Ocasio-Cortez Flashes Far Right Hand Sign, Does She Deserve Context?
Ocasio-Cortez Flashes Far Right Hand Sign, Does She Deserve Context? Ocasio-Cortez just flashed the Ok sign and of course no one cares. Why? We all know, especially Ocasio-Cortez, what the hand sign means right?Conservatives and Trump supporters have been accused of the worst for making the gesture. Innocent people playing the circle game have been banned and fired all because they didn't know that trolls had staged a hoax.But why would the far left and social justice activists now decide to ignore Ocasio-Cortez making the gesture? They pull out every stop to accuse people of being wrong or evil but when it comes to the new aristocrats they are allowed to break the rules.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Remember when Count Dankula made that video of his pug and they said, context doesn't matter, you were offensive, you're in trouble.
Now I understand the UK is a different country than the US.
But in the US there have been many instances in the past few years where people who have made the okay hand gesture have been accused of being fringe, alt-right, whatever.
And often, the context is disregarded.
You may have noticed the thumbnail of this video.
I found this article.
It's actually kind of interesting.
Ocasio-Cortez pushes to make it easier to study shrooms and other psychedelic drugs.
I thought that was actually really awesome.
And there are a lot of things in the past few weeks that I absolutely agree with Ocasio-Cortez on.
Most notably, she's teaming up with Ted Cruz to stop politicians from then becoming lobbyists.
Good stuff.
Not all bad.
However, I saw this picture.
And I wondered, what did Ocasio-Cortez mean by this?
And I thought it's silly to even point out because one of the bigger issues is that there's a double standard and we know it.
Why even bother bringing it up?
You'll get accused of bringing it up in bad faith and no one, everyone will say, oh, we know she doesn't mean anything by it because Ocasio-Cortez is a progressive.
And then I thought about it.
Well, hold on.
There are many circumstances where the context was irrelevant.
And they still said it doesn't matter because trolls use it.
The idea being that even if you're just trying to troll somebody, or you're making it because you're scuba diving, or because you're playing the circle game, the context doesn't matter.
I've got a bunch of examples of this.
But here we can see this photo of Ocasio-Cortez from the Associated Press, presumably somewhat recently, doing the OK hand gesture while talking.
Does Ocasio-Cortez not know what she's insinuating by doing that?
Why is it that someone would assume she doesn't mean anything by it?
There have been other people who did things not meaning anything by it or simply trying to support the president and have been accused of being the worst of the worst.
So that's what I want to look through now.
But I've got some other examples that I definitely want to highlight.
It's not the first time she does this, but it may be one of the first times she's done this following the hoax.
So I'll make sure that's clear.
This is an old photo.
Before we get started, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are numerous ways you can donate, very important as I broach these controversial issues and people are getting demonetized.
But of course the best thing you can do to support my work is like and comment, share and subscribe.
This is an older photo from Ocasio-Cortez.
Doing the OK hand gesture.
I made a video about it in the past.
Many people have commented on it, making the joke that because she's doing this, she is alt-right.
However, this is from 2013, and the context didn't mean anything back then.
However, since then, we have seen claims like this.
This is from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
They didn't say much about what this is.
It's a screenshot of Cassandra Fairbanks and Mike Cernovich, and it says, Cassandra Fairbanks and Mike Cernovich make OK hand gesture in the White House.
This is from April of 2017.
You may remember this because it resulted in a lawsuit, in which case Cassandra Fairbanks lost.
A reporter by the name of Emma Roller, who worked for, I believe it was Splinter News, the time, full disclosure, I worked for What became Splinter News Fusion?
She claimed this was two people doing a white power hand gesture.
Why was the context irrelevant?
How do you look at this and say, that's what it is, and not look at Ocasio-Cortez and say the exact same thing?
Is it because you're biased in favor of Ocasio-Cortez and against Cassandra Fairbanks?
I think that's a fair answer.
Because I don't know what she's talking about in this photo, I don't know the context, so why would I give her the benefit of the doubt if I wouldn't give it to other people?
This story then popped up around the same time from The Independent, ultimately, which had to issue several corrections.
It removed the photo and they changed it to accused two members of alt-right accused of making white supremacist hand signs, but they didn't.
They then issued an update.
The article originally indicated that the Anti-Defamation League had characterized the gesture under discussion as a racist hand sign.
The reason they did is because Emma Roller, the woman who posted this, later, she went on to prove her claim was true by showing a picture which originated from 4chan.
I don't know how she got it.
It's very weird.
And then showing a link to the Anti-Defamation League for an entirely different hand gesture.
This misled people who just gave a cursory glance to the tweet into believing Cassandra actually did this, and it was true.
And the Independent then published fake news.
Now, there's some context we'll go through.
Ultimately, this ended up with a lawsuit in which no one really cared, and Cassandra lost.
I believe the reason Cassandra lost, in my opinion, was a poor argument or framing from the lawyer.
Though I'm not a lawyer, so I don't want to accuse them of doing a good or bad job.
In my opinion, they missed some really important context which shows there was potential malice.
Malice not in the sense that I'm not going to get into all this.
That's just my opinion as we move forward.
But let's talk about context.
And the evidence for it is the second tweet from the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League,
which was just factually untrue.
I'm not going to get into all this.
That's just my opinion as we move forward.
But let's talk about context.
Remember this?
This is a story from Vox.
No, a former Kavanaugh clerk didn't flash a white power hand sign.
Here's what really happened.
And props to Vox for writing this article in 2018, pointing out that simply because this woman of color, who has her hand in this way, simply because she has her hand this way, does not mean she's making the hand gesture.
But the thing is, people were absolutely saying she did.
Eugene Gu, M.D., very anti-Trump personality, says Kavanaugh's former law clerk, Zina Bash, is flashing a white power sign behind him during his Senate confirmation hearing.
They literally want to bring white supremacy to the Supreme Court.
What a national outrage and a disgrace to the rule of law.
If Eugene Goo, who is very high-profile and has a very large following—oh, apparently he blocked me.
That must be recent.
I didn't realize that guy blocked me.
I see his tweets all the time.
Maybe he's blocked me for a while.
I don't know.
If Eugene Goo is going to claim this is a white power hand gesture, why can I not then say that's the exact same thing Ocasio-Cortez did?
In fact, you can argue based on Eugene Goo That if he thinks simply resting your hand in a strange position is enough to symbol your desires, Ocasio-Cortez overtly making the gesture in a speech speaks a thousand times— speaks to several orders of magnitude greater than the accident.
Now, we talk about the ramifications.
What does it really mean that someone does this?
Are we offended by it?
Should we shut them down?
Well, that's absolutely what happened when we saw this.
And these are stories you've probably heard, but I think it's important to bring up.
Chicago Cubs ban a fan who is seen making a white power gesture.
They absolutely said it is.
It is.
CNN.
Absolutely.
It is.
No context.
Irrelevant.
The fact is, this guy made the symbol.
We don't know what it means.
It could mean a lot of things.
It could mean, okay, it could be the circle game.
It could be a trolling gesture to say, haha, got your libs.
But CNN says he did this.
Period.
Okay.
By CNN standard, Ocasio-Cortez in a Forbes article is seen flashing a white power symbol.
Why?
The funny thing is, NBC News actually blurred this.
So let me ask you, why was this blurred?
Why was Ocasio-Cortez's symbol not blurred?
Of course, CNN didn't blur it either, so yes, I know they're two different companies.
But the issue I'm seeing is that This may be one of the best examples of the double standard.
We don't know who this guy is.
It doesn't matter.
They want to say he did this.
And they made it a definitive.
And he was banned from Wrigley for doing it.
But it's the circle game, of course.
It's literally called, uh, here we have, uh, Common Pranks, uh, over on Wikipedia.
And the circle game, as you can see, you make the okay gesture on the leg or below the waist and get someone to look at it.
You can see that typically this is made pointed, uh, pointed down.
However, It doesn't matter.
The context was irrelevant.
This is a white power gesture.
And it gets really funny, then, when it breaches into the world of video games, because now I'm gonna kind of, uh... I think I've made my point very simply with Ocasio-Cortez.
She did make a white power hand gesture because CNN and NBC have already claimed it to be this.
Here's the title.
Okay.
End of story.
That's what it is.
We're done.
It's not a troll anymore.
It's not a hoax.
The news has said it is.
And Ocasio-Cortez did this.
Period.
We're not talking about the one she did a long time ago when the context was different.
We're talking about today.
Overwatch is a video game...
We're gonna get into the banning of symbols and words as we expand into our increasingly censorious society.
Overwatch, two months ago.
Overwatch is a team shoot-em-up game.
You're on a team, you pick a character, the characters have different abilities, and you go and it's a first-person shooter where you go up against other people and try to complete an objective.
They say that they banned the OK symbol.
Why?
Because some people made the gesture while there was a live interview happening.
Fans made the gesture.
Some people said that the fans were throwing it up to say it's OK.
Like, OK, we did it.
OK.
That's literally what it means.
When people win, they'll be like, OK, we got it.
But because of the controversy, they removed it.
This story from D.O.T.
Sports says, Blizzard reportedly tells Overwatch League fans to not use OK gesture due to association as a white power symbol.
So it's verboten, okay?
The point I want to make now is, outside of whether or not you agree with the context, we've entered a point where people have been banned, fans have been banned, it's been blurred on television, and it is associated with white power, and it was even used by the guy in New Zealand, the mass extremist guy.
The, uh, the mosque extremist guy in Christchurch.
What we're seeing now is there was a claim the other day that people were talking about a certain monster in World of Warcraft, a video game, also by, uh, by Blizzard.
The characters are called Nagas.
N-A-G-A-S.
And because it sounds too much like one word, people were getting banned.
But people were making jokes.
My understanding is that some people pointed out they were saying, like, shoot that, Naga.
And because they kept saying it and were spamming, it was deemed that they were trying to broach the racial connotations of what it sounded like.
Are we really now going to enter a world where things that are too similar to other things are being banned?
The answer would be Yes, apparently so.
The OK gesture is verboten.
Interestingly, what you're seeing here on the screen, and for those listening, this is a character from Overwatch named Zenyatta.
