Rachel Maddow Slammed After Being Announced DNC Debate Moderator
Rachel Maddow Slammed After Being Announced DNC Debate Moderator. Rachel Maddow is under fire after being named a moderator for the first DNC presidential debates. Many view her as the wrong choice due to her being an opinion show host and not a journalist while others, including myself, are more concerned with her Russiagate rhetoric and calls for impeachment.Many have pointed out that while other networks have had opinion hosts moderate they still think its a bad idea, citing Don Lemon and Megyn Kelly as previous moderators.Assuming the Democrats will want to offer something real to the American public they need to stick to the issues such as healthcare and the economy. There is a concern that with Maddow she will start to push on impeachment and Russia which most Americans do not care about.These lines can be used by conservatives, republicans, and Trump supporters to show how Democrats aren't focused on solutions. It shows that they are just mad about losing 2016.But more importantly it would speak to moderates and independents that the Democrats only care about old news and not moving the country forward and helping make the country better.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Rachel Maddow is being scrutinized after it was announced she would be a moderator for one of the first Democratic presidential debates.
There are a lot of people saying that conservatives are criticizing this decision because Rachel Maddow is a conspiracy theorist, which she is.
She went on for years about Russiagate.
Or that she's just not a partial host.
She's going to be very biased.
However, it's not all coming from the right.
There's actually an article in Newsweek questioning whether or not she should be a host, and even a journalist from the Washington Post is questioning whether or not she should be involved in this debate.
So today, let's take a look at what the critics are saying, and then I want to show you some examples of why both left and right take issue With Rachel Maddow.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple options.
There's a physical address that is new because we're opening up a studio.
Crypto, PayPal as well.
And of course, the best thing you can do is just like and comment on the video.
Share the link and subscribe because the engagement really helps.
First, from The Daily Caller, NBC faces flak for naming Maddow a moderator for presidential debate.
MSNBC primetime anchor Rachel Maddow was named Tuesday as one of the five moderators for the first presidential debate, and it's caused some commotion on the right.
But I do want to add, it's not just on the right, and it's surprising the Daily Caller would mention this, when they actually have a quote from a media studies professor at DePaul University.
However, they go on to say, her inclusion as a moderator is raising eyebrows because she's not viewed as an impartial host.
Jeff McCall, a media studies professor at DePaul University, told The Daily Caller,
I think the voting public would be better served if hosts of opinion shows were kept out of
moderating campaign debates. That's not to say that an opinion host such as Maddow couldn't
generate helpful questions, but the appearance is that an advocate is helping to referee the contest.
Certainly.
Reporters also have their own values and perspectives, but the public normally expects reporters to come at any news event with some degree of objectivity.
That is not the case for an opinion show host such as Maddow.
NBC is of course trying to give their highest-rated MSNBC host a promotional platform on this debate stage.
I understand that, but it is unnecessary.
Maddow already has a high profile among Democrats.
He also noted that Maddow's selection is not unprecedented.
During the GOP primary debates in 2015 and 2016, they had multiple opinion-based panelists, including Hugh Hewitt and Mary Katherine Hamm, adding that their roles were rather limited, but they did participate on the panel.
That was not a good idea either.
And there was also Megyn Kelly.
The two-night debate will feature a maximum of 10 candidates per night, with each lasting two hours.
Holt will be the only moderator present from start to finish.
Guthrie and Diaz-Ballart will be alongside Holt for the first hour, and then be replaced by Todd and Maddow, according to NBC News.
Fascinating that Democrats would have one of the leading conspiracy theorists of the day moderating their first debate.
It really does show you where the party is at right now, Ned Ryan explains to The Caller.
Now let me just, we'll chime in here.
I think the big issue is not that Maddow is an opinion host.
By all means, bring in someone who's got an opinion to try and present some information.
The issue is that she is a conspiracy theorist who, for years, published ridiculous nonsense.
I know there's going to be a lot of people on the left who are coming out and saying, ah, Tim's just going after the left.
But listen, the left criticized Rachel Maddow for her coverage.
And they're criticizing her now.
Obviously, not everybody.
But let's go over some of the critics' statements.
First, Paul Farhi.
I wouldn't necessarily say he is left, but, you know, he works for Washington Post, and he's basically on the left.
He's not, like, the craziest actor like Maddow.
He goes on to say that they've named Samantha Guthrie, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow, and Jose Diaz-Bellart as moderators of the Democratic debates later this month.
But then he says, hmm, Maddow?
Unusual for an opinion journalist to moderate.
Closest comparison?
Megyn Kelly co-moderating Republican debate in 2015.
