.
You're asking for a principal or teacher to step in.
No.
You're an adult, and this is how the real world functions.
And I think there are so many young people who just don't seem to get it.
No one is going to come and save you.
And that's why, my God, what a ridiculous, ridiculous thing to say.
I want you to go to Hawaii, like that woman who fell 20 feet and broke her leg.
I want you to go into the wilderness, get into, let me do this.
Imagine you're in the woods.
You're a hundred miles from any civilization.
You're walking, you know, you've got, you've got a rifle, you've got a small bag with food, and you've got a small satchel with, you've got a small little, uh, uh, you know, thermos or something holding water.
You have no idea where any city is.
Off in the distance, you notice another person.
Looks exactly the same as you.
They got a gun, they got some, what looks like they're carrying food and a thermos.
What do you do?
Do you wave?
Hey!
Another person!
What happens if they don't speak English?
And you shout, and all they hear is GLARBLGLAR!
Now they're scared.
Oh, what do you do?
Do you assume you can just walk up and shake their hand?
Are you concerned they might shoot you?
They have a gun.
Do you draw first?
What if you draw?
They'll draw.
How do you handle that situation?
Welcome to the real world.
No principal will step in and say, guys, please don't fight.
If you don't defend yourself and prepare yourself, that person might say, you know what?
There's no food anywhere.
That guy's got food.
It's me or him.
That person might also be thinking, wow, this other person might help save my life if we team up.
You have no idea.
What do you do?
Do you cross your fingers and hope that the teacher will come down into the forest and say, let me guide you, my children?
No.
It's called being an adult and realizing the world is dangerous and unfair, and that's not how it works.
But think about the mentality of these people who grow up in a world where everything is done for them.
Look at this mentality.
This is what separates, I think, me from many of the people on the left.
It's a big factor.
Being a high school dropout and being homeless.
My politics didn't change.
My opinions didn't change.
I grew up in a city.
But it also means I recognize there is no principle.
Life isn't fair.
And even when there is an authority, they will not do what you want.
This is also a good representation of how this man, Carlos, is an authoritarian.
He defers to the authority to solve his problems.
I don't.
I'm an anti-authoritarian.
In fact, even though I recognize there is legitimate authority, I'm still extremely... I question.
I push back on it.
I challenge it.
You must prove your authority.
You must, you must show why you have it.
Here's a guy who says, why won't YouTube do this for me?
Sorry.
Welcome to the real world.
I'm going to stop ranting.
This thing's mind blowing and makes me really angry, but thanks for hanging out in this 25 minute long video.
I will have another segment coming up at 1 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast for those in the podcast.
It will begin shortly, although I do rearrange the podcast depending on the various segments.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all in the next segment.
Nevada Democratic Governor vetoes National Popular Vote bill.
Now this story was pretty big when it happened because it was another state joining what's called the National Popular Vote Coalition, I believe.
Could be wrong.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
There we go.
Basically what they're trying to do, if you don't know, they're trying to rally as many states as possible so they can secure 270 electoral votes and their idea is that whoever wins the popular vote in the country gets all of their votes no matter what.
It is one of the most idiotic and insane ideas I've ever heard, especially when you realize most of the states that are signing on Are blue states, meaning they almost always give their votes to Democrats anyway.
The only thing this could end up doing is giving an opportunity for these states to give all of their votes to Republicans.
It makes no sense.
You may have seen my videos on this in the past.
So let's read this news and then I want to go over some 538 data talking about the issue.
They say.
Nevada's Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak on Thursday vetoed a bill that would have pledged the state's electoral college votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.
After thoughtful deliberation, I've decided to veto Assembly Bill 186, Sisolak said in a statement.
Once effective, The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada's electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.
Why in the hell would anybody want to do that?
Think about it.
If you live in a state and you vote for somebody, you want your state to vote for that person, why would you give up that right to New York and Los Angeles?
Beats the hell out of me.
The legislation approved by the state's Senate last week would add Nevada to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and pledge the state's six electoral college votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote.
The move would effectively abolish the electoral college, which is used to determine who wins the White House, and instead rely on the popular vote to determine the presidential winner.
So the other big issue that people often bring up in this regard is There are a lot of Republicans who live in blue states who don't vote because the states are reliably blue.
So we don't even know how this will impact the country.
A lot of these Democrats are thinking, hey, we keep winning.
God, it's so amazingly short-sighted.
First.
They look at the numbers.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.
Republicans should not have won the White House.
Therefore, let's just do, you know, politics based on the popular vote.
Okay, fine.
Let's do it that way.
What happens then when a bunch of Republicans start voting in their blue states because they now know their vote counts?
All of a sudden, you might see a change in that blue states where Republicans don't vote.
All of a sudden, now they're voting.
There's a lot of red states.
Think about this.
There's a lot of red states that have Democrats.
However, red states tend to be less populated in many circumstances, not entirely, than blue states.
California with, you know what, 35 million people.
California is always blue.
How many Republicans in California would now vote and dramatically shift the tide towards Republicans, and then all of a sudden, safe blue states just give up their rights?
They look at the fact That because they're reliably blue, they're seeing a big popular vote number, and they're not thinking about the actual statistics and what will end up happening.
Outside of that, why the hell would you give up your right to choose who you think should be president?
Man, these people are nuts.
They say.
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation to join the pact, which will only take effect if the number of states holding the majority of the Electoral College's 538 electoral votes join the agreement.
Colorado, Delaware, and New Mexico all approved laws to join the initiative this year, bringing
the pact up to 189 electoral votes, 81 short of the 270 necessary for it to take effect.