Zenyatta can be seen meditating, however, that's the OK sign, and context is irrelevant.
Now you may think, yes, but Zenyatta was designed before the hoax came out.
Possibly, but I'd like to point this out as well.
This is the Overwatch logo.
Overwatch is a very popular video game.
You can see that there is a circle with two lines going into the middle.
Kind of looks like a crude drawing of two hands praying or something.
But essentially you have a triangle in the middle and a circle around it with some flare.
Well, here we have the symbol—well, I can probably do a better one than this.
This is a symbol of generation identity, an identitarian group in the UK.
The symbol is almost basically the same thing.
If you can be banned for saying figs, and you can't sell a shirt that says figs because it's too close, Are we going to come to the point now where the Overwatch logo must be changed?
I highlight this because I'm not the one who brought it up.
This has actually been a recurring theme for a while, when people have actually called out Blizzard after the OK hand symbol, and other times saying, your symbol is too similar to Identitarianism.
Your characters are making the okay hand gesture which you banned from your game.
In fact, there was even another story about how a character in Mortal Kombat, another video game, Johnny Cage, played the circle game.
When you looked down at his pants or something in the character selection screen or like modification screen, he makes the okay gesture and then the camera pans back and he punches the camera.
That's the circle game.
If you see it, you get hit.
Apparently they removed it or they slightly altered it because of the associations.
So the point I'm ultimately trying to bring up with this whole video is...
No, obviously Ocasio-Cortez is not flashing a white power hand gesture, but I guess my opinion is irrelevant, as is yours, as is everyone else's.
Because CNN has already said it's true.
NBC has already blurred the logo.
Video games are banning the symbol.
And if all of this is true, why should we give the benefit of the doubt to Ocasio-Cortez when she does this?
I'll tell you why.
Because this is perfect evidence of a double standard.
They will apply the standard to the peasants, but not the aristocrats.
In an argument made by Will Chamberlain of Human Events, dealing with the Carlos Maza controversy, he said, why is it that Carlos can attack and insult someone like Crowder, but Crowder can't say anything back to him?
And he said it's because Carlos Maza is the new aristocrat.
Aristocrats are allowed to insult other aristocrats.
Aristocrats are allowed to insult peasants.
But peasants are not allowed to insult aristocrats.
It only flows in one direction.
So what do we see?
Vox, backed by NBC to the tune of $200 million, employee, can say whatever he wants, and it's fine.
He can call Tucker Carlson all of the worst names in the book, but Heavens, absolutely not.
You cannot criticize him back.
Admittedly, I think Crowder's language broached a line.
Sure.
But why is Carl Smaza in the right to say, throw milkshakes at these people?
But you can't criticize me.
That's the real issue.
It's not so much about Carlos Maza producing commentary, it's that he said, do this.
He told his fans to do it.
Surprise, surprise, a few weeks later, in the UK, people were throwing milkshakes at elderly peasants.
And I'm using peasants facetiously.
Why is it that Ocasio-Cortez will get away with doing this?
Where a Cubs fan will be banned permanently from Wrigley Field?
Very simple.
Excuse me.
Ocasio-Cortez is the new aristocrat.
The Cubs fan is a peasant.
The peasants aren't allowed, and the aristocrats are.
Do you think we'll see anyone criticize Cortez for this?
Of course not.
And that's kind of why I wanted to highlight this.
Why should we take context into consideration with her when we won't for literally anyone else, including a law clerk for a Supreme Court justice?
For Brett Kavanaugh.
I will add, Vox did.
No, she didn't do it.
I appreciate that.
There's some sanity there coming from Vox.
But the activists didn't.
Will the activists now call it Cortez for doing the same thing?
No.
Because she's an aristocrat and she's allowed to do whatever she wants with impunity.
And if you criticize her, they'll call you a bigot, they'll call you sexist, etc.
Let's be real.
None of these symbols are white power.
None of them.
That's not what it means.
It never did.
Even when used by the worst of the worst, they're not flashing it to mean white power.
They're just trying to trigger you and make you angry.
Was Ocasio-Cortez trying to troll or make you angry?
No, of course not.
But why should context matter?
Why should she get the benefit of context and no one else?
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
I'm really surprised I was able to make a video this long about it, but I saw the photo and I caught I thought it's interesting.
It just shows you the blatant double standard.
The absolute double standard.
The absolute double standard.
I'm stressing that for a reason.
Because I can assure you, people will criticize me for even bringing it up.
But why can we ban a Cubs fan for playing the circle game?
Why can we accuse police officers of being white supremacists?
Why can we remove it from video games or ban fans but Cortez is still allowed to use it?
Why is Cortez allowed to make the symbol and no one else is?
Not a world I want to live in.
Comment below, let me know what you think.
We'll keep the conversation going.
I've got more segments coming up later.
The next one will be at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6 p.m.
I will see you all there.
Thanks for hanging out.
This is kind of a follow-up to the video on my main channel yesterday, but there's an interesting thing about this story in the New York Times.
For those that didn't catch the video, we have this story from the New York Times about someone becoming a radical.
That's how the New York Times has framed it.
There's a really interesting thing in this story, however.
It follows the same narrative that you see all the time from the mainstream media, that YouTube radicalizes people to the far right.
And you can see they've got Jimmy Kimmel and Philip DeFranco and some intellectuals from days of old, which makes no sense just because these videos appeared in this individual's channel history.
The individual Caleb Kane is no one of consequence.
See, what they've done here is they found a random person who was not alt-right, claimed they were alt-right, and then showed videos from his history and said, oh no, look, here's what's interesting.
If you reframe this story, because New York Times is doing this in my opinion on purpose, it's a story about a guy who was never alt-right, as he says in the story, but a traditional conservative who was radicalized to the left by YouTube.
Interestingly, the narrative they present is inverted when the story actually says a conservative became left.
We have data to back this all up.
This is a chart I often show where you can see that the left gets substantially more views.
And there's some nuance I want to clarify because Hasan Piker had some criticism about, say, Jimmy Kimmel appearing as political left.
It's actually really simple.
We'll go into greater detail later.
But these are channels that recommend into and out of the political sphere.
And Jimmy Kimmel is anti-Trump.
It doesn't mean he is... There's a lot of channels in here that are barely political, but still, we'll be right, still we'll be left, simply because you don't like that, you know, simply because Jimmy Kimmel does a lot of, you know, entertainment and comedy, doesn't change the fact that his political content is aligned with the left, though it's not as much, so there's nuance.
But let's go here and look at this story.
I do have some other updates here.
I want to make some clarifications, because I thought it was clear in my video on the main channel, but what you're seeing here, as you slowly scroll down, images start to disappear.
And the idea is that as you get pulled into a far-right universe watching thousands of videos, yadda yadda yadda, because they're claiming YouTube will radicalize you, which is absolutely... it's fake.
There's no data to back this up.
Okay?
At the very least, the only data we have shows the inverse is true.
As you scroll down, eventually you're left with only one image.
I was brainwashed.
Now, here's what I want to clarify, because I thought it was clear in my main channel video.
This is a ra- It's random.
You get different results every time you scroll down.
It's not always the same people.
Well, in this instance, it was.
Maybe they fixed it because Philip DeFranco complained.
Yeah, so I think they may have changed it now, so it's not random anymore.
Philip DeFranco was upset because there were several instances where it would only pull up Phil, but I think now they've stopped it.
It's only giving me Stefan Molyneux in terms of fringe, you know, radical or whatever, which still presents problems because, I mean, that's still, you know, harming someone's reputation, whatever.
I'm not a big fan of Molyneux anyway, so.
But what's interesting is that he claims he was pulled into this universe, right?
I was brainwashed.
It's, it's, this guy Caleb Kane is no one of consequence.
In my opinion, based on what this guy's trying to do, I think there's been a wave of people who are former alt-right trying to come out and be like, oh no, and then they just jump on the bandwagon of what the mainstream media is saying, and it's become pretty lucrative.
So I'll say this, I find it funny that many people on the left are like, they're alt-right grifters, and then when you quite literally have people who are either former alt-right or claim to be, They're now flipping and saying whatever the left is saying, and now many people on the left are like, oh wow, good for them!
It's like, dude, they were grifters then, why wouldn't they be grifters now?
So I don't know who this guy is, but my understanding is he started a YouTube channel specifically about how he was de-radicalized from the alt-right.
An important thing to point out is like, Dave Rubin and Philip DeFranco.
Oh, please.
But I'm gonna have a follow-up on what's going on with Philip DeFranco because, like clockwork, the activists are absolutely coming for him.
So here's what I want to do.
Mr. Kane never bought into the far-right's most extreme views, like Holocaust denial or the need for an ethnostate.
He said, still, far-right ideology bled into his daily life.
He began referring to himself as a tradcon.
That's not far-right.
That means literally traditional conservative.
Committed to old-fashioned gender norms, okay.
He dated an evangelical Christian woman, and he fought with his liberal friends.
And there it is.
In this story, near the end, They say that he fell into a far right.
Whatever.
The story's called something like making a YouTube radical.
Traditional conservatives are not radicals.
He said he never bought into their beliefs.
So let's break this down.
The narrative of YouTube radicalizing people to the right, according to the New York Times, which they've done over and over again, they keep lying about this.
Kevin Roos, the writer of this, did a story where... I think he's... It's very clever framing the way that journalists do this stuff.
Where he talked to someone from YouTube and said, there's a conversation about how YouTube is doing this.
How do you respond to that?
And, you know, things like this.
And that's fair too.
Journalists should ask about, you know, when people are talking about it.
The problem I have is that for one, I know Kevin personally.
I worked with him at Fusion.
And I believe his intentions to be malicious.
I often say that I don't like to assume intent.
This refers to groups I'm not familiar with.
But I did work with Kevin Roos, and there are some things behind the scenes that I may or may not publish at some point in the future where I archive chat logs and conversations where I believe he is an activist.
He's an activist who puts on a nice button-up shirt, keeps his language very careful, but I believe I know his intentions based on what he explained to me personally.
So, uh, that's a different circumstance, whether or not, you know, you want to make an assumption.
That's just my opinion, having worked with him in the past.
So, um, but I, but I, you know, maybe something will come of this.
But anyway, the point is...