Tim Canova, who ran as, I believe he ran as a Democrat and then an Independent in Florida, I could be wrong, said Rachel Maddow will no doubt ask about Russian collusion in the first Dem presidential debate.
Of course she will.
Only Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Gravel have questioned Russiagate.
This will likely be a huge litmus test for both the establishment and anti-establishment.
Truth and courage versus sheepherding and smears.
And then of course, Michael Tracy chiming in saying, Does anyone have the slightest doubt what issue debate moderator Rachel Maddow is going to ask the Democratic candidates about?
Her presence means the candidates are going to be competing to outflank one another on how tough they can be on Russia.
Such a disaster.
I completely agree with Michael Tracy.
I think Maddow's gonna do a better job than a lot of people think.
However, she has gone on for years chasing this narrative.
And once the Mueller report came out, her ratings tanked.
Her credibility was shot.
In this story from June 3rd, Fox, Rachel Maddow's credibility and ratings at a low ebb following Mueller findings, critics say.
We don't need to read into the story.
It's Fox News.
Obviously, they're going to criticize Rachel Maddow.
Maddow is probably the biggest competition for Fox, although her ratings have been going down.
So, of course, they will criticize her.
But they're not wrong.
They're not the only ones criticizing her credibility.
There have been many stories calling her out since the findings in the Mueller report were published.
How about the very left-leaning Guardian publishing this op-ed?
Will Rachel Maddow face a reckoning over her Trump-Russia coverage?
With Trump has come two years of conspiracy mongering about Russia.
And at the top of the heap is none other than MSNBC's Maddow.
But you may be saying, Tim, it's an op-ed from the Guardian.
We know the Guardian is very left-leaning, but maybe Maybe this guy isn't.
But then we also have The Nation.
The Nation is extremely progressive.
And they wrote this.
The real costs of Russiagate.
Its perpetrators, not Putin or Trump, attacked American democracy.
And who do they criticize?
Rachel Maddow.
I have to stress this because there was a segment she ran.
Where she actually was concerned and scared that Russia would shut off electricity in the winter months to a place like Fargo, for instance.
And how dangerous it is.
Because it wasn't just Russia collusion.
It was Russia, Russia, Russia.
Believing there's this great foreign adversary seeking to upend and destroy the U.S.
Are we at odds with Russia?
Yes, we absolutely are.
Does Russia interfere in our elections?
Yes, and many other elections as well.
Is there a such thing as the Internet Research Agency?
Of course there is.
But for years to go on, and even, I kid you not, she even presented, I don't want to say she claimed it necessarily, but she asked whether or not Trump could be working directly for Vladimir Putin.
I don't care if you want to have an opinion host moderating a presidential debate.
I think that can be valuable.
But why would you put Lady Alex Jones on, you know, on primetime cable?
You know, what's really frustrating to me is the double standard.
But I can appreciate at least you're seeing someone like Paul Farhi say, that's kind of, you know, strange.
And I can really appreciate someone like Michael Tracy, though Michael Tracy typically does get it right.
He's defended free speech, he's called out bad actors on the left, and people like Rachel Maddow.
So I can agree.
And here's the thing.
He's not wrong when he says we know exactly where Rachel Maddow is going.
Look at this story from... I think this is from today.
This is from today, isn't it?
Rachel Maddow tells Seth Meyers the Democrats need to stop overthinking and impeach already.
So this is from A.V.
club.
Just in case you were thinking the national discourse was too darn well-informed and responsibly
witty, Rachel Maddow stopped by late night to talk through the current political mess
with Seth Meyers.
Well, messes.
As Donald Trump is in the White House, the GOP is allowing a betting him in trampling
over the rule of law and the separation of powers.
of powers and the Missouri Republican Party is, as Maddow pointed out, straight up forcing women
attempting to get an abortion at the state's one remaining provider to undergo an invasive and
completely unnecessary exam before obtaining a legal and personal medical procedure. Right,
we understand that. But let's talk about impeachment. They say Maddow, who's drawn
the short straw as one of the five moderators of the upcoming two-night, 10 candidates per night
Democratic debate, doubleheader, accepted Meyers' condolences for all the attendant homework.
As to the head-spinning number of candidates in the attendees' debates over that elusive buzzword electability, Maddow told Myers that, as is their way, Democrats are thinking too much.
Yes, because thinking too much is always a bad thing.
Comparing the overthinking going on to that surrounding the arguments for and against impeaching a president whose every word, deed, and Twitter eruption scream impeach this effer, Maddow urged Democrats to have a normal, healthy, hard-fought campaign and then get down to work.