Attempts to get Nevada to pledge its six electoral votes to the National Popular Vote winner has
failed twice, with attempts in 2017 and 2009. Legislative sessions failing to make it to the
gov... uh... okay. With attempts in the 2017 and 2009 legislative sessions failing to make it to
to the governor's desk.
So now you actually have them passing it.
So before they've tried, they've failed, now they've passed.
This year's effort was contentious in Nevada's state legislator.
Being approved 23-17 in the State Assembly and 12-8 in the State Senate.
The National Popular Vote Compact has been proposed for years but has picked up steam recently, although almost exclusively in Democratic-controlled states.
President Trump was elected in 2016 after securing the majority of the Electoral College votes, while losing the popular vote to his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million.
George W. Bush also won in 2000 while losing the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000.
But they all played by the same rules, okay?
This is the most important part of the argument about the Electoral College.
They're all playing by the same rules.
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have had every opportunity to campaign, and they knew exactly who they needed to win, and they didn't win.
So sure, a lot of people say, why should Florida, why should Ohio, why should these states choose ultimately who gets to be president?
Well, they don't.
Just right now they do.
Trump flipped the blue wall, or at least portion of it.
Michigan, uh, what is it, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania?
He filled a bunch of states that Hillary Clinton thought she could never lose, and thus, she didn't campaign there.
That is why the system works.
There was a point where California had very few people, and they had a lot of electoral votes, and now they have a lot of people that are like, we deserve more.
Well, I'm sorry, we have this system in place, you know the rules, and it's meant to protect smaller jurisdictions.
No better example is Nevada.
With a Democratic governor saying this could take away our voice.
Nevada, as a state, has the right to choose a certain number of electors to go to who they want.
Why sign away that right to the big cities?
Here's an interesting story, though, from a couple days ago.
The movement to skip the Electoral College is picking up steam.
This is from FiveThirtyEight.
They do include the latest update that Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak has vetoed it.
But they bring up some interesting points, and they have some interesting data visualizations, which I think are interesting, we should look at.
The National Popular Vote Initiative is picking up steam.
When states join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, when states, and how many electoral college votes they have.
So this is really interesting.
We can see right now we're nearing, what are we, we're at 189.
And they need to break this threshold of 270.
They're more than halfway there.
And so, we can see that many of these states joined before 2010.
Then, between 2010 and 2015, and now we've had a few states join, but most of them before 2015.
With Donald Trump winning, and the national popular vote going to Hillary, many of these blue states are saying, hey, we shouldn't have lost.
Well, good luck convincing red states to give up their right to vote for Republican.
I don't know.
It's just, you know, there's an amazing thing that happens when you get older.
You start to realize that the people running the show are just as dumb as you are.
You know what I mean?
When I was younger, I remember this great moment.
I could always ask my dad anything.
And he always had the answer.
And then something happened around the time I was 18 and I had a question and he went, I don't know.
And I was like, wait, what?
What do you mean you don't know?
You're dad.
Like, dad knows all, right?
And I also started to realize that a lot of the stuff I thought my dad was completely correct on, sometimes he was wrong.
But he tended to know a lot of the answers to most of my questions because they were simple questions from a teenager who was trying to understand simple things about the world.
And like, you know, certain life lessons that you get with age and wisdom.
At a certain point, though, it was about expertise.
It was about understanding current events and in-depth things.
And then I got to a point where I started to realize, like, man, these people in the state senate and the state legislator, they have no idea what they're talking about more than basically anybody else.
And especially when you consider that a lot of these people are politicians professionally, that means their expertise is in being a politician, not in any of these fields.
So think about it.
You have a lot of people who, you know, work in the, I don't know, the coal industry, and then you have people voting on what the coal industry should do, and you're like, dude, you have no idea what the coal industry does.
Why are you voting on it?
It's a really weird situation to be in.
Now, of course, there are certainly politicians who worked in a place and then went, you know, to office.
But one of the big challenges with a country as big as ours is that we have so many different industries now and more and more new industries popping up.
Politicians have become just professional politicians.
That's all they do is their job and their expertise is to manipulate you, to convince you to vote for them.
Some of them have expertise for sure.
Some of them are veterans.
Some of them understand foreign policy and war.
That's a good thing.
But that's, you know, ultimately all we're seeing is like these people who are in office aren't thinking about the ultimate ramifications.
They don't necessarily know what they're talking about.
The idea is a terrible, terrible idea, but they're voting for it anyway.
It's just so crazy to me when you see Democratic, like Democrat individuals in the Democratic Party voting to give up their right to Republicans.
How does this make sense?
Why aren't they thinking about this?
It is mind-blowing.
Could you imagine, you know, a Republican winning the national popular vote, and California being like, well, unfortunately now, we have to give all of our votes to a Republican.
What do you think the Californians would say?
They'd be like, get out of this pact!
No!
So, you know, it's mind-boggling, because if they implement this, it's gonna, in my opinion, I think it's gonna make a Republican, like Republicans are just gonna dominate, going to dominate.
And the key point is, as I mentioned before, Think about all the red states, you know, that give their votes to Republicans.
Think about how populist they are.
They tend to be less populist than blue states.
Now, granted, you know, Trump won because of, like, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and there's a lot of people there.
But think about how many people in non-swing states that are blue, like safe blue states, who are Republicans don't vote.
And then think about the safe red states that don't vote.
The safe red states tend to have smaller populations.
So if 10% of a red state is Democrat, and they don't vote because it doesn't matter, all of a
sudden they will vote.
Let's say Wyoming.
Okay, now you're going to get, well, how many people live in Wyoming?
Like 800,000 or something?
Great.
You just find yourself 80,000 votes towards the national popular vote.
Congratulations.
How many people live in California?
30,000.