I think he's framing this and omitting information on purpose.
Going back to how I mentioned he did the interview with someone at YouTube, he could have very easily done a few simple searches and actually looked at data to find.
It's just not true.
It's just absolutely not true.
And the reason why I think, again, that his intentions, outside of my personally knowing him, I think his intentions are malicious, to a certain degree, is that in the story, this paragraph here explains it all.
He found a guy who watched YouTube videos and became a traditional conservative but rejected the most extreme views.
Why did he then frame this article as though it's a guy becoming a radical?
That's not even an opinion.
In what capacity would someone call a traditional conservative a radical?
No, traditional conservatives are not radicals.
Radical would be the people opposing the tradition, right?
You can use radical to describe the far-right, that's fine.
But if this country is based on a status quo, and traditional conservatives fall into that status quo, they are not the radicals.
So it's a framing device he's doing, and then he even says, near the end, he could have put this in the beginning.
And this is a point to be made about the idea of objectivity in journalism.
And I think that's fair.
But we do know, based on, look, this is one data point, what you're seeing.
For those that are listening on the podcast, it's a graph showing the flowing of right to left on YouTube and left to right.
And we can see that the right and the center, and I've talked about this before, but bear with me, give way more of their views to the left.
So if you are a conservative watching conservative videos, it is more likely conservatives are recommended conservative videos, centrists are recommended centrist videos, and liberals get liberal videos.
But the left gives way less recommendations to the center and the right.
The right and the center give way more recommendations towards the left.
We can clearly see recommendations flow left.
I don't think it's a conspiracy.
I think it's because the mainstream media content that... It's a system that's inadvertent to a certain extent.
I don't think YouTube does it on purpose.
I think there are some things YouTube is doing on purpose, getting rid of borderline content, which will, you know, be detrimental to many right-wing channels.
But I think ultimately what it is, is Jimmy Kimmel, he'll do a segment that's anti-Trump.
Stephen Colbert, anti-Trump.
Is all of their content anti-Trump?
No, but they make recommendations to political left.
So to address briefly Hasan Piker's criticism that Jimmy Kimmel shouldn't be on here, the issue isn't necessarily that Jimmy Kimmel produces the Overtly left-wing political content.
It's that who he recommends to is going to be either the same sphere of doing jokes against the president or to CNN, The Daily Show, The View, etc.
The View is not so bad.
Honestly, I think a lot of their opinions are bad, but they do try to have, you know, they do have conservatives whether you like them or not.
But let's do this.
What I really want to get to Is for one, like clockwork, the New York Times then props up certain left-wing channels that they really like.
Well, I can take issue with, you know, the New York Times framing a traditional conservative as a radical and claiming it's some radicalization process, but then actually flipping the narrative and saying, actually, YouTube de-radicalized him, but he was never radical in the first place.
The point is, they invariably recommend people like Hbomberguy and ContraPoints.
I don't know if Hbomberguy is in this, but I do want to stress I have absolutely no issue with Hbomberguy and ContraPoints.
I actually think they're really, really funny, and I really like their content.
I want to make sure that's clear.
So my criticism is not at Contra.
I actually recommend Contra, because you shouldn't just be getting all your news from one place.
And Contra does a fantastic job of making entertaining content with salient points, though I disagree on many of them, as I'm sure Contra disagrees with me, as do other channels.
But I think ultimately the important thing is good faith versus bad faith content.
Certainly the left and the right has their share.
But the issue I take is with the New York Times creating an article that is framed as though YouTube forces people to the right, but then absolutely proves YouTube flows to the left.
And they have a graph proving this!
Okay, where is it?
Did I pass it up?
Or did they get rid of it?
Oh, I think they got rid of it.
No, no, no, no, no, okay.
Yeah, it's early in the story.
So, here we have like his timeline.
I guess they show a graphical timeline.
I'm not super concerned with that necessarily.
What I really want to find is this right here.
So take a look at this.
Here are a number of political videos Cain watched each month.
We can see that he watched right-wing content.
Stefan Molyneux, Social Justice Warriors, Global Warming Hoax, etc.
If it matters, I don't know exactly where I would fall on the spectrum.
I'm considered a centrist channel because I've repeatedly said global warming is a serious crisis and we need government compromise to solve it.
I typically refer to SJWs as social justice activists.
I try to avoid loaded language.
Not a big fan of Stefan Molyneux, no disrespect, just not a big fan.
But anyway, the point is, here's what we can actually see.
He watched right-wing content.
All of a sudden, he started watching the intellectual dark web.
Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin.
Congratulations, Dave Rubin!
You helped de-radicalize this guy.
For real.
Take a look at this.
Early on, we can see it's mostly right-wing content.
He does watch some of the purple, which they consider intellectual dark web, but all of a sudden, he starts watching a little bit, you know, less right-wing content, maintaining the intellectual dark web stuff, but more left-wing content.
What precipitated his shift into left-wing content?
Why, I would have to argue, it's the purple line.
Because the purple line is in the middle.
So by watching, I can make this assessment based on what they're actually saying.
The timeline shows right-wing content, intellectual dark web content, and then left-wing channels.
So what can we say here?
Dave Rubin, you beautiful, beautiful genius, you helped de-radicalize this terrible man!
I'm being facetious.
There's absolutely reasons to criticize Dave.
He does a talk show.
Some people don't like that it's non-adversarial.
Don't care.
He's a talk show host.
It's fine.
The point is, they like to smear people like Dave and Philip DeFranco and in reality, the timeline actually presented by the New York Times shows that in all actuality, the intellectual dark web precipitated the de-radicalization of an individual.
Now, of course, I don't think this individual is ever actually a radical because they even said they never bought any of these things and they're just a conservative.
What we find here is the intellectual dark web has converted conservatives into a liberal.
Conservatives, you mad?
And then they started watching left-wing channels.
Bravo, YouTube!
Bravo, YouTube!
YouTube is a pipeline deradicalizing people.
So why do they keep attacking YouTube?
Hmm.
Maybe it's because it's about money, and it's not really about what YouTube does as a business.
Because not only do we have more data to prove at an anecdotal level, this individual's history shows how he became left-wing watching these channels, how he de-radicalized himself.
And then he made some video where he's like, I am no longer in this, you know, political space or whatever.
They show you exactly how it happened.
Intellectual dark web to left.
And that's exactly what you'd expect to see when we look at the actual data.
Why New York Times would you frame it that way?
Why would you then, you know, put in, involve people in the story about YouTube radicalization?
Because it's a framing device and it attacks a political opponent.
The data we've had here from this website, and I guess you can't see the URL.
I'll put the URL.
I show this often.
I'll put the URL in the description.
We can see that that's literally what happens.
You watch right-wing videos.
You watch centrist videos.
You watch left-wing videos.
You can absolutely go from right to left.
You can absolutely go from left to right, but look how small the left to right line is.
It's like half the size of the right and the right has half the views of the left.
So the right is recommending more than twice the amount to the left with only half the views.
That is a massive disproportionate shift.
Personally, I don't care.
Make good arguments.
Make good content.
It's fine.
I'm not going to sit here and complain that somebody watched a YouTube video and then became a progressive or a liberal.
But of course, that's what they do.
It's really annoying and frustrating to me how they keep framing it this way when they don't do the research.
I would absolutely always defer to Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice that which is easily explained by incompetence.
And I would point to Kevin Roos in this capacity as well.
So Kevin actually sent me a message the other day saying that the New York Times story was random.
It's a randomly generated image set.
And I said, yes, I said in my video that now it's definitely not random.
Now it definitely just makes you look at Lauren Southern and Stephen Molyneux.
But I said, yes, it changes for different people, and I pointed out that Phil DeFranco got different results, and I thought that was clear.
I also said in the video, I'm not saying he did this intentionally.
It may just be an accident.
I'm not saying he's sitting here twirling his mustache, you know, planning all of this.
I wanted to make sure that's clear.
The reason I think Kevin Roos did it on purpose is because I know him personally, and he said things to me in the past, and I'm like, I know what this guy's all about.
I guess he doesn't like that, but I think he's a bad actor, and I think he's done some pretty shady things, especially to get his job with the New York Times, but we won't talk about that.
At any rate, this is a rather somewhat still, tepid story.
But of course, the framing is all that really matters.
I was brainwashed.
The making of a YouTube radical.
Based on the timeline he presented, is he saying that this guy is a radical leftist now?
Is that the premise of the story?
The guy was never alt-right.
Why frame it that way?
I don't know.
Anyway, I could rant on this for a million years and I probably shouldn't.
So, I just want to make sure I clarify as it pertains to, you know, this graph which I frequently show.
It is not necessarily that every single channel makes left-wing political content or right-wing.
Some of these channels are about cryptocurrency and libertarianism.
So right-wing doesn't capture exactly what they are.
We can see that, like, The Quartering is considered right-wing, and he's over here, but then we have people like, you know, what's a good person?
I don't know who these people are.
There's some libertarian channels that don't talk at all Well, that's an argument to be made.
Why the quartering a gaming channel with gaming commentary as it is right-wing?
Well, that's an argument to be made.
But the researcher, I think, did a decent job of breaking down why there's left and
why there's right, why I'm considered centrist.
Why others are considered left.
And if you want to complain that Jimmy Kimmel shouldn't be on the list, that's fine, but Jimmy Kimmel does feed too many political shows, and he does have these jokes on his channel.
It's not so much an issue that Jimmy Kimmel produces, you know, political content, insofar as it is that he's in the sphere recommending to these channels.
The easiest way to explain it is, the next question asked by Hasan Piker was, and if you're not familiar with that guy, he's a Young Turks guy, Why isn't PewDiePie here?
You've answered your own question.
PewDiePie isn't in here because he doesn't recommend to these channels, okay?
This is a recommendation system tracking politics.
When I asked the researcher why wasn't PewDiePie in this, he essentially said, I could be wrong, so forgive me, Mark, if I get this wrong, but my understanding was that PewDiePie would be so far away from the group because there's no recommendations going, you know, back to these people.
So, he can't necessarily shrink the graph and put a dot super far away.
In reality, Jimmy Kimmel is right next to the political sphere recommending to Trevor Noah, okay?
And MSNBC and CNN.