If you are doing it for the right reasons, I think you are more likely to persuade the country that you've done it for the right reasons, opined Maddow, of all the signature Democratic waffling going on in both arenas, adding, Pick the best candidate who you think would make the best president.
Approach impeachment in terms of the constitutional imperative here.
As Myers chimed in, there's no strategy that will keep Donald the toilet-tweeter Trump from lashing out.
He's not going to, if he doesn't get impeached, say, you know what?
That was a real fair shake.
I got the Democrats.
I tipped my cap, joked Myers.
So they might as well use an impeachment inquiry to lay everything out for the American people.
Agreeing, Maddow said, just do what you think is right.
He's going to call you names.
Impeachment.
Right, because that's what Americans care about.
They don't.
Russia ranked, like, on the bottom.
There was, like, there was a poll done, I can't remember by who, where they asked regular voters, Democrats, what you were concerned about.
And guess what?
Healthcare, immigration, jobs.
Top three, consistently.
You know what the bottom was?
And in one instance, like, zero percent?
Russia.
So they want to impeach Trump.
Why?
But I'll tell you what.
I will say this.
Obstruction of justice, sure.
Mueller has said that Russia did interfere, and he's not making a determination on obstruction.
Okay, fine.
You want to bring that up, I think it's a fair point, and we definitely need to hold the president accountable.
But when you're entering this arena, putting Rachel Maddow on this panel, I tell you it will do one thing.
Again, to go back to what Michael Tracy said.
She's going to rail on Russia, call for impeachment, and she's going to just talk nonstop about impeachment.
And what do you think Americans are going to hear?
There's going to be an American sitting on their couch saying, I need a job.
And they're going to turn the TV on and they're going to be like, but Russia and impeachment and obstruction.
And they're going to go, am I going to get a job, man?
And then they're going to turn on, then they're going to see a commercial from Trump and Trump's going to say, the economy is better than ever.
We are bringing back jobs.
We have just gotten Mexico to agree to, you know, stemming illegal immigration.
And they're going to think, well, that sounds like it'll help me get jobs.
So here's the thing.
I want to make sure I stress, it is not just conservatives.
As I've pointed out, there have been people on the left criticizing Rachel Maddow.
But again, it goes even into Newsweek.
Newsweek is typically left-leaning, and they ran this article.
Should Rachel Maddow be moderating a Democratic 2020 debate?
MSNBC not alone in choosing partisan hosts for debate.
It's a very good point, right?
Fox News did it.
Well, Fox News won't be hosting any debates.
But the point is, it is being questioned.
There are journalists who are moderate to left-leaning who are saying, I don't know about this one.
Because even in the Daily Caller story, they mentioned that it was not the right thing to do for Fox News either, saying, um...
He added that their roles were limited, including talking about Hugh Hewitt and Mary Catherine Ham, saying that was not a good idea either in terms of what the GOP was doing.
But here's the interesting thing about Newsweek's story.
They mention this, and this is going to be a drag on CNN.
They say, While MSNBC's decision may have drawn some criticism, close media observers may note that more opinionated cable news hosts have previously moderated debates on their networks.
CNN has had the likes of Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo, who are often candid with their opinions and criticisms of politicians' host debates in the past.
I think it's really funny that the left-leaning Newsweek would criticize Don Lemon for being opinionated and partisan.
He is, absolutely.
It was recently, uh, recently, uh, recently, we recently heard...
That the New York Times was not going to allow its reporters on MSNBC and CNN shows, particularly Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell, I believe it was.
And now we have this story, MSNBC and New York Times at odds over reporter appearances.
Apparently there was a meeting between some individuals.
But yes, Don Lemon and Maddow were considered too partisan for New York Times reporters.
And the reason why I find that funny is that Newsweek can even acknowledge That Don Lemon IS, you know, an opinionated host, in the same vein as Rachel Maddow, but Don Lemon insists his show and his network are not liberal.
I'm sorry, Don, you absolutely are.
You've made extremely overt left-wing and opinionated statements, so yes, you fall into that category.
I want to read a little bit of this, and then I have some ratings updates we'll just talk about really quickly.
But I do want to stress, it is not, to me, about the opinion stuff.
You should have an opinion host.
And some people have brought this up.
One person saying that, this guy Max Kennedy on Twitter, he is a trial lawyer, I'm not sure who he is, but he says, for a primary debate, I definitely want at least one moderator who leans Democratic and will ask questions that help differentiate the candidates.
I can agree with that.
I don't see what purpose Chuck Todd serves.
Maybe he's a foil to show how candidates respond to bad faith questioning.
Well, that's a whole other issue.