35 million?
Let's say 10% are Republican.
I don't know what the actual number is.
Republicans just found 3.5 million votes.
Guess what?
That puts them over the threshold to what Hillary Clinton actually had.
You see why this doesn't make sense?
You are controlling massive populations, Democrats.
Why would you sign this away?
Look at this.
These are the states and the amount of votes they have.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado.
These are blue states.
I think Colorado could potentially go red.
I'm not entirely sure.
But it's not Republicans giving away this right.
It's Democrats giving up their rights to Republicans while they're going like, yeah, we can do it, guys.
I swear to God.
This feels like Republicans are probably going, no, wait, don't.
Why do you think it is that it was the Democratic governor who vetoed this?
It's because the Republicans are going, wait, Democrats, don't do it.
I can't believe, you know, if it was the red States doing this, then the Democrats would be going like, no, wait, don't.
Right.
Anyway.
The Electoral College is important.
It's very, very important.
It protects smaller jurisdictions from bigger jurisdictions.
It makes sure that you, who live in a, you know, small town, won't have your resources stripped away because the city, ten miles away, outvoted your rights.
This is why it's important.
Think about, you know, there was some conflict, I remember, I'm not entirely sure about exactly what happened, but when I was working for this Illinois Environmental Organization, there's the Great Lakes National Coalition or something, it includes Ontario, I believe.
And Arizona and some other states were suing or doing something to try and get access to Great Lakes water, arguing that they're part of the country and they should have access.
But then there's like international ramifications because the water is actually bordered with Canada as well.
And basically, the Great Lakes states are like, screw you.
It's our water.
We live here.
And that's why it's important to separate things by jurisdiction, not necessarily individual.
Certainly we should protect the individuals.
But think about what would happen if there was, you know, you struck oil on your property
and then the city next door voted to take it all away from you.
Well, that's democracy.
So you can't do that.
Nevada can't seize water from Illinois.
It's just you can't do it.
Doesn't work that way.
Imagine if we switch to a national popular vote.
Well, now all of a sudden you get a president promising to work with Congress and suspend
the rights of Illinois and force them to give their water to whatever other jurisdiction
Now Nevada's gonna be like, great, give us your rights, Illinois.
Well, good luck, great, good job, Illinois.
Illinois has signed on.
Illinois signed on.
So now a president could come in and take away Lake Michigan's water from Chicago and start shipping it off to who knows what because your interests aren't being protected.
Why?
Would you give up your jurisdictional rights?
Over your own resources.
People aren't.
You know, and I'll end by saying this.
It's exactly what I said earlier in that the people who run the show are as dumb as you or I. Nobody really knows what's happening.
Everybody's got an opinion.
I could be wrong.
They could be wrong.
But everybody thinks they know.
You know?
There's no one who's actually sitting there looking at the data going like, hey, this proves it.
It's just a bunch of people who are like, I'm gonna do this because I think it's right.
Then it is right or wrong.
I don't know.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around, more segments to come shortly.
The next video will be on my main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
For those on the podcast, the arrangement may be different, but there will be more to come and I will see you then.
Another day, another poll about Donald Trump.
This time, the latest poll has Trump's approval rating at its highest in the past two years.
Interestingly, this is from Harvard Capp's Harris Poll.
The Hill says, President Trump's job approval rating is the highest it's been in two years, boosted by voter optimism about the economy, according to the latest Harvard Capp's Harris Poll.
This is significant because there was a recent poll done by CBS showing that most people are very happy with the economy, and they're giving Trump credit.
It's no surprise then that this would logically follow.
Following the good news about the economy, Trump's polls go up.
But here's what I like to do before we ever get into reading about polls.
I always want to pull up the RealClearPolitics average, keeping in mind, right, so here's what we're looking at.
Harvard Harris has him at a 48% approval, which is huge.
We can see that at no point has he ever crossed 48% approval in the RCP average.
Now, as of today, the RealClearPolitics average for Trump is 43.1, but consider the fact that the aggregate is the result of numerous polls going back as far as the 16th of May.
So we have many of these polls that ended before this one began.
While I don't want to say, look, the average is important.
I would be willing to bet that if everyone conducted a survey today, Trump's approval would be down a little bit, but probably still up in some regards.
If we're going on the latest polling data, we only have Harvard Harris, the 29th and the 30th, giving Trump the highest approval rating.
So take that for what it is.
It's a complicated issue, but for now we are seeing this data.
So this is huge news for the president.
And we typically have stories like this.
And I will also stress, too, I don't make videos when his approval dips.
And it does.
I made a video here, like, wow, look how much it's up.
It goes down.
Because it fluctuates.
It's more interesting, in my opinion, you know, the reason I do videos like this is because something happens and then we check the polls afterwards.
So this is a direct response to the good news on the economy.
Um, you know, if there was anything particularly newsworthy, you know, I'd probably cover it.
But in this, in this regard, I think it's fair to point out the average and the number.
So before we read into exactly what's going on here at the Hill, go to timcast.com slash donate.
If you'd like to support my work, numerous options for donating physical crypto, um, and, and through PayPal, of course, liking and commenting on the video is the best thing you can do.
The engagement really, really helps share the video and also, uh, subscribe if you haven't already.
So let's read this story they say.
The survey found that 48% approve of the job Trump is doing, compared to 52% who say they disapprove.
That's up from 45% approval in March.
The last time the president's job approval rating reached 48% in the Harvard-Capps-Harris Poll Survey was in June of 2017.
The average has never been that high.
Trump appears to be getting a lift from the economy, with a record 62% approving of his approach to employment and 59% approving of his handling of the economy.
This is significant.