Overtly political shows.
And Colbert is a political actor.
Whether or not his show is overtly political today compared to what the Colbert Report was in the past, sure, we can differentiate the shows, but he often, often opens with attacking the president, as does Jimmy Kimmel.
This is just a rambling rant video because I'm just so sick and tired of this nonsense, and I'm seeing other journalists post it.
It's a lie.
There's a journalist who posted a quote from the story.
Let me, um... Let me see if I can find the quote.
There's a spectrum on YouTube between the calm section, the Walter Cronkite, Carl Sagan part, and Crazy Town, where the extreme stuff is.
If I'm YouTube and I want you to watch more, I'm always going to steer you toward Crazy Town.
Take that quote, take their timeline, and take the data I showed you, and what they're basically saying is that
YouTube is radicalizing people to the far left.
Think about the people that get propped up by the CEO of YouTube, etc.
James Charles?
There was a period where most of the top creators, and still technically true, were, you know, identitarian,
feminist, or LGBTQ.
I don't necessarily want to lump in LGBTQ with the far left, because it's not the same, but there is more of an overlap
there than the right.
So the point is, YouTube absolutely is pushing people to the left.
And there's no question about it.
I don't know.
Rant over.
I don't know what this video was.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you guys in the next segment, 1 p.m.
on this channel.
For those on the podcast, it will be beginning soon.
I will see you there.
California is the future the liberal elite wants for you.
Let me just start off by saying a few things.
Typhoid outbreak, potential for bubonic plague, homelessness crisis, I lived in Los Angeles, I worked with a homeless shelter and several non-profits trying to help the poor, and I eventually left for a few reasons.
I think California is just, it's a lot of hype, a lot of nothing.
Everybody, you know, growing up was like, LA is the place to be, especially as a skateboarder, so I wanted to go there.
And then I found out the place is actually really gross and there's some nice areas.
Don't get me wrong.
You know, I know people live in LA and there's nice areas, but man, LA has serious problems.
Recently, there's been a lot of news about the disease outbreaks and the question as to why it's happening when you have a super majority in the state.
It's quite, for Democrats, it's quite confusing.
You'd think it's not so much about Democrat versus Republican, but if you have one party, you'd think they would just push through the policies they want.
In reality, it doesn't matter if you're in the same party, people disagree.
So now that they have a democratic supermajority, now the divide is liberal versus progressive or moderate or whatever, and so no, they still can't get things done.
I believe they failed to pass a housing bill to deal with homelessness crisis, and it's just getting worse and worse.
I saw this story from a few days ago.
Town Hall, California is the future the liberal elite wants for you.
It's a conservative opinion, but I thought it'd be interesting to read through and provide some comments on.
Now before we do that, TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
These are trying times.
People are getting demonetized and de-platforms, so I could definitely use your support to help me out in case I get demonetized something.
You could be that safety net.
Greatly appreciate it.
Or just like, comment, share, subscribe.
Engagement really helps.
Let's read.
I will add, I wanted to do a video on this because the first line is funny.
California has morphed from paradise into a garbage state run by garbage people for their own garbage benefit and amusement.
The garbage part is literal.
Once, the Sierra Nevada mountains symbolized the state, now towering heaps of trash and human waste do.
Welcome to what the Democrats want for all of America.
Just watch your step, literally.
I don't want to sit here and make a, I don't know, conclusively tell you why all
this is happening.
We can point to a few factors.
The state is predominantly run, are the big cities, by Democrats.
Los Angeles has a Democratic supermajority.
You can then argue it's Democratic policies.
I think a good portion of what's going wrong is corruption.
People who will play to your emotions claiming to be a democrat so you give your vote up, but they don't actually care about you.
This is true for a lot of politicians, not all.
I think there are some good progressives and liberals and conservatives, but there are a lot of people who just want to play the game to make money.
So politics, ultimately, I don't care what your party is, I think it's nonsense.
I'm kind of a centrist, not because I'm a fence-sitter, but because I think the right and the left have equally good points in different areas that need to be listened to.
However, we have a mainstream that is propping up the regressive left and destroying their own party, which is a big issue I think we need to deal with.
But in terms of California, I'm not going to tell you why.
By all means, there are going to be a lot of people who say it's the liberal policies.
I'm not entirely convinced.
I think corruption is a huge factor for a big city like this.
I think weather and other things, though New York has more homeless, according to a report I read in Forbes, in which case I don't think the weather is creating a homelessness problem, but they do have serious policy problems, for whatever reason.
They're not cleaning up, you know, the rats.
They're not cleaning up the trash.
They're not dealing with the homeless.
A Democratic supermajority could not pass a bill to deal with the homelessness crisis.
That is a problem of the Democrats.
Not necessarily the policy they did or didn't enact.
It's just that they as a party are not succeeding.
That's a fair point.
But I know a lot of people will point to the policies.
It's hard to argue against that, to be honest.
It is.
Because there's no Republicans in Los Angeles that are, like, setting the policy as a supermajority.
Let's read on.
If it were not for the climate, something the liberals in charge of my state have nothing to do with, as much as they think they do, it would likely be a nearly empty desert once again.
But the sun shines, the beach beckons, and the palm trees sway over a population of morons who keep electing proggy fascists to run the place, which they are doing right into the ground.
That's true, and I will point out I believe one of the challenges that California faces is no conservative pushback in big cities.
Same is true for most big cities.
I think you really do need a market challenge in politics, so I'll put it this way.
If you have a Democratic supermajority, nobody cares!
They'll just run and win.
Sure, there are primaries and things like that, but they're like, hey, just run as a Democrat, you'll win.
Like Ocasio-Cortez did.
But what do you think then happens, uh, like, what do you think would happen if you had actual conservatives challenging the Democrats in these places?
They would absolutely be desperately trying to fight to make sure they get elected and do the right thing for the city and for the people of the city, the county, the state, etc.
Where once people flocked to make their dreams come true, you now pay multiples for a U-Haul heading out than heading in.
Multiples.
The great California middle class made up of the normal people whose hard work and ingenuity made it the golden state, even though Hollywood types got the publicity, is fleeing to places where they can afford to live and where the government doesn't hate them.
We're gonna stop here, because I decided to do a little background into this man's opinion as to whether or not this is a factual, uh, this is true.
Are people fleeing California?
Well, they are.
This is from the Orange County Register.
I did a cursory search and found in September they said California is the great role model for America, particularly if you read the Eastern Press.
Yet few boosters have yet to confront the fact that the state is continuing to hemorrhage people at a higher rate with particular losses among the family formation age demographic, critical to California's future.
California's future is in jeopardy because young people are leaving.
And then I thought about that and I was like, dude, I was in my early to mid-twenties when I left California.
Why did I leave California?
I didn't like it.
There was a lot of filthy places.
Costs were really high.
There's just a lot wrong.
There's fun things to do, for sure.
The weather's nice.
But ultimately I found it kind of boring.
And I felt... I never, never went into actual... So a lot of people don't know this, that the city of Los Angeles is actually kind of small.
And L.A.
County is what people refer to in terms of L.A.
It's massive.
I stayed pretty much out west and avoided the city.
Out west in terms of like Santa Monica, Venice, it's more expensive, but the city was just like filthy and I never went there.
So I'm not saying it's the worst city I've ever been to or anything, it was just, you know, you've got Skid Row, you've got trash problems, you've got homelessness problems, and I worked directly with the homelessness problem and I was just like, at some point, Why am I here?
This is not, like, it's not a place where I'm gonna do better.
It's, it's, it's, they create this lie that you'll succeed in California, and I was this young, excited, wanted to go skate and play music, and then I was like, this is not the place to be.
I went to Virginia.
And then that was just before Occupy Wall Street happened, and now I've just been East Coast the whole time.
I'm from Chicago.
So yeah.
It's a problem.
Not in that I left because California was a wasteland.
I left because it didn't offer me anything.
There was no reason to be there wasting money and doing nothing in a dirty, boring place.
For other people, yeah, it's just too expensive.
So people start fleeing.
Who's going to be the next generation to help, you know, create the economy in the cities of California?
There's another story.
This is from just a few months ago.
More Californians are considering fleeing the state as they blame sky-high costs, survey finds.
How did we get to a point where California is this way?
Where they have trash in the streets, there's feces everywhere.
It's a Democratic supermajority.
And this is the challenge for me.
There's a lot of... I often hear this, that, you know, people on the left will say, just because socialism didn't work this time doesn't mean it won't work again.
And I think it's a really silly argument, because basically, like, every circumstance, save for, like, one, socialism resulted in, like, people being killed, and just the complete and total collapse of their economies.
So I think that provides enough evidence to suggest we shouldn't implement these kinds of command economy systems that haven't worked at all, right?
You know, They say the definition of insanity is putting your hand in a fire, and then, you know, when you get burned, you do it again, like you can't learn.
That's not a legitimate definition, but I think that's like an old saying.
So I'm kind of like, well, at this point, how many times do you try until you say, you know, we shouldn't do that anymore?
I personally believe we need a mix because we can't just have companies running wild,
otherwise you end up with Google and Facebook doing this nonsense they're doing.
But socialism certainly has run afoul.
California is not socialist, but it is very, you know, moving very, very heavily in that
direction.
But because California is not, like, if you look at something like the Scandinavian states,
which are capitalistic welfare states, compared to California, which is not even as well,
it's capitalistic and doesn't have as much welfare as the Scandinavian states, I think
you see that it's not so much about social democrat policies, social democrat being more
like Bernie Sanders, not...
Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, he's a social democrat, like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc.
They have a capitalistic system.
You can open a business, you can sell what you want, but you pay a lot of taxes.
California's taxes are nowhere near as high as Scandinavia's, and so they haven't even gone far enough left to where we can claim they're directly similar to what Scandinavia is.
So why are they failing?
And this is where I default back to, I blame the Democrats.
So first of all, Is it about the Democrat policy?
I don't think so.
Perhaps the application of the policy in their area based on their economy, their resources, farming.
Because the economy of California is very different from Sweden.
Sweden exports weapons.
California exports alfalfa and kale and things like this.
So the economies are different, which means the policies won't necessarily work the same way.