But I can agree, having an opinionated host can be good.
But Rachel Maddow is a conspiracy theorist who has no credibility in my opinion.
She has said ridiculously insane things that shows she is a bad faith actor who is chasing the ratings.
I do not think she is a good choice for this.
However, We do have the story that I will briefly go over from CNN.
They say New York Times Executive Editor Dean Beckett and MSNBC President Phil Griffin met last week amid tensions between their two news organizations.
Well, I wouldn't... Sure, we'll leave it there.
We'll leave it there.
We'll call them news organizations.
But the lengthy lunch did not resolve the issues at hand, according to four sources with knowledge of the sit-down.
The executives remain at an impasse.
The specific issue is about television appearances by Times reporters on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show.
The larger issue is about the line between news versus opinion on cable networks, including CNN.
So, I'm not going to get too much into this.
I think we've gotten to the point.
I'll leave it to you now to comment below if you're watching on YouTube.
Do you think Rachel Maddow should be?
Again, my opinion is clear.
I have no problem with her or any other opinion host in the capacity that they're an opinion host, but I do take issue with fringe conspiracy theorists who are going to scream about obstruction, Russia, and impeachment, and they're not going to move the conversation forward, and they're not going to help.
I do believe Rachel will end up doing a decent job.
I really do think so.
I think she knows she's under fire for being too opinionated, for chasing after Russia, and I think she will try and have some good core questions, but I think it's too risky, especially for the Democrats.
It is a bad play.
MSNBC is doing this for the bucks, to prop up and promote their host, to make money and get ratings.
I can understand that.
But for the Democrats, no, this is going to look bad on you.
If you are coming into 2020 and you are leading the way with impeachment and Russia, you will lose.
Americans aren't concerned about whether or not Trump was trying to obstruct when he wanted to fire Robert Mueller.
It's a complicated question.
They want to know whether or not their kids are going to have food and go to college.
They want to know whether or not the factory will be reopening.
I completely understand the Russia stuff is an important issue, but it should be fourth or fifth on your list of priorities.
Mostly because it is a partisan divide with a complicated issue and it's being dragged out and the Russia stuff was nonsense.
There was no collusion.
We can argue obstruction fine, but at a certain point, enough!
What are we doing about foreign policy?
What are we doing about healthcare?
What are we doing about immigration?
What are we doing about the economy?
These are the questions that need to be brought up by the Democrats if they want to win.
I think you've got some great candidates on the Democratic side.
I do like hearing what Bernie has to say.
Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang, those are my two favorites.
I have supported them, full disclosure.
We'll see.
I want to see them on the debate stage.
But if they start going on an impeachment, man, the only candidate I'm going to be interested in is the one who says, I don't care about impeachment.
You're not going to beat Trump.
Actually, I'll say this.
That might be their only play and that's why they're doing it.
The only play they have is Trump.
Trump is bad, man.
He should be impeached because when it comes down to the argument, the Democrats apparently don't have it.
But I'll end this video with just a little bonus for you guys.
The latest ratings from the scoreboard for Adweek showed that Rachel Maddow is a little bit down.
Fox News, obviously killing it.
CNN doing a pretty good job.
Actually, Chris Cuomo breaking over a million viewers in primetime.
Hannity with 3.2 million, Cuomo with 1, and Maddow with 2.3.
So, it's definitely lower than average for Maddow, but it's not all bad.
You know, they're definitely trying to promote her, and she is the biggest channel that MSNBC has.
Now in the key demo, they're all doing fairly bad, which is rather surprising.
Cable TV is on the way out.
And then we do have this story, the Daily Caller dragging CNN.
HGTV nearly doubles CNN in primetime viewers last week.
Sure, we get it.
CNN's ratings are bad.
I wasn't gonna dedicate another whole video talking about how bad CNN's ratings are, so I'll just throw it at the end of this one.
But I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think about Rachel Maddow hosting the debates.
I'm actually really looking forward to the debates.
I think it's going to be funny and interesting.
We've got 23 or so candidates.
They're only going to give 20 spots.
I think Jill LeBrand is going to get booted.
I think we might see Eric Swalwell will not be there.
These are, like, small candidates who are not getting any headway, so I think they'll be out.
I wonder who else will be given the boot, but it'll be interesting.
Personally, Rachel Maddow, my opinion, bad choice.
She's lost her credibility when she went nuts on the conspiracy stuff, but you let me know what you think.
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos coming up.
More videos coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
I will see you there.
And for those in the podcast, the arrangement may be different, but the next segment will begin shortly.
The anti-straight pride...
Parade sentiment is boiling over and I'm gonna give you my straight thoughts on the whole thing.