It means that Trump enacted policies, people's lives have improved, and they said, hey, I'm happy, right?
There's one video I always like to cite, and it's just an anecdote.
But it was a middle-aged white dude crying, saying that his factory shut down, he had no job, they're about to lose their home, and then Trump enacted some policies, things started to change as soon as he got elected, his factory reopened, and this dude's crying, saying now everything's flipped.
He's gonna send his kids to college, they're saving, his house is saved.
Man, that speaks.
That speaks to people.
The economy is important.
Because what people don't realize is that ideology You know, whether Trump is immoral or not is less important to people than whether or not they have food, a home, and can help their families.
But a lot of people on the left are wrapped up in more of like the ideological future, the moral future of the country.
People don't care about that.
They say, while only 39% of voters said the country is on the right track, 51% said the economy is heading in the right direction.
71% of voters said the economy is very strong or somewhat strong.
People's views on the economy are gradually pushing Trump's numbers up, and his actions on other issues like China and immigration are neutral to positive, said Mark Penn, the co-director of the Harvard-Capps-Harris Poll Survey.
Every point of increase in this range of 45 to 50 improves the possibility of re-election.
That's another story that I've pulled up.
This is a Daily Wire analysis.
Analyst who's predicted presidency correctly last nine elections says there's only one way Trump will lose.
I'd be willing to bet the only way Trump's going to lose is if the economy goes down just before 2020, which a lot of people are worried about.
Because you've got to think about whether or not you trust politicians.
Do the congressional Democrats want to win or help America?
If they want to win because of their moral ideology, I would be willing to bet they would sabotage the economy.
Don't forget, Bill Maher once said, bring on the recession if it gets rid of Trump.
To me, that's insane.
I don't care about Trump.
I care about the American people.
I care about things doing well.
I care about our foreign policy.
Because of that, I will be critical of some of Trump's policies on foreign issues.
And I will praise the things he does in this country that are good.
Trump is secondary to what's actually going to be happening.
Are there good things on the horizon for people?
It's not just Trump.
You got to pay attention to the Senate, Supreme Court.
They all play a factor in whether or not the world is going to get better.
Many people are so morally opposed to Trump, they don't care.
They don't care about what the politicians actually do.
They believe the ends justify the means.
To me, that's nightmarish.
Well, let's see what, uh, this is written by Ash Schou of the Daily Wire.
In the past few weeks, analysts who have created models to predict the outcome of presidential elections have all noted that as of right now, Donald Trump is on track to win reelection, possibly in a landslide.
We've heard this one before.
One such analyst, American University professor Alan Lichtman, said recently that the only way Trump would lose re-election is if Democrats grow his spine and impeach him.
Whoa!
That's actually really big news.
It was previously stated if the economy downturns.
If this guy's opinion, and he's got a great track record, is that he has to be impeached to lose, then Trump's guaranteed to win, essentially.
Impeachment is an insane idea, if you were to ask me.
It's a false dichotomy to say Democrats have a choice between doing what is right and what is constitutional and what is politically right.
Impeachment is also politically right, Lichtman told CNN Wednesday.
Lichtman has correctly predicted the last nine presidential elections dating back to 84.
Wow, seriously?
That was an accident.
Let's go back.
Trump will win, however, he is alone in suggesting impeachment could stop the president's re-election.
On May 21st, Politico reported on three separate election models that all predict Trump will
They all predicted Trump will win re-election thanks to the roaring his economy.
Donald Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics, told the media outlet that the economy is just so damn strong right now, and by all historic precedent, the incumbent should run away with it.
Ray Fair, a Yale economist, who quite literally wrote the book on election modeling, has also predicted a Trump win.
Even if you have a mediocre- This is why they want to impeach him.
This is why the Democrats are calling for impeachment, not because Trump's actually done anything worthy of being impeached.
Even if you have a mediocre but not great economy, and that's more or less consensus for between now and the election, that has a Trump victory and by a non-trivial margin.
Fair told Politico.
The outlet noted that its model predicted Trump would win 54% of the popular vote in 2020.
Oh, this is great!
Could you imagine if they bypassed the Electoral College with the National Popular Vote Coalition?
How brutal would it be if Trump actually secures like 520 electoral votes because all of these solid blue states give their votes to the popular candidate?
This is why the Electoral College is important, guys.
This is why you can't do the national popular vote thing.
Because they're predicting Trump's gonna win the popular vote with 54%.
Please.
Don't.
Let's keep the Electoral College intact.
Mark Zandi.
Chief Economist at Moody's Analytics used 12 different economic models to predict what will happen in 2020.
Trump won in all of them and quite comfortably in most of them, Politico reported.
If the election were held today, Trump would win according to the models and pretty handily, Zandi told the outlet.
In three of four of them, it would be pretty close.
He's got low gas prices, low unemployment, and a lot of other political variables at his back.
The only exception is his popularity, which matters a lot.
If that falls off a cliff, it would make a big difference.
Think about that.
Everything can be great, but if people think Orange Man bad, they wouldn't vote for him.
And that's what's really important.
The Democrats don't have a charismatic leader.
I think you can stop, ignore whatever.
Ignore the economy, ignore unemployment, whatever.
Who on the Democrat side has got the charisma?
Personally, I think Yang is great.
I like Tulsi Gabbard.
I don't think they could beat Trump.
The reason I'm willing to get behind them is because I want them on the debate stage to talk about very important ideas.
Tulsi Gabbard, anti-war, staunch and principled.
Andrew Yang, automation, nuclear power, etc.
Those are important issues that I want to hear the nation talk about.
So I'm glad to see Um, it looks like they will be on at least one of the debate stages for now, but I don't think any of them could defeat Trump.