But a lot of people in California point to the Scandinavian countries and say, let's do this.
Okay, well, hold on.
You're not even that far left yet, and you've already screwed everything up.
This is why I think it's the fault of the Democrats and not necessarily the policies which may or may not work in certain areas.
One of the reasons I am also rather centrist, I lean a little left, is because you can't claim That the same policy in Norway will work in the United States.
First of all, Norway has substantially less people than the US.
You can maybe claim that California with 30 million people could withstand a similar kind of policy position, except the economy of California is dramatically different.
If Sweden can export weapons to pay for the cost of their welfare program, California isn't doing that.
The export and imports are very different.
California exports culture and movies, which makes a lot of money.
It's very different, which means it needs unique policy.
I'm not going to point to the policies.
I'm going to point to the politicians who can't get the job done.
And guess what?
These cities are run by Democratic supermajorities.
It is the individual Democrats' fault.
Of course, conservatives will say, no, it's liberal policy, period.
But you're fine to have that opinion because it's not like I'm pulling up data and facts to prove it's not.
In my opinion, it starts with the corruption of the politicians.
I think they don't care.
I think they claim to care so they can convince you to vote for them.
They claim to be about social justice and welfare and helping the homeless and all that, and they're not going to do it.
And there's another important point I want to bring up, as I kind of derailed off of what Kurt Schlichter was writing about.
But interestingly, there's a lot of people who will point to me and say that I'm supporting the bad guys by supporting Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, and I absolutely reject that.
I think the problem with the Democrats is the corruption.
It's people like Hillary Clinton.
It's people like Joe Biden and Barack Obama and Kirsten Gillibrand and these people who don't care and Kamala Harris.
When I see Andrew Yang go on the Sunday special with Ben Shapiro, go on Fox News, go on the Rubin Report, I think to myself, that's somebody who actually wants to bring Americans together and solve our problems.
When I see Tulsi Gabbard do the same thing, long form conversation about her principles and positions with Joe Rogan and going on Fox News several times and standing up to her critics, I'm like, that's someone who actually has principles.
The problem with the Democrats is the corruption.
It's people who claim, you know, Kirsten Gillibrand chasing after intersectionality.
Oh, please.
You know, like, I believe you care about any of that.
Kamala Harris acting like she's a fan of hip hop.
Oh, come on.
These people, these are plastic people.
They are made of plastic.
Bernie Sanders I used to like, but Bernie Sanders at some point started to embrace the plastic political stance, and he broke my heart.
I was, I tell this story, I was walking home from the office in New York when I worked for Fusion, and Fusion is totally woke, and I was fervently ranting to my friend about how it's finally time we get someone like Bernie Sanders.
He's a social democrat.
I still like the guy.
He's not the worst.
But he started embracing a lot of this nonsense politics, like saying white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
Then he endorsed Hillary Clinton.
You know, good on him for still defending the ideas of border security when he said, someone asked him about open borders, he said, absolutely not.
But I think Bernie started playing politics.
And I do not like that.
Sure, they're playing politics to an extent, but not to that degree.
Both have come out against identity politics.
Some people have criticized Gabbard because she said she's pro-reparations.
Well, it's a conversation to be had.
Sure, I get it.
Criticize her, please.
She deserves it.
But...
The reason I like Gabbard is she's staunchly anti-war, and Yang has a big list of solutions.
So anyway, I've really derailed on this because California breaks my heart, pisses me off, and it's a representation of the corruption within the Democrats, at least at the local level.
San Francisco is riddled with feces.
Los Angeles is full of trash heaps and disease.
And now it makes all Democrats and all left liberal policy look really, really bad.
This is the problem I have with even people like Ocasio-Cortez.
I think climate change is an issue.
I really do.
Because we have a lot of scientists pointing to these things.
And the problem is, Cortez comes out waving her end is nigh sign and the meteorologists On Twitter are saying, no, no, no, no, chill, please.
Okay?
Ultimately, what the science shows, to the best of my understanding, I am not one of these people, is that it's actually not as freakishly insane as Al Gore or Ocasio-Cortez would have you believe.
No, there's not going to be tornadoes ripping through Washington, D.C., and 12 years until the world is going to be on fire or something.
There's going to be damage to the planet.
We can find economic solutions.
We're not facing the end of the world in 10 years like they keep saying.
Actual scientists, many of them will be actually calm about it.
But then you see Bill Nye lighting a globe on fire and screaming, and it's like, dude, dude, these people are damaging progress.
They're damaging progress.
I don't blame necessarily the conservatives who are doing what conservatives always do, and there's a lot of conservatives and moderates who are rather open and interested in conversation.
The same is true for liberals, but the liberals are allowing the inmates to run the asylum.
So when we see Ocasio-Cortez saying, you know, we've got 12 years until the world ends and you're like, what?
And then she later comes out and says it was a joke, I'm like, okay.
Okay, listen.
You're making things worse, you know?
So anyway, I started ranting on the Democrats, but I saw this story and I'm like, I guess that's kind of the point of what Kurt is saying.
It's the future the liberal elite wants for you.
And it bothers me because, what do I say to that?
What do I say to the conservative who argues, look at California and that's what you'll get with Democrats?
Because I think there are some good Democrats and I would rather have Yang than Trump, personally.
I'm willing to sit down and talk with someone about Trump because Trump has done some really great things.
He's got Mexico to now enforce border security.
So Trump has pulled some things off.
The economy is doing great.
I'm not going to deny those things.
Foreign policy is a big issue for me.
Tulsi Gabbard is a staunch anti-interventionist.
Trump was supposed to be.
He wasn't.
And that even pissed off a lot of Trump supporters.
Because, you know, Trump is doing the Saudi Arabia, Yemen stuff.
Missile strike in Syria.
Commando raids.
Yemen's a really big deal.
I don't think the United States should be doing these things and going and raiding these countries and participating in these wars.
I understand the complexities of geopolitics in foreign countries.
It's complicated.
It is.
But here's the thing.
When California turns into a pile of feces, San Francisco particularly, when Los Angeles has the risk of disease, when there are people storming the border at San Ysidro near San Diego, where are the Democrats?
And this makes it really, really hard because a lot of people are single-issue voters and they're going to look at the Democrats as a whole and say, I don't know, man, Kurt's right.
How many people are gonna look at California and be like, I do not want that?
And they're gonna eschew any person aligned with the Democrats.
We gotta recognize the shades of gray within politics.
And me, I've always been slightly leaning to the left, and so I've found some people on the Democrat side that I think are principled, trustworthy, and Yang really does take the cake.
I mean, look, he went on Rubin, he went on Ben Shapiro.
Tremendous respect.
No prerequisites, no talking points.
That blew my mind.
And Gabbard did the same thing with Rogan.
But Yang told Rubin, Dave brought this up right in the beginning of their interview, he's like, there were no talking points, no stipulations, they said you can talk about whatever you want, ask whatever you want, and Yang was on board.
That's the kind of principled, real conversation we need.
And I think, you know, I found, what I found is interesting is a lot of conservatives, you know, will tweet to me in response saying that they don't like Yang's policies in certain areas, but they have respect for him.
And of course, then you get the media smearing Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang as the alt-right Democrats.
Yup.
Because they want this.
And so I can't argue with what they say.
This is what the liberal elite wants for you.
I won't agree.
I mean, I'm sorry, I won't disagree.
Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard are not the liberal elites.
They're the outsiders fighting to get in.
And it's Kamala Harris.
It's Cory Booker.
It's Joe Biden.
They're the liberal elites.
I don't think Bernie Sanders is, but Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton.
So, I mean, even Ocasio-Cortez, my understanding is that she endorsed Elizabeth Warren.
So anyway, you know what?
I'm rambling now, but just some thoughts I had looking at the collapse of California.
And I think, in the end, my final thought, to clarify, reiterate, is that California is run by the corrupt.
They don't care about you.
They don't believe what they're saying.
And everything is falling apart.
So when someone brings this up, what do I say to them?
Well, I guess you're right.
It's not so much... This article doesn't say it's their policies, necessarily.
It's talking about how they're just not getting it done.
They can't do it.
They're not doing it.
You know?
I got another video coming up for you on the main channel starting at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
Yes, that is a different channel.
I have two channels.
I have three actually.
But thanks for hanging out.
Stick around and I will see you in the next segment.
It was only a matter of time.
I said this in my video yesterday, that what they're going to do is associate Philip DeFranco with the alt-right, and then the activists would move in.
In my opinion, based on the, you know, working with the writer to a small extent, and knowing him personally, the conversations we've had, I believe there is malicious intent.
I'm not saying he's trolling as much as it's evil.
I'm saying he knows what he's doing.
He knows that he's omitting certain people, and including certain people, and causing Harm to the reputation of Philip DeFranco?
He doesn't care.
He's misframing the argument.
And in fact, the funniest thing about his story, on Phil and others, is that his story debunks itself.
But here's the important bit.
Philip DeFranco tweeted this.
A buddy on the East Coast just sent this to me.
They put the making of a YouTube radical collage on the front page of the Sunday edition of the New York Times.
Now it appears that I'm also part of a stew of emotional content.
I'm going to ditch the internet today.
See you Monday.
I kid you not.
The New York Times ran a front-page story about one guy and the YouTube videos he watched.
Think about how psychotic that is.
Why would they do this?
Why?
Interestingly, the story is... So the story is about one guy who watched YouTube videos, And the actual story is that a guy watched YouTube, was a conservative, he said he rejected the far-right viewpoints, and then watched the intellectual dark web like Dave Rubin.
Then he watched left-wing content and denounces the alt-right.
How is that a story about radicalization?
The making of a YouTube radical.
How the site's algorithm played into the hands of the far-right.
But you literally wrote a story about how the guy rejected the alt-right and never believed their opinions.
Weird.
Why would Kevin Roose of the New York Times frame a story one way and debunk the story in the actual article?
Could it be that most people don't read to the very end?
More than half of people will read the headline?
Then half of the remaining will read halfway through and very few will finish it.
Because when you finish it, he became a liberal.
Made a video denouncing the alt-right.
Why would you do this?
Why would you publish a front-page story about one guy watching YouTube, who didn't even hold rather extreme views?
Really weird, isn't it?