There was this meme that went around for a while that they said it was okay to be white and they put up posters everywhere and they had stickers.
The goal of that campaign for the most part was to try and show people the outrage machine will come for you even if you say something as innocuous as it's okay to be a white person.
And it did.
Immediately you saw the left-wing establishment types culture start jumping out saying, you know, oh, it's a dog whistle and all that stuff, and it's like, if you can't even say it's okay, then, you know, that kind of proves the absurdity of modern politics.
So, now we see the straight pride parade.
They have Milo Yiannopoulos as their Grand Marshal.
Clearly, it's another troll.
And I think it serves one purpose.
You've probably seen the story on the screen.
Halsey wears shirt that says, F your straight pride.
And there it is.
They took the bait.
And they're not the only ones that took the bait.
Other news outlets are taking the bait.
They're getting overly emotional, extremely negative, and they're proving the point.
What's the point of the Pride Parade?
Don't ask me.
I didn't organize it, nor do I even care it's happening.
You want to have a parade for cream cheese?
I don't care.
Go wave around your little Philadelphia cream cheese signs.
It does nothing to me.
You want to have straight pride, gay pride?
You know, Irish restaurant, pub pride?
With your shepherd's pie over your heads?
I don't care.
Parade for whatever you want.
Don't get violent.
Don't break the law.
Get your permits.
Do your thing.
So now we're seeing this overreaction targeting something as simple as super happy fun America saying we are proud of who we are and we're gonna have a gay man lead our parade.
Think about that.
So what happens?
This singer wears a shirt that says F your straight pride and there it is.
They're trolling you, okay?
They want you to target regular people, independents, people who are not in the culture war, and they want regular people to look at that and say, well, why are you attacking me?
No one at the straight pride parade said anything negative about anyone.
But here it comes.
Halsey the singer wore the victims of a what they're calling a homophobic attack on her shirt with F your straight pride on the back last night.
Her advocacy for the LGBTQ community is so important and so necessary.
Now I want to add the caveat because people are going to rag on me for this.
The reason why I said what they're calling a homophobic attack is because, if you're not familiar, it was two women who were attacked because they wouldn't kiss.
It was a group of guys who assaulted them.
According to the story, I haven't read the story, there may have been some developments, but it was initially reported that they told them to kiss, the women wouldn't, and then they started beating up on them or something.
That just sounds like a bunch of crazy dudes, and I don't think, I guess you can call it Phobic?
Seems kind of philiac, right?
What's the word?
Homophilic?
Like they wanted you to do it?
But I guess either makes sense.
I don't know.
It was an attack on a lesbian couple, and that's wrong no matter what.
For whatever reason, it was wrong.
But now we can see the troll is having its impact.
But let's jump over to BuzzFeed News to see exactly why she did it.
Halsey made a moving speech about why there's no need for a straight pride parade.
That's why there's not a straight pride parade, because every effing day on public transport, it's a straight pride parade.
But it isn't.
And no one's telling you you can't be you or do your thing.
You know, when I see things like this, and when I see the okay hand gesture, and I see the, you know, the it's okay to be white or whatever thing, I think they're trying to prove that it's not about supporting a group, it's about attacking a group.
Like, that's the idea.
They want to pull the mask down and show that, you know, if you want to go out and be in favor of your thing, that's fine.
And I gotta admit, if you want to do like a white event or whatever, I really don't care.
By all means, do your thing.
It has nothing to do with me.
Don't break the law.
Don't get violent.
Get your permits.
Do everything like that.
And you can talk about whatever the hell you want.
Nothing to do with me.
You wanna march around condemning me for what I am?
Well, then you might see me protest and speak out against you.
But if you're walking around with a big ol' smile on your face saying, like, we love this country and we love X, I'll be like, I really don't care.
I really don't.
You know, it's not newsworthy.
But these people fall for it every single time.
Why would you?
Okay, look.
I assure you, everyone, including the Straight Pride people, will condemn this attack.
That's also the point.
So why is she attacking the Straight Pride event, which said nothing to anybody, was not negative, was just like, hey, you know, we want to celebrate our families and what we believe in.
Why is this an attack on them now?
She is taking an unrelated event and using it to attack a group.
And that's... Look, I can say it for a millionth time.
There you go.
That's the point.
During the concert, Halsey told the crowd that women on her shirt were a couple who were attacked on a bus heading toward Camden Town last week.
She told the crowd that her concert was a safe space and gave a speech about the continuing importance of LGBT pride in 2019.
She said, Yes, that's a terrible thing.
I completely agree.
It shouldn't be that way.