And I also think it would be unfair from an intellectually honest position to say the president shouldn't be elected simply because you don't like him, he's not popular.
Well, if the economy is doing really, really well, if people in this country are faring better than they ever have, morality, you know, full stop.
Your morality is subjective.
What some people think is right, other people's don't.
All we can really do is make sure we're maximizing, you know, care for most people.
I do think there's a lot of issues with criminal justice that need to be reformed, private prisons, etc.
We're not perfect.
We have a lot of work to do.
But at least for now we've got some good things.
And Trump did work with Democrats and Republicans on criminal justice reform.
So...
Those are great things.
Foreign policy is a big issue.
We'll see what happens.
We will see how things turn out.
They say, in the additional models, Trump could lose if the economy crashes or if some major scandal breaks, as Andy said.
Trump's popularity plummeting could also be a factor.
Any of those things, from an impeachment inquiry to an economic crash, could happen.
But right now, that's just something Democrats would be hoping for?
Hoping for?
No, no, no, no.
Okay?
You don't want to hope for impeachment.
That's divisive and dangerous.
And you don't want to hope for an economic crash.
That's insane.
But you gotta point out, some people just want to win.
So those things would be good for them.
They say if the economy remains strong going into the election, Trump will certainly lose, since Democrats running for president are promising to un- Wait, wait, wait.
I think they're mistaken.
This makes no sense.
Oh, okay, hold on.
According to election models that have a decades-long history of correctly predicting the election, Trump will win re-election.
According to polls, which have a documented history of being wrong, Trump will lose.
If the economy remains strong going into the election, Trump will certainly lose,
since Democrats running for president are promising to undo the policies
that have helped the economy. I think this is a typo. This doesn't make sense.
I think they're- I think Ash is trying to say, if the economy remains strong, Trump will certainly win, since the Democrats want to undo what's making the country work, right?
Am I missing?
Yeah, look at this.
Anyone else confused by that last line?
Yo, editors, what is this?
Should it state the opposite?
Yes.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
I've got some more segments coming up in just a few moments, and I will see you there.
Big news!
Google is facing an imminent antitrust investigation from the U.S.
Justice Department.
The DOJ is said to have spent the past few weeks preparing for the probe.
Now, this is going to be a part of a bigger segment where I talk about journalism and the rise of techno-fascism.
And I use that term somewhat facetiously, but no, we seriously have dangerous zealots controlling a small handful of big tech companies that are essentially working in tandem with repressive governments like China!
And yeah, we need to enforce some laws against these companies.
Now, I think it's interesting that Google, of all companies, is facing the imminent antitrust.
I guess it makes sense considering Google has their tendrils in everything.
But come on, man.
Facebook is so much worse.
Please.
Can we do something about Facebook?
Which is actually kind of funny.
Facebook's gone on a hiring spree for antitrust lawyers.
Did you know this?
What do you think they're preparing for?
Duh.
Now before we read into the story, go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
Different ways to donate.
Cryptocurrency, fiat currency, whatever you want to call it.
Physical address.
But of course, just like and comment because the engagement really helps.
Subscribe to the channel if you haven't already and share.
Because that's like the best thing you can do.
The story says Google may soon face an antitrust investigation from the U.S.
Department of Justice pertaining to its search business and potentially other aspects of the company's sprawling software and services empire, according to a late Friday evening report from the Wall Street Journal.
The DOJ is said to have spent the past few weeks preparing for the probe following publication of the Wall Street Journal story.
The Washington Post, New York Times, and Bloomberg are confirming an imminent antitrust probe.
Citing anonymous sources, the Wall Street Journal says the Federal Trade Commission, which works alongside the DOJ to bring federal antitrust cases, will defer to the Justice Department in this case.
Prior to this, the FTC brought a case against the company in 2011 related to the placement of tracking cookies in Apple's Safari browser.
That case was resolved a year later with a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, at the time the largest such judgment the FTC had ever earned in court.
According to Wall Street Journal, the FTC then investigated Google in 2013 for broad antitrust violations, but closed the case without taking any action against the search giant.
Now the DOJ is leading the charge on a new, potentially unprecedented antitrust evaluation of the company.
Spot on!
I'll make a point, though.
I am on YouTube.
YouTube is the overwhelming majority of my income.
There's two arguments as to the dangers or the benefit of the monopoly.
Some people argue that the only reason the Partner Program works on YouTube, the only reason people like me are able to make money, is because YouTube is subsidizing our channels.
There is a near infinite amount of digital content to advertise on.
How many billions of minutes of YouTube videos?
That means to run an ad on a YouTube video to get a view, it's literally like a penny.
Now if you want to advertise on a premium brand, it costs more.
It could cost up to like, you know, ten bucks for a thousand views or something.
But, basically the argument is that so long as YouTube maintains this monopoly, they can continue to subsidize paying YouTube creators like me, and if they lost that monopoly and there was a bunch of different video platforms being used, competition would be so just awful, views would be less than a penny.
And they are in some places, like a tenth of a cent.
That means you make like no money, you can get a million views, you make like, what, a hundred bucks?
Some ridiculously small number.
A hundred bucks is great, but a million views is rare.
However, there's another argument that if Google, if YouTube loses their monopoly in the video space, it will actually drive up the competition, resulting in people spending more money for premium access.
It's hard to know which will play out.
Let me know what you think in the comments if you're watching on YouTube.
But there's more to talk about.
Now, Yahoo wrote a story called Google Should Be Afraid, Very Afraid, and they say, Well, I'm not going to read too much into this.
It's essentially their opinion on the antitrust rodeo, but I do want to highlight they're saying Google should be afraid.
And I think it's not a bad thing.