Really, really weird.
So, I don't have the tab pulled up, but I will say, if you want to support me, timcast.com slash donate.
With the attacks on YouTube, it's really important that I promote.
You can support me through timcast.com slash donate, in case I get demonetized or something.
Just like, comment, share, and subscribe, though.
The engagement really helps.
So here's the point.
The point I want to make.
Yesterday in my video, I said activists will take this and they will run full speed.
They already did.
I'm not kidding.
Welcome to Philip DeFranco's Wikipedia talk section.
For those that aren't familiar, the talk section is where people argue whether or not something should be included in the article.
Shortly after my video was published, we saw this section appear on Wikipedia.
I feel that it would be in the best interest of the public to have Mr. DeFranco listed as having ties to the alt-right and Yes, some bad people I'm not going to say.
Sphere of influence on YouTube.
What this would effectively do is ensure that anyone who Googles his name will take his words with a grain of salt as opposed to the subtly brainwashed- as opposed to be subtly brainwashed by extremist groups that are associated with his channel and persona.
Someone responded.
No source, although it looks like a smear campaign is in the works.
I will revert any edits from your IP address.
Someone then said, if the New York Times said Air didn't exist, would you believe it?
And finally, I guess this is what we're talking about, and a link to the tweet from Philip DeFranco.
When I first saw this, I said, troll, obvious troll.
Somebody was following the news throughout the day because a lot of people were talking about it, and then put this in here as a troll or an acceleration.
Like, okay, let's just go for it.
No.
I do not believe, or I should say, I did not believe this was included in Philip's talk page, trying to seed the information by an actual protester or activist or anything like that.
No, I think it's a troll.
Until I saw this.
Welcome to Gamerghazi.
There are various subreddits and communities I track for various news stories, one of which is Gamerghazi, with self-identified SJW members.
That's what they call themselves.
Gamerghazi is a social justice subreddit.
Right now, I believe, let me open a new tab just to be sure, I believe the top comment, the top post right now, so concerning white fragility is a pinned post, you can see the pin, and the highest upvoted post right now on the social justice subreddit.
Philip DeFranco upset at the NYT correctly, that the New York Times correctly identified him as a major player in the alt-right radicalization pipeline.
Unironically, I said this was going to happen.
Okay, you look at the Wikipedia, and again, the first thing I thought was, I'm not buying it.
I did not think the activists would come for him immediately after the story was posted.
I assumed it would be slowly over time, them slowly bringing about insinuations that he is associated with these groups, and that this was probably a troll just thinking it's funny.
Someone did include the source in their time, so the conversation at least has started.
And someone said, it looks like a smear campaign is in the works.
And it is.
Look at this.
Someone said, the article doesn't even call Phil an alt-writer, just that he was in Kane's watch history.
Someone needs to learn all the facts and observe both sides before making a judgment call.
I saw his outrage tweet.
Basically, there's some comments in here saying, well, he's just an enlightened centrist.
Some, uh, but some people, this person, okay, the post came from a moderator.
They say, new mod, same great oppression.
The user is, um, who's the user?
K-Kalorie?
And, uh, okay, so Kalorie doesn't look like a mod.
Wait, maybe, I want to make sure they are or aren't a moderator.
So, the moderator is, okay, they're not a moderator.
That's important because...
I didn't know if that meant they were actually a moderate.
Maybe they are, and I'm getting it wrong.
But the point is, this is an unironic thread talking about how Philip DeFranco plays both sides defending the right wing.
So here's what the individual says.
They're quoting somebody.
He also both sides a lot of S that makes the aggressor and the target seem morally equivalent.
But only when the aggressor is left and the victim is right.
When it's reversed, he doesn't both sides it at all.
He downplays what the right did, and plays up how the left deserved it.
This person said, DeFranco serves as the centrist gateway drug to misogyny and bigotry.
He pretends to be left-wing, but somehow all his coverage manages to make the right look somewhat good and victimized, and the left look somewhat bad and unreasonable.
And here, and here and there, sprinkles in misogyny and anti-feminist, anti-SAW mini-rants.
The whole purpose is just to get you used to the ideas, to ease you into the right, and YouTube will take care of the rest by recommending more and more right-wing stuff as you watch him.
They go on to say that he's an open libertarian in this thread.
Philip DeFranco has interviewed Gary Johnson in the past.
He has said he was a libertarian in the past, and that is far right by many mainstream political, you know, assumptions or perspectives.
So look, does it matter that there are 77 comments talking about how Philip DeFranco is part of the pipeline?
Yes, but I don't want to act like it's the end of the world.
Let me explain to you the significance of this.
In order to smear someone as alt-right, they have to plant seeds.
I do not believe there's an overt conspiracy.
I believe it's a bunch of people waiting at a starting line, and they're waiting for someone to do something so they can jump forward.
I do not believe Kevin Roos is in cahoots with anybody or there's any kind of conspiracy.
Kevin Roos, the writer of the original article, probably just saw this as an opportunity to get clicks.
It's a fascinating, scary story that, you know, ooh, people are getting radicalized.
But his story debunked itself.
At the end of the story, the guy never went far right and denounced them by watching YouTube videos.
But he makes this big threat about how he had to understand how they're doing this and how they're playing into the far right strategy and making Google mainstream.
All lies.
Not true.
Datapro's not true.
I've talked about it a million times.
I won't get in anymore, but it's not true.
This guy clearly is just latching on to some clickbait nonsense, and I will stress the very simple reason why what I'm saying is very likely to be true.
Why would the New York Times write a story about one guy who watched YouTube?
It is an anecdote, there is no data, and the story debunks itself.
It makes no sense.
It's absurd nonsense.
The New York Times could publish a story about an exposé on border crossing and ice, something that actually matters.
Really weird, Kevin.
Really weird.
It's an anecdote about one individual.
If that's the best the front page of the New York Times can pull off in terms of this story, you know it's bunk.
They didn't look at any research.
They didn't look at any data.
They pulled up one random guy and said, see, look at this guy.
He watched these channels.
Oh, wait, he became a liberal?
Debunking your own narrative, but publishing as if it proves your narrative?
If you do this story for months, I've been working on a story for a few months, and that's the best you can do, you've debunked yourself.
Congratulations.
I won't be surprised.
Hank Green saying, it's a good article too.
What are you talking about, Hank?
Why would a front page story about one guy on YouTube be a good article?
Thankfully, Casey Neistat comes in with, it's badly done.
Very confusing.
Little consideration for how the association of being in a collage would be interpreted.
Especially considering the headline directly beneath the photos.
And I said it's maliciously framed, in my opinion.
It talks about how YouTubers like Natalie are a pipeline away from radicalization, and this person ultimately came to denounce the alt-right.
It's just smearing YouTube for no reason.
Here's what's gonna happen.
This is part of the process where these dominoes fall over, but activists know full well the power in slowly playing this game.
Philip DeFranco pushes back.
Doesn't matter.
You can now say, without fear of libel, Philip DeFranco is associated with the far right.
Because what does that really mean?
You'll then see his Wikipedia, because they're already beginning the arguments within the same day, surprise the hell out of me, about whether or not he should or shouldn't be.
Of course, they're taking the negative, he shouldn't be, but someone will eventually chime in, maybe, I'm not saying it definitely will happen, and they'll say something like, while I think the premise is silly, we should talk about the pipeline and how Philip DeFranco does, you know, get recommendations on YouTube, etc.
The New York Times has written about it.
It's newsworthy, they'll say.
And then all of a sudden something will appear on Philip's page saying, In a recent controversy, Philip DeFranco was associated with alt-right YouTubers, though he denied it and was outraged.
A month or two months later, a story will be written.
This is called Cytogenesis.
It was something that was written in a comic by XKCD, if you're familiar.
Where they said, once it appears on Wikipedia, some other journalist will take it and then twist it like a game of telephone.
So first they'll say Philip DeFranco was recently associated with the alt-right in a New York Times article triggering outrage from many commentators.
Next you'll see a Gizmodo article.
Philip DeFranco, who was recently associated with the alt-right, then you'll see another article later.
Philip DeFranco, an associate of the alt-right, Then eventually you'll say, Philip DeFranco, who is routinely criticized as being alt-right.
And there you have it.
Now, some people will call him alt-right, like they're doing already.
And sure enough, that gives ground to the New York Times, to any other outlet to say, Philip DeFranco, comma, an alt-right YouTuber.
Then you look at the actual definition of what alt-right is.
White nationalist.
Doesn't matter.
It's an opinion.
And the New York Times can now say, listen, there are a ton of stories referencing him in this way.
Okay?
It's, it's, it's, we didn't make it up.
Wikipedia was talking about it.
Our journalists saw this, followed the sources.
There were a ton of news articles calling him alt-right or associating with it.
If he, if he, you know, he can deny it all he wants.
And that's how the game is played.
So, there you go, Phil.
Whether you're happy, angry, whatever, they're now starting the argument on your Wikipedia page.
They're saying it's a smear campaign, sure.
But does that mean you believe the New York Times is part of a conspiracy to smear Philip DeFranco?
That's crazy.
This can't be true.
Whoever wrote this is clearly a conspiracy theorist because the New York Times is not engaging in a smear campaign.
Can't you bigots understand that Philip DeFranco was correctly identified as being a major player in the alt-right radicalization pipeline?
Welcome to the new future, Phil.
You are now officially associated with the alt-right by these people.
Of course, we sane people... No, that's not true!
You have to choose what videos you watch.
I'm not going to prattle too much.
I will leave the story there because I've talked a lot about this, but there you go.
Phil DeFranco.
Alt-right.
I will see you in the next segment coming up shortly.
Yesterday, at Pride in Washington D.C., there was a scare.
Some people heard bangs, many people ran, and people started saying that they believed it was an active shooter.
When this happened, I really wanted to tweet something about how, you know, you need to keep your what's about you, not run in a random direction.
But I thought, you know what?
I'm not going to say anything.
I'm going to retweet law enforcement.
I'm going to make sure it's in their hands and I can amplify the message of capital city police and law enforcement to protect those in case something is happening now.
I personally believed it was a false alarm.