After the bars close, their pride nights, when the glitter is being swept out of the
streets, a lot of people get on those trains, get on the buses, and try to wash the rainbows
off their bodies and peel the stickers off their clothes.
Because when pride is over, it's not safe to be gay anymore.
They're worried that someone is going to assault them or viciously attack them.
Yes, that's a terrible thing.
I completely agree.
It shouldn't be that way.
We have laws in this country to protect everybody, and we absolutely should never have tier systems
for our citizenry.
I don't care how much money you have, I don't care the color of your skin, I don't care what kind of shoes you're wearing, if you're wearing a suit, if you're wearing a tracksuit, if you're wearing rags.
No one should attack you.
No one should be attacking you based on those characteristics.
Class, you know, national origin, religion, etc.
Everyone in this country is protected under the Constitution, and believe it or not, even people who aren't citizens.
If you're a tourist in this country, you have those same protections.
It applies to everybody.
And I will absolutely speak up and say it was wrong, more than wrong, to attack those two women.
But everyone agrees.
This is why we have laws.
And you damn well better believe I want justice for those women and those evil, disgusting men who attack them to get their justice.
I demand justice.
Beyond just saying they should be arrested, I demand it.
But here's the issue.
She now turns it into attacking people who had nothing to do with it.
Proving a point that it's just anger and they'll attack you.
Halsey said, so when the people around the world ask the question, why isn't there a straight pride parade?
The answer is, because if there was one, you wouldn't have to get on the bus and be terrified of getting effing beaten and killed afterwards.
That's why there's not a straight pride parade.
Because every effing day on public transport is a straight pride parade.
So we need to take moments like this when all of us are together.
We need a moment to remember how lucky we are to have a safe space right now.
People said that Halsey's speech was important and applauded her continued LGBT activism.
People say I applaud this.
Got emotional.
And here's what happens.
The tribalism.
They're, like, okay, look.
2020 is coming.
There's more than one way to win a political battle.
What I see here is, you've got the left, you've got the right, and you've got the undecided, you know, apolitical middle that may or may not vote.
You need them to vote.
So, considering 98% or so of people are straight, and cis or whatever, how can they get you to vilify them?
By putting up stupid signs saying it's okay to be white, by holding a straight pride parade, and then waiting as you come out to attack them.
Because here's the best part.
I saw this story from the Boston Globe.
It's a ridiculously short story.
And I couldn't believe they actually published this.
The meaning of straight pride.
Straight pride parade means white fragility.
So I think, let's open this.
Oh, okay, I guess it's the same story.
They said, it is an incontrovertible fact that certain groups of people in America have been and often continue to be marginalized and discriminated against.
It is appropriate, even laudable, that members of such groups should publicly state that they are proud of who they are as a rebuttal to a history of social and legal oppression.
Now the marginalizers want their own parade.
These people are behaving like the N- the double N-word, I don't know how to say it, who wanted to parade through Skokie 40 years ago.
Are you kidding me?
With the same lame pretense that the First Amendment protects bigoted speech.
This is it.
This is the insanity.
This is the game.
And they can't see it.
They walk into these traps like clockwork.
Calling it bigoted speech to just say you're proud of having a family and children is insane.
They may get a permit to parade their bigotry in public, but if so, Rene Graham will have characterized it incorrectly.
It will not be a display of fragility that is the exclusive province of straight white males.
Rather, it will be a noisy proclamation of the profoundly un-American beliefs held by a cadre of men and women of all backgrounds.
So wait.
Un-American beliefs.
If you decide that you're an American human and you like your family and you're proud of your family, they're calling you a bigot.
There it is.
It's just so easy.
I couldn't write this stuff.
I will tell you this.
I used to work in events and marketing for non-profits, okay?
And we would strategize on how we can effectively get our message out to help various causes.
I've done work with the ACLU fundraising street canvassing for them.
There's some other non-profits I don't want to name for complicated reasons.
We did street fundraising.
We wrote our own pitches and speeches.
And we said, this is why you need to donate.
And we did some other events.
And I will tell you this, though I don't work in politics, I never did, if I was going to advise Donald Trump or the Republicans on how to win, I'd say, hey, have a straight pride parade.
You know why?
Because you can say all of the nicest things in the book.
You can praise the LGBT community.
You can have a gay man leading your parade, Milo Yiannopoulos, and they will accuse you of the worst things in the book.
And what do you think's going to happen?
What do you think that random dude who's 35 and watches football all day is going to think when he hears about a straight pride parade and laughs and goes, oh, that's silly, and then all of a sudden hears at rock concerts, in newspapers, they're calling it bigotry, they're going to be like, whoa, what do you mean?