Because what we're seeing in the current world of these massive tech giants getting away with whatever they want, enforcing rules however they so choose, we are in a dangerous, dangerous time.
This antitrust news is good news for one reason.
There was a point where Google was down, and something like 80% of internet traffic stopped.
Because when most people are looking for a website, they don't type in the URL, they don't type in like, you know, Facebook.com, they type in Facebook, hit enter, and then whatever Google shows, they click.
So people mostly get their internet by just searching on Google.
Most browsers default Google search.
That means, if Google wants to remove certain news, You can search for a story that only exists on, like, a conservative outlet.
Google can remove it.
You'll search, like, you know, Hillary Clinton scandal.
Nothing comes up.
And this has happened before, where people have highlighted that certain phrases don't autofill.
You could type in, like, Hillary Clinton, and email doesn't appear.
But you type in other names, like Donald Trump, and scandals and other things appear.
Google can control what you can see.
Facebook can control what you can see.
And I believe they're doing this inadvertently.
Journalism became fringe far-left insanity with the rise of BuzzFeed when they realized they could just make rage-bait content on Facebook, the algorithm would show you, and yet the saying is, out of sight, out of mind?
Well, the inverse is also apparently true.
If the only thing you ever see is social justice rage-bait, you live in this world of psychosis where everyone's oppressing everyone else.
The world doesn't really like that.
But people only see this on Facebook, they think that's reality.
Facebook can control this if they want to.
And I'd be willing to bet they do.
Glenn Greenwald had a really funny tweet.
He said, one of the greatest and most exciting promises of the early internet was its unparalleled freedom of expression.
Action and exploration unconstrained by government and corporate control.
Just two decades later, it's about begging a handful of tech giants about who should and shouldn't be heard.
Spot on, Glenn.
I completely agree.
He says giant corporations always heed the demands and preferences of those with the greatest power, money, and influence.
As a result, any framework that allows giant tech companies to decide who can and can't be heard will largely end up silencing the marginalized.
I agree!
The issue of conservatives being censored is not because they're an oppressed minority.
Quite the opposite.
It's because first they come for you, then they come for me.
We must protect the speech of everyone lest we allow the cliffs of speech to be eroded.
Unfortunately, what do we end up with?
John Levine of The Wrap says, a not insignificant amount of journalism today consists of emailing tech giants to demand they remove accounts you don't like.
Yup.
I love it.
I love it, love it.
Glenn, I love it.
Wonderful tweet.
John Levine, wonderful tweet.
tattling to the teachers on the bad kids and begging they be put in detention.
If I went into journalism and that trying to get people silenced by
pleading with authorities became one of my primary tasks, I'd avoid looking in
any mirrors. I love it. I love it, love it. Glenn, I love it. Wonderful tweet. John
Levine, wonderful tweet. And I can say I know for a fact, I know for a fact, many
journalists simply reach out, smear people, they do these slimy tricks.
Here's what they'll do.
Find a company where someone... a laundromat, right?
Let's say you see a proud boy.
They walk into a laundromat to wash their shirts.
Most laundromats don't have, like, a manager.
Someone sits there and gives you quarters.
You walk in, you get your quarters, you put them in the machine, you press go.
Now they have automated, like, machines where you get a card.
You know, in Brooklyn, years ago, my laundromat, you put in five bucks, you get a plastic card, you swipe it in the machine.
Nobody knows who's using it or why.
Here's what journalists would do.
Proud Boy walks in, walks out.
They walk in, go to the manager and say, recently, you know, an alt-right group that is labeled a hate group by many organizations and been banned on various platforms has been using your premises.
Why do you support these groups?
And is your support indicative of you being alt-right?
Why do you support these groups?
You see how they frame it?
As if that person knew who the hell was using their washing machine.
This causes a panic.
The business says, we don't support them.
Well, of course you're allowing them your premises.
You do support them.
Well, we don't know who that was.
Too bad.
Then they write this big piece saying like, Bill's laundromat is a haven for the alt-right.
Complete insane nonsense.
I'll tell you something really funny.
Two stories come out in like the past week.
One talks about how Minds.com, M-I-N-D-S, which is like a smaller alternative.
I hate saying alternative.
But it's certainly not a big tech giant.
Full disclosure, I work with them, with the Minds guys in some capacity.
I use Minds very often.
I think it's a great platform.
Well, Motherboard puts out a story saying that it's like a haven for the alt-right or something.
Heavens.
You mean to tell me that on a platform with over a million users, you're gonna have some nasty people?
What did they find?
They found like five accounts.
And they were like, grasping their pearls.
At the same time, Twitter A story from the Huffington Post says that Twitter has the same problem.
It's because these people are lunatics and all they care about is getting their traffic.
These media companies are little hall monitors tattling to the teachers.
These tech giants, these tech companies in general, are scared of bad PR and say, whatever you say, we'll just do it.
And they do.
I will say this, as far as it goes with Mines, I think they're a lot better.
They implemented a jury system, meaning the users decide, not the staff.
You will get flagged, you will get your content removed, you can appeal to the user base, and the user base will decide whether or not you should be allowed.
They're, you know, they're working it out, but this is a way better system than, like, the arbitrary staff, you know, underpaid people looking at tweets and trying to figure out if it should or shouldn't go.
It's a better system.
The point is, These tech giants are dangerous.
They restrict speech.
These weird, creepy, far-left activists are reaching out to tech giants to get people banned because they've weaponized journalism.
Journalism has been completely infiltrated by lunatics who don't care about minimizing harm.
One of the most important tenets of ethical journalism is minimize harm.
And I learned that the hard way.
But what you gotta do, when you reach out to Bill's laundromat, you don't say, this particular person is using, you say, we've seen certain groups associated with certain ideologies using your platform.