I had seen some tweets from people saying they didn't see anything and didn't think anything was happening, and so it was a very different circumstance, but it is better to err on the side of safety than risk the harm of others, so I stayed out of it and made sure law enforcement was paved.
Clear the way!
So whether it's Twitter, whether you're on the road, when you've got law enforcement trying to make sure they can keep people safe, you give them the way.
So when they started tweeting, I said, my platform, your platform.
I will retweet you to make sure you can keep people safe.
But as it turns out, it was not a real shooting.
And nothing, we don't know what occurred.
Someone apparently got arrested.
They did have a weapon, but there was no shooting.
It was a false alarm.
And so the point of this story is, I do want to go through this, but I want to talk about being on the ground in urban conflict, and how I'm really worried that our culture and society is becoming overly sensitive and terrified, and it can be a bad thing.
Well, I don't want to tell you if people start, you know, if you hear bangs, what do you do?
I will stress that there are serious considerations in terms of how to keep yourself safe when these, when, you know, when there's bangs and people are running.
First, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are multiple ways, you know, PayPal address, cryptocurrency, physical address, but of course, just like, comment, subscribe.
The engagement really, really helps.
But let's, let's get into this.
From NBC, mistaken reports of a shooting at the Capitol Pride Parade in Washington, D.C.
sparked panic among attendees.
Several people were hurt in the chaos as people fled.
DC Police Chief Peter Newsham confirmed to News 4 that a shooting did not occur at the DuPont Circle Festival on Saturday, that there was no active shooter in the area.
There is no evidence at all that any shots were fired, DC Police Commander Guillermo Rivera told reporters on Saturday.
Numerous people told News 4 that they heard gunshots, but police maintain there was no evidence of a shooting.
It's unclear what people heard, but police say they are reviewing video in an effort to determine what the sound was.
We had officers close by, and at this point, there's no evidence of any gunshots.
About 7.20pm, nearly three hours into the parade, police began to respond to reports of a man with a gun.
As officers ran into the area, fleeing parade attendees said there was a man with a gun who fired shots.
No evidence to support this.
Officers arrived at the location where the individual was located.
At that point, they stopped that individual and they recovered a gun close by.
Police have confirmed in News 4 that a gun was recovered from a backpack in DuPont Circle, but said the gun was never brandished or threats made.
A man was charged with possessing a handgun.
D.C.
police confirmed they questioned one person and the weapon recovered is being processed.
When asked how officers identified the man with the gun, Rivera said it's currently a matter of investigation.
A woman was also arrested for allegedly assaulting an officer.
It's unclear if the suspects knew each other.
So there's a video here that I'll try and play where apparently, I believe this shows everyone start running in random directions.
Yep.
So we can see people start jogging.
And, uh, so it's not yet.
Well, let's, let's, let's, so for those that are listening, we're, we're playing a video here from NBC.
It appears to have frozen, I guess.
Okay, great.
Um, there is video circling on, uh, circulating on YouTube where all of a sudden there's a stampede and everyone starts running full speed because they hear this noise.
And it looks like, here we go, people start running.
No, not necessarily.
I don't- I don't think this is- Yeah, okay, people are definitely running, some people aren't.
So, that's- that's- that's kind of it.
Those other videos show a stampede, and people that get hurt.
So let's talk about this, right?
Well, let's read a little bit further.
Deputy Mayor for Public Safety Kevin Donahue confirmed there was no active shooter.
The Capitol Pride parade ended early after the incident, but organizers says all other events will continue as planned with extra security precautions.
Police say they were unaware of any threats or hate language targeted at the parade, but encourage anyone with information to contact the police tip line, and they include the phone number.
I saw this story on Reddit and I pulled up the news comment section because there's an interesting conversation about it.
Let me see if I can fix this because it's, there we go.
Someone said, it was absolute chaos.
People running into restaurants and stores, locking themselves in the bathrooms, and getting behind counters while screaming.
A scene straight out of a movie.
An entire mob swarming the streets, running and screaming.
Someone said, all for no reason.
People need to chill.
A response?
To be fair, if someone comes at you sprinting and tells you there's an active shooter at a large event, you'd probably at least be the slightest bit of panicked in the moment.
It's just a snowball effect spread like wildfire.
I have been in many active urban conflicts.
Not full-on war with AKs, but I've been in gang territory with gunfire, I've been in riots, many, many riots, and yes, some revolutions like in Egypt.
I was in Venezuela, and there were a bunch of young people protesting on a street corner in the intersection.
All of a sudden, the whole group of around 500 people started screaming and running full speed away from where we knew Venezuelan National Guard were.
Before this happened, I was standing about one block... So, let's do it north by south.
The National Guard were south.
The protesters were to the north.
We were on the same level, the same line, like looking at the protesters, but to the west.
So, to my right, I could see the National Guard.
In front of me, I could see the protesters.
I told the crew, we are going to back away about one block.
Away from the police and the protesters, and if anything happens, we run perpendicular to where the crowd is running.
We do not want to run with them, because if they are being attacked or chased by the guard, we want to leave.
Think about it like this.
Indiana Jones.
The boulder is coming after him.
You see this all the time in, you know, cartoons and stuff, where someone's being chased by a boulder or a falling tree, they don't turn to the right.
We exist in three dimensions.
You actually have two dimensions when a boulder is chasing you.
So here's what ends up happening in these urban conflicts.
Everyone runs in the same direction, but the important thing to consider.
Sound echoes, and most people don't know where the gunshots are coming from.
I kid you not, I have been in situations where everyone starts running toward the danger.
Here's... I can't tell you what to do in these situations.
What I can say is, for one, I will not be, like, surprised or, you know, it's silly to criticize someone who does run when there's reports of a shooter.
Not all bangs are guns, and it's not smart to ignore some bangs.
When I was in Ferguson, I was with someone, and all of a sudden we heard bangs, and every protester hit the deck.
Because they know what to do.
Hit the deck, figure out where it's coming from, run away from it.
But I think it's because a lot of these communities, like Ferguson, are used to gun violence.
Chicago, for instance, they're used to gun violence.
When I've been in Chicago, I was in Ferguson, that's the behavior I see from the community when gunshots go off.
They immediately hit the ground.
They look around, try and figure out what's going on, before moving.
When I've been in other urban environments and protests with... Actually, we'll use this as an example.
Everyone just runs in random directions.
Because they don't know how to deal with an actual crisis.
I was in Ferguson.
I was with an actual conflict reporter and there was an ABC News guy who was nearby.
We hear gunshots.
Actual gunshots.
I'm already on the ground.
I look to my right.
Conflict reporter producer I'm working with on the ground too, and I chuckled.
I'm like yep, dude knows what he's doing I look to my left, and there's the guy from ABC.
Just like looking around confused, and he goes those fireworks And I was like dude.
Do you see fireworks anywhere?
No?
I'm like do you see people with guns and he was like yeah, and I'm like why?
Would you assume it's fireworks?
I gotta say man I?
I'm not going to be upset with people in DC for running and being scared.
I will say this.
My advice to you is immediately running full speed in a random direction isn't always the best thing to do.
I don't know what to tell you.
I don't know if there's a higher percentage of safety and security by running randomly.
I will say, though, you can run to the danger.
What I do personally is I immediately take cover and get down and try and figure out who's running where and who's doing what.
Because who knows what it is?
It could be a bunch of bulls stampeding through the street, and if you run in the street, they're behind you.
It could be a person with a gun.
The point is, you don't want to run... You want to run away to dead ground or to cover.
Dead ground meaning down a hill or up on something else to where they can't get line of sight.
The problem with what a lot of people are doing, locking themselves in bathrooms and stuff, is that you've trapped yourself.
Okay?
You can cover ground probably equally to the other person.
However, if someone is, if you are in a situation, I, again, I don't want to, do not take my advice.
Do not take my advice.
I will only tell you what I would do.
I've been in situations where I've been shot at.
In Ferguson, hit the floor and got behind a big piece of like, um, it was some kind of control box.
There's a video of it on Vice News.
That's what I did.
I immediately tried to figure out how I could reduce my exposure.
I don't know where the shots are coming from, so I'll get behind whatever I can and get to the ground to minimize the risk of getting hit.
There was a point at Ferguson where someone randomly fired a shot and it whizzed past my head, because I know what it sounds like when a bullet whizzes past your head and hits a wall, and I just immediately dive straight to the ground like I was playing baseball and skidded on the blacktop.
I did not just start running in a random direction.
When the shots went out in Ferguson, Uh, this is like the third or fourth time.
I got behind some traffic control box, laid down, and there's video of it, and then waited until we knew where the shots were coming from, and they stopped.
We didn't know where they were coming from.
There was no point to run.
You would expose yourself, and you don't know who's doing what.
In my opinion, that's what I did.
The police then ran up and yelled, get out, get out of here, get out of here.
That's when I got up.
They gave me the clear and I said, best thing I can do is run for it.
And I did.
Longer story, I ended up inhaling tear gas and displaced the oxygen in my lungs and then passed out.
And some dude poured water, some young kid comes out of the house, pours water on my face, triggering a gasping reflex and revived me, essentially.
Epic, like crazy, crazy story.
But I guess the point is, I saw this and I felt like, you know what, man?
You can see a few things in the video.
A lot of people are running and a lot of people are doing nothing.
Keep your wits about you.
Always.
No matter where you are, know your exits and have more than one.
There was a video that went viral a while ago of something happened in a club.
Everyone's watching a band play.
Apparently, like I can't really remember what happens, you might remember the video better than me, but everyone runs full speed to the exit.
The guy filming walks to the backstage exit and walks out the back door.
Nonchalantly.
I believe it was a fire.
He goes around to the front of the building, and you can see everyone's jammed in the door, unable to move.
They all shoved each other and got stuck in the door.
Because they didn't know their exits.
Most people exit through the same place they came in from.
Big mistake.
Always know your exits.
Have more than one.
No matter what building I go into, I know my plan for getting out.
Might seem paranoid, but when you work in conflict journalism, you know, it's not like I'm doing that much these days.
I'm trying to avoid that because it's become too risky because of my profile.
But you understand the importance.
And if you're concerned about the possibility that someone could shoot you, which I don't think is high likelihood, know where you're going, when, and why.