They're just straight people talking about their families.
No, you're a bigot no matter what you do.
Brett Weinstein had a really great video about this.
He called it Speak of the Devil or something like that.
And I think I might do a bigger video on this.
I've got some sources I want to talk about.
But he basically, I don't want to put words in his mouth, my general understanding is
he's saying that the intersectional feminists are creating the alt-right.
And there was a comment he tweeted where some guy said that he doesn't like the alt-right, doesn't believe any of that stuff, but he's scared now because they keep attacking him and his identity, and he feels stupid by not standing up to defend that.
And there you have it.
This is not propaganda for the LGBT community.
This is propaganda for the alt-right.
I'm not saying the event was prompted by the alt-right.
I'm not saying their goal is anything alt-right or anything overtly negative.
It's a troll.
But I tell you this.
If this is going to embolden anybody, it's going to push everyone to the right.
The people who are already far right are going to go further.
They're going to be like, oh my god, there it is.
You can't even talk about wanting to have a family without them attacking you, insulting you, saying F you, and calling you a bigot, when they said nothing negative.
And that's the point.
These trolls are so easy and predictable and they pull them off every time like clockwork.
Exposing the negativity, the insensitivity, the anger from these communities.
I can totally understand the anger and outrage from a marginalized community that has lived in fear.
And now they're exploiting that anger against them.
You can't just walk up to somebody and insult them and attack them.
You cannot scream these things at people, F your pride, simply because they want to have their own parade, which means basically nothing.
How many people are gonna show up?
A decent amount.
Probably not very big.
It's not gonna be like an actual LGBTQ pride event.
But you have mainstream personalities and publications insulting those who would talk about this.
And what they're saying basically is, if you're straight, if you are in a family, if you're white, you have no right.
You're a bigot.
And that's going to create the enemy they seek.
Maybe it's on purpose.
I don't think so, though.
I think it's dominoes falling over.
I do know some activists who are all about chaos and nihilism have told me straight up they encourage this stuff because they want to see the world burn.
But for most of these people, it's an emotional reaction they can't help.
It's a, how dare you?
You're not allowed!
Well, why not?
What did the straight pride people do to anybody else?
They actually have a gay man leading the parade.
Doesn't that speak volumes about what the straight community thinks of the gay community?
That they want someone to lead them who is gay?
It's not good enough, though.
The trolls like clockwork.
It just works.
I'll leave it there, man.
I'm just, it's like...
It's so easy to wind them up and create this kind of situation that just benefits the right at the end of the day.
Stick around, I got more segments coming up later.
The next will be at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you then.
The European migrant crisis hasn't been in the news all that much over the past few years.
There was a big spike last year and the year before, and there were a bunch of weird culture warsh things going on.
But one thing that's often brought up is that the unrestrained mass migration into Europe is fueling the rise of the far right.
And that's why we're seeing so many different, you know, political groups take control or start winning in their countries, notably Italy, who has now been rejecting a lot of these NGO ships.
Something interesting happened.
A captain of one of these ships, I believe it was an NGO, was, uh, she picked up many migrants, and now is facing up to 20 years in prison, resulting in a viral campaign.
The thing is, all of the stories I saw refer to it as rescuing migrants, saving them, but there was one NGO when the story broke that said they were at risk of drowning.
And this is where the narrative starts to get really strange, and it's hard to understand what's actually going on.
So I'll try to go through this in the most, like, objective and fair way possible, but it's very, very difficult.
So we'll start with the story from Newsweek about the viral Free Pia campaign for German biologist and boat captain.
She's facing prison for helping what they say are stranded refugees.
Now, the first thing I'm gonna do before I even move on from this is these people are overwhelmingly not refugees according to the UNHCR.
And this blows my mind because when the story started going viral, when it was picking up
steam, I looked into it.
The UNHCR, what better source, I guess.
I'm trying to be, you know, I'm trying to look for the academic papers.
And they said it's a small percentage that are actually refugees.
They're mostly economic migrants, meaning they want to come to Europe because there's
better jobs and it's a better economy.
That's an important distinction that's seemingly never made in the press for the most part.
But let's... We'll read on.
We'll see what they have to say, because maybe this group was refugees.
Personally, I think we're gonna find that to not be the case, and there's some really controversial bits of information here.
Before we get started, make sure you go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are multiple choices for donating.
PayPal, crypto, and there's a new address, because I'm setting up the studio.
You can donate physical stuff, send me letters, whatever.
Of course.
The best thing you can do is just comment, like the video, subscribe, and share the link because that engagement really helps.