Do you support this?
We don't.
Okay, end of story.
But what they do is they'll say, Bill Smith entered your laundromat.
Why do you support him?
And they'll say, Bill Smith's banned.
And they'll kick him out of the laundromat.
That's not minimizing harm.
That's maximizing harm with the intent to harm an individual.
This is why it's so important that when we see these stories about, you know, antitrust, we take them seriously.
It's not just about these fringe, wacko lefties that are weaponizing media.
It's about the fact that they're able to because these big tech companies will bend over backwards for them.
They have too much power.
Break up YouTube, Facebook, whatever.
Figure it out.
I don't know.
And then it won't matter if one bans you.
You'll have a bunch of different alternatives.
Right now, there are none.
And when people try making alternatives, what happens?
They get smeared, attacked, and silenced.
And that's the problem today.
So it's not just about the monopolies.
It's about these wacko lunatics working for media, but it's also about the fact that our society is so weak.
They are terrified of a little bad press.
I don't care what you call me.
I really don't care, dude.
I'll go live in the woods and I'll hunt squirrel.
Okay, I'm being somewhat facetious.
Bring it on.
Smear me all day and night.
It's been happening non-stop.
Welcome to the real world.
But you know what?
These people can't take it.
You see what's going on with Vox and Steven Crowder?
Oh no, someone was mean to me on the internet.
Oh, please.
Anyway, stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in just a few moments, and I will see you then.
I saw this story, and I thought it to be quite hilarious, and I wanted to do a video about it.
The title, from Pluralist.
And here, you can see in this photo, apparently from his Instagram, he's standing nude in front of a bunch of women.
And this is just the most insane...
What is wrong with people?
But admittedly, this just reminds me of how male feminism is creepy.
Because it's not so much about actually caring about equality, it's about pandering to women and just self-flagellating.
And I think it's weird.
And I've always said this, like, listen.
Any man who thinks that women need his help must not believe in the strength of women.
I'm being somewhat facetious, but I always say this to my feminist friends.
If there is any group of people on this planet, any group, that truly believes women are powerful, it's men's rights activists.
And they always laugh, but I'm like, it's true though, think about it.
Like, male feminists don't think women are powerful.
They think women need help.
That's not the same thing as thinking they're powerful.
It's thinking they must intervene to help them.
No, women are strong.
They can take care of themselves.
Men's rights activists are actually advocating for their rights because they feel like they don't have them, and they're actually concerned that feminism has become too powerful.
There's nuance in all things.
I'm not saying every feminist, every male feminist, whatever.
But let's read this story.
Before we do, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
Monthly donation option with PayPal, crypto, physical address.
But of course, liking and commenting is the best thing you can do.
Engagement really helps.
Subscribe if you haven't and share the video because that really helps.
YouTube loves external linking.
They're like, you must be the best channel in the world.
Thomas Holm, a male feminist photographer whose work focuses on nude women, lectured fellow men on the concept of consent in a viral social media post.
Well, bravo.
In an Instagram post shared to his account Tuesday, Holm conceded that some might argue that his own art is objectifying women.
Nonetheless, the former advertising and commercial photographer took to task men who turned the women into an object.
To prove his commitment to the cause, Holm reversed conventional dynamics by objectifying himself in a photo.
In the image, Holm is seen standing naked in a room surrounded by a group of women staring intently at his body.
Holm's post received nearly 5,000 likes and hundreds of comments.
While I will add That is not viral.
I guess it's viral in the sense that I got enough people talking about it that it got my attention.
I certainly don't think he's doing anything wrong.
By all means, the art is absolutely fine.
I just thought the story was so absurd and silly, it was worth pointing out.
I don't know.
It's funny.
It's funny, right?
So, I mean this in no disrespect to Mr. Holm.
I'm not somebody who, you know, tries to insult or criticize people.
I just tend not to think... I tend to distrust male feminists.
And considering this guy is a... What do they say?
He's a former marketing guy?
What do they say?
Former advertising.
Former advertising.
You know, marketing is a very dirty, dirty business.
I would know because I worked in the periphery to it.
I did fundraising, which is very, very similar.
We did events in marketing for non-profits.
So this, to me, seems like a very, very smart way to deflect the negative attention you get.
So apparently this guy posts a bunch of photos of, like, women, you know, their butts and stuff, and you can see them from behind.
And so he received some criticism and said, I know what I'll do!
This will be a male feminist ploy to defend himself, but allow him to post nudes of women, kind of, it's not full frontal.
You know, he probably gets a lot of likes and retweets, or shares or whatever, I don't know, Instagram doesn't really have that.
A lot of comments and engagement.
When he posts pictures of women's butts.
Well now he can post this and essentially make himself immune because he has sacrificed himself to feminism.
But he says something interesting.
A hetero dude walks into a gay bar and quickly understands the concept of consent.
Not a joke.
A question will follow at the end of this, so please read on.
Few men understand consent until they are put on the spot in an unwanted way.
Most younger men I know are frequently getting mentally undressed and I-F'd whenever they walk into a social venue.
They are viewed as a piece of meat.
Desirable for a coitus purpose.
Which is the ultimate objectification.
I'm not taking the high and holy ground and pleading innocence as I have done exactly the same and some would argue my art is objectifying women.
Even to this day, I can shoot a nude models all day and still will look If I encounter another beautiful woman.
It's not the looking that is the problem.
It's when you turn the woman into an object.
When you do the elevator gaze, lick your lips and imagine the firmness of her tush or similar.
Is that how you work?
And it's a really interesting thing about male feminists because most of the guys I know who are at least politically active or lefties don't think this way.
I'm not kidding.