So in this situation, I would say, personally, I wouldn't run into a building.
And for this reason.
If there's one person with a weapon, they're going to be doing their thing, and they're not going to be able to run as fast as I can while they're holding that weapon.
It could be a handgun, and they can run pretty fast.
But in that case, I can run pretty fast as well.
Basically the point is, I can clear more distance and get to safety.
You never know if you pick the wrong building and someone goes in it and starts going after people in the building.
Now you've trapped yourself.
That's just what I would do.
Don't take my advice.
Don't do it.
That's just the way I see it.
So anyway, I'll leave it there.
I just really wanted to talk about this because, you know, everyone's running and screaming and nothing happened.
But I can't blame them.
Things have been crazy.
I got one more story coming up for you in a few minutes.
I will see you shortly.
I don't think y'all get it.
Milo Yiannopoulos is an expert level, he's a master level troll.
He knows how to get press attention.
He knows what he's doing in the sense that he can get himself front and center.
I would be willing to bet that Milo Yiannopoulos, so here's the story.
Milo Yiannopoulos named Marshall for Straight Pride Parade.
I think it's actually really hilarious.
I laughed a lot when I read this story.
It's a couple days old.
I wasn't going to do a video about it, but man is it going viral.
100,000 shares on this one story on the hill.
And they're not the only ones who wrote about it.
So I'll tell you what.
When I heard that Milo Yiannopoulos, who is a homosexual man, who I believe he's married to a man, yes, when I heard he was going to be the marshal for the Straight Pride parade, I started laughing my ass off.
Because Milo knows what he's doing.
It's just a big troll.
It's a big silly thing.
If you want to have a straight pride parade, live and let live.
I really don't care.
But for some reason, there's outrage.
So here's what we'll do.
We'll read about Milo.
There's a Brad Pitt controversy.
But I want to start with this story from a few days ago.
The backlash over proposed straight pride.
Why?
Why would there be a backlash?
It's so weird that, like, you want to have gay pride?
Cool.
Goddamn, do it.
Like, I've been to a bunch of gay pride events.
I worked for a non-profit fighting for LGBT rights.
Absolutely.
I was one of the top fundraisers for this organization.
Absolutely.
Somebody wants to have a straight pride parade?
Don't care?
I don't.
I would go check it out.
I'd have a hot dog or something, maybe some juice, and just see what's up and see what people are talking about.
It's not a negative thing.
No one's being mean to anybody else, so who cares?
But of course, there's backlash, so here's what we'll do.
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple ways you can do it.
PayPal, crypto, physical address.
But of course, one of the best things you can do is just like, comment on the video because the engagement helps.
Subscribe if you haven't already and share the video because YouTube says, wow, you're awesome when people do that.
So the first story from CBS.
Days before Boston's Pride Parade fills city streets celebrating the LGBTQ community, another parade proposal is causing an uproar on social media.
John Hugo is the president of a group calling itself Super Happy Fun America.
Its goal is to create a straight pride parade.
He says, We want people to be aware that there is not only one side of things.
There's a lot of people that are uncomfortable with a lot of things that are going on in our country and are afraid to speak up.
Come on.
I don't know what this, uh, so they say, uh, The mayor said this.
Come on, I don't know what this straight pride parade is all about.
I know that we have a pride parade on Saturday, and that's what I'm going to march in.
I don't understand why people gotta be mean about it, you know?
I look at it this way.
If there was somebody who was a conservative and somebody who was a liberal, and they both made, like, humorous jabs at me, like, let's say Trevor Noah.
Let's say Trevor Noah and Steven Crowder both made jabs at me in my politics.
I'd laugh and be like, sporting goods, sir.
I understand criticism and humor.
I'm not going to be mad that one is criticizing me and the other is criticizing me.
I'm going to be like, well, you know, these things happen.
If somebody says, I like chocolate cake, and somebody else says, I like vanilla, I'm gonna be like, yeah, I don't care.
Now you're gonna hear people saying things like, oh, but there's systemic oppression and historical marginalization.
I agree.
Absolutely.
I don't see how having a straight pride parade rejects that or refutes that.
It's a totally different thing with different people.
In fact, I will stress, I think it's actually really cool in that Milo Yiannopoulos, who is gay, is going to lead a straight pride parade.
I feel like that's kind of, you can make that a coming together situation.
How badass would it be if there was a straight pride event and a gay pride event and they came together and then everyone had a human pride event?
Why do we have to separate ourselves?
This reminds me of that meme on Twitter where they're like, And people say this all the time.
There's a viral tweet right now.
If you tweet, I like vanilla, people will be like, so you're saying you hate chocolate?
It's like, no!
So I believe this is all meant to be kind of a troll.
That's just my opinion.
Could be wrong.
They could be serious.
But either way, I don't care.
You want to have your event and have a good time?
Do it!
Please, like, fun.
Yeah, awesome.
If they go around saying, like, hateful things about other people, well, okay, hold on then.
You do have your free speech, but then I will criticize you.
I won't try and stop it.
You have a right to speech and all that.
But this is positive.
With Milo Yiannopoulos, a gay man, leading it, they're not going to be saying hateful things about gay people.
They're putting him front and center.
Straight people are putting on a parade, and they're putting a gay man in the front of it to talk about how they feel.
To me, that's actually a major win for progressives.
Why do they have to be so mad all the time about everything?
Think about this.
Think about in the 1960s.
Think about the 1930s.
If a bunch of heterosexual families marched and had a gay man leading them, that would be a major win for progressives.
Of course, they have to be angry.
Because if you do something, if you do something that is different to what they're doing, they're mad at you for doing it.
Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos has been named the Grand Marshal for Boston's Straight Pride Parade.
Organizers announced Friday the former Breitbart editor as the parade's Grand Marshal after they originally used actor Brad Pitt's name and likeness for the event.
The head of Super Happy Fun America, a group that advocates on behalf of the straight community, told the Boston Herald that Pitt was not super happy, haha, about the group using his name and likeness without his consent.
I really like his movies, and his lawyer sent us a letter asking us to take his stuff down, but, you know, you're allowed to do satire, John Hugo, president of Super Happy Fun America, told the newspaper.
Well, I think that statement spells it out.
It's a joke.
The Pride event is satirical.
And, look, That's a fair opinion.
If he's going to claim that they put Brad Pitt front and center for satirical reasons, then why should we take your parade seriously as a straight pride parade?
If you want to have a fun joke and have a good time with people, no problem.
If you want to call it straight pride and put a gay man in front, I think they're making a more progressive statement here.
But of course they're going to be mad.
They don't like Milo.
They think he's a bad guy.
It was really fascinating.
There was a tweet from a roaming millennial, Lauren Chen.
I don't think she goes by roaming anymore.
Somebody criticized conservatives for acknowledging gay rights.
And Lauren Chen's response was, yes, they exist and they're entitled to their rights and all that.
And I saw that and I'm like, why are progressives getting mad at conservatives for defending the gay community?
There was a period where Republicans said no to gay marriage.
We're over that.
It's done.
Supreme Court ruling, and now you have conservatives, actual conservatives, saying, well, you know, just live and let live.
Victory!
Victory.
Why are you criticizing that?
If they want to make a joke, a satirical event, put Milo in front, sounds like a win for the gay community.
The organization later named Yiannopoulos, who is openly gay, as its grand marshal for the event.
I might technically be a sequined and perfectly coiffed friend of Dorothy's, but I've spent my entire career advocating for the rights of America's most brutally repressed identity, straight people.
So I know a thing or two about discrimination, Yiannopoulos said in a statement released by the group.
It's a joke.
Why is everybody mad?
I think it's funny.
I think it does nothing to diminish or belittle the Pride event.
Pride had their event, and they've been increasingly getting more recognition.
Major corporations support them, and it's awesome.
It really is.
You know, when I was younger, it wasn't so much the same.
There was controversy.
But now you've done it, and Burger King is on your side.
You know, it is socially acceptable by everybody.
This is a good thing.
The fact that it can be poked fun of... Look at it this way.
The fact that Yiannopoulos and the straight pride people can make fun of gay pride means that you've become so mainstream that it is reasonably acceptable to mock.
That's a good, good thing.
I think what we should see from this is the LGBT community coming out and celebrating and partying with the Straight Pride people.
Because think about what that really means.
It means each and every one of these Straight Pride people are going to be having a good time and cheering alongside their LGBTQ brothers and sisters, cousins, mothers, fathers, etc.
That would be one of the coolest things ever, I think.
And it would just be kind of like a love pride, you know?
Like, it doesn't matter who you love.
It's not about allies.
It's not about one group or another group.
It's about the fact that the traditional heterosexual community is going to stand side by side, not as others, not as allies, as literally the same group.
People who love one another.
That, to me, would be amazing.
And that's ultimately what I really, really want to see in this world.
You know what I mean?
It's like, it doesn't matter who you are.
I don't care if you want to wear a banana costume.
If you want to, you know, do your thing, it's your life, and it's the only one you've got, and you should be happy.
And so it bums me out that people attack each other based on stupid things, like the color of their skin, or the way their hair looks, or their eyes, or what country they're from.
I think there's a reason why we have nations and borders, but I do believe in tourism, and I understand the rules and the law, and it's complicated.
I'm a liberal, I'm not a libertarian.
But what I'd love to see is, We're seeing it.
A gay man is being made the Grand Marshal of Straight Pride.
How is that not an epic win for just humans in general?
In fact, whatever the joke is they're trying to make, it proves an amazing point about where we are today in society with a gay man being made to lead Straight Pride's event.
Think about that.
Straight Pride is putting gay men in front.
I think it's incredible.
I really, really do.
So, they basically go on to talk about some of the other controversial stuff and whatever.
Eonopolis, sure, he's controversial, but so what?
He's not anti-gay.
This is like, this is bad.
So, you know, whatever.
I don't know.
A Boston straight pride event purportedly aims to celebrate heterosexuality in a city
that's said to have one of the largest LGBTQ communities in the nation.
I know it's a little ironic to have a gay conservative as our icon, Hugo told the Boston
Herald.
No, I think it shows acceptance and tolerance.
I don't know.
Maybe everyone's just lost their goddamn minds and we're just headed towards chaos.