There was a friend I worked with at Fusion and she said She asked me, how many of my guy friends are okay with men assaulting women?
And I said, I laughed, I was like, are you joking?
And she's like, no, no, like, how many of your guys are okay, are cool with it?
And I was like, you're being serious?
Like, zero, none.
Is that a joke?
Do you really think guys sit around, like, laughing about how they're going to violently assault a woman?
I'm like, dude, if any one of my friends said that, we'd probably all give them a weird look and be like, dude, what's wrong with you?
And that would probably sour our friendship.
They really believe it.
They really think that way.
And she was a feminist.
And I get it.
I can see why she thinks that way.
Or I can see why she's a feminist at least.
They really believe that guys are sitting around laughing about how they want to like physically assault women.
I'm like, that's kind of nuts, man.
Like, that's sociopathy.
And that's what's really weird to me.
This idea of objectification.
Certainly men find women attractive.
But like, is it true that most guys don't think women have emotions and have no empathy?
Like, that's sociopathic behavior.
So I wonder if things like this emerge out of someone assuming or encountering a sociopath.
Because I kind of don't think this is the real world.
He says, we all know that women like to look good, so do men.
Well, let's go to the question.
Let's go to the big question.
What's his question?
Does he have a question for men?
That's a question for women?
Oh, he has a question for women.
Can you share an example of a lack of consent or unwanted attention?
Men hang back and read the answer or just write, I agree, and feel free to tag people who should see or share it in a story or whatever.
I had a really interesting thought.
Over the past several years, I've increasingly gained more notoriety, whatever you want to call it.
After Occupy Wall Street, all of a sudden, I was a public figure, people knew who I was, and I had a bunch of unwanted attention.
As time has gone on, my followers have only gone up.
I appreciate it, love all you guys, everyone who follows and watches.
It feels good, it does.
But something interesting happened.
I've been in several instances walking down the street where I've been ogled, or I guess you could call it catcalling.
It's not the same, right, as what, you know, people experience when it comes to, like, relationships or sexuality.
But I've had people...
Come up to me, you know, wave to me, say things to me.
And it's unwanted attention.
Not always.
Just like I'm walking down the street and then someone will start, like, you know, saying things.
And it's also weird when I'm, like, sitting eating and people are staring at me and stuff.
So I thought about it, and I thought about what people like in terms of their relationships.
Men like physical beauty because of, you know, genetic reasons and evolutionary reasons.
Men are attracted to women for how they appear.
Women, at least my general understanding is, they like status.
So I kind of thought something was interesting.
Why is it that women get catcalled and ogled all the time?
Because their appearance is very easy to see.
But status isn't easy to see.
But if a man is famous, well then it is.
And so I kind of feel like it's not identical.
But I'm like, there's a certain degree to where it's like, wow.
There is a level of like a dude being famous where he can't go out without being bothered by people,
and they get frustrated and angry, and regular women experiencing that same thing.
So I think it's like, it's fair to point out, women get this way more than guys do.
Guys get it when they become notorious for some reason.
At least that's kind of like a theory I have.
And then it must be really, really awful if you're a famous woman because, damn, if you're famous and attractive and you're female, like, man, everybody in the world's pointing at you.
And there's another funny point that often gets brought up.
They say... I don't know what the point of this was, but someone asked me this once.
They said, Who's on the cover of a woman's magazine?
A man or a woman.
And it's like, usually, a woman.
And who's on the cover of a men's magazine?
A man or a woman.
And usually, a woman.
Right?
And so, while there are certainly covers with men on them, for the most part, like entertainment magazines, it's like women on both.
Women like looking at women, men like looking at women, and so then women are gonna get the brunt of this.
But it also is true, cause like, I've had friends I used to live in Lakeview, which is by Wrigley Field in Chicago.
That's also like two blocks from Boys Town.
And so I've had friends who, like living in the neighborhood, would want to go out and drink, and I'm like, you know, I have no problem eating or drinking wherever.
And you certainly go to North Halstead in Chicago, and if you're a guy, you will get hit on, and you will experience the same thing.
But I do feel like this kind of pandery behavior doesn't help.
I get what he's doing, but I also kind of feel like what he's doing is a marketing ploy to protect himself politically and also generate engagement.
That's why he does a question for women and he wants men to, you know, hop in.
He's latching on to feminism to promote his brand.
It works.
It works because he gets people like me pointing it out in a mostly critical way.
I'm not trying to be a dick.
I think he comes off as a really, really nice guy.
And I want to stress that too.
The most important thing I get from this is this is not a negative depiction.
This is not like negative wokeness.
This to me is absolutely 100% acceptable.
I just disagree and don't necessarily trust him.
The biggest problem I take with a lot of the social justice feminism stuff is the derogatory, negative, attacking people, insulting people.
This is fine.
It's kind of like neutral to positive.
It's not like, you know, he's not coming out in defense of guys, but he's trying to do something nice and make a point about women and consent, and I think that's fine, 100%.
The biggest issue I take with a lot of, like, the, you know, regressive stuff is when they're mean, nasty, attack people, insult, etc.
So, while I think this is silly, and I would criticize it, mostly because I don't trust it, yeah, you know what, man, look, this is America, you do you.
I don't think what he's doing is necessarily, like, damaging for discourse, kind of, like, middle of the road.
You know, it could be, it could make people angry, but...
In the end, a guy who is sacrificing himself to feminism is a sacrifice to feminism.
I love the way they frame that.
It's just silly.
But, you know, whatever, man.
Do your stuff.
In the end, I will... I said it too much.
I'll just stress this.
Social justice is good.
Negative.
Authoritarian.
The authoritarian implementation of social justice is bad.