According to Newsweek, they say.
The Free Pia Campaign has been launched in support of Pia Kemp, a 35-year-old boat captain facing up to 20 years in prison for her efforts to rescue more than 1,000 migrants from the Mediterranean Sea.
Full stop.
They've already switched the narrative, okay?
They have now conflated refugees and narrative- I'm sorry.
They've conflated refugees and migrants as the exact same thing.
That is dangerous.
Refugees need our help.
They could die.
Migrants are just looking for a better life.
I can respect that, but there's a big difference because one gets priority.
I am not It is wrong, in my opinion, to take someone who's crying and in fear for their life next to someone who says they want Buffalo Wild Wings.
And that is a direct quote from one of the migrant caravan individuals quoted by Vox.com.
V-O-X, not Fox.
The left-leaning site, V-O-X, referencing a migrant in the caravan in Mexico saying they want Buffalo Wild Wings.
I can respect that you like, you know, chicken wings with good sauce.
B-Dubs is great.
But you do not get priority over the people fleeing violence and actual risk of death.
So I think it's dangerous that Newsweek here has already conflated the concept.
They say, while migrant rights groups see Kemp, who has also worked with non-profit Mediterranean rescue group Sea-Watch, as a hero, her efforts to save hundreds of lives could soon see her put behind bars in Italy.
Kemp, who was born in Bonn, will soon be expected to stand trial in Italy after she was charged in Sicily with assisting in illegal immigration, according to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.
As the DW reported, Clemp has said that she could face up to 20 years in prison and horrendous fines for her life-saving efforts.
Once again, life-saving efforts is where things start to get- It's a very difficult story to cover, trust me.
Klemp's trial comes as part of a widespread immigration crackdown led by Italy's right-wing Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, who campaigned on harsh penalties for migrants caught crossing the country's borders illegally.
Salvini's crackdown has also led to rescue workers like Klemp being branded criminals for their efforts to spare migrants from the fate met by the more than 2,200 people who died trying to cross the Mediterranean last year.
It's not just Salvini, though.
Macron has also come out and said this.
So, there's a story from, what is this, from last year, just 2018, where Macron said essentially that we cannot accept the situation and we cannot permanently accept the situation.
In the end, we are playing into the hands of smugglers by reducing the risks of the journey.
This is important.
When you, uh, hop over to Reddit, what do you see?
rslashworldnews, one of the top subreddits for World News, says, Notice the quote is distress.
have been criminalized as German boat captain faces 20 years in prison for saving refugees.
We have only followed international law, especially the law of the sea, where the highest priority
is to save people from distress."
Notice the quote is distress.
This is important.
Common Dreams is an activist non-profit who is absolutely framing the story as though
this woman was saving people who were dying.
The issue is, it may be, and it's very difficult to understand, that these people were just ferried by her ship.
This is the important distinction.
Are they refugees or migrants?
I honestly don't know.
Newsweek has conflated it.
When you track this story and look at the UNHCR reports, it seems like these are people being trafficked and lied to.
Lauren Southern recently did a documentary called Borderless, where she actually spoke with traffickers, and she spoke with people who said they were lied to.
I was in Athens, Greece.
I spoke with people from the Middle East, not from North Africa, who said they were lied to and it was a bad idea.
But, I don't want to use Lauren Southern as a source, because you know what?
She's too controversial.
By all means, you're free to watch her documentary, I don't think it was a bad job.
More importantly, is that we have a better source.
The BBC, who basically found the same thing as Lauren Southern.
That yes, someone went undercover with secret glasses and tracked the human traffickers going through North Africa.
So you don't have to like Lauren Southern.
Fine.
Criticize her all day and night.
But this is the BBC backing up the same story she did.
The very, very same thing.
Going undercover and filming the human traffickers who lie and make a lot of money convincing these people all over Africa to go to Europe.
Take a look at these lines here, these paths.
A Ghanian migrant who set out in 2016 told me he turned back in fear after hitting the desert.
His friends persevered toward Libya.
He said only one succeeded to Italy.
Later he told us the rest were dead.
That is an extremely dangerous journey that you're going from these areas.
Listen, I don't think people have ever seen a map of these areas.
There was a viral post on Reddit talking about how while these areas absolutely are dangerous, of course, they're still beautiful cities.
And this is an extremely dangerous journey through the Sahara.
And what it is, you end up with people in Libya, traffickers, slave traders.
It's extremely dangerous.
These are people who are not fearing for their lives for the most part, according to the UNHCR.
Here's what I find interesting.
In the World News Post, somebody published a link to an activist website as news that should not be allowed by the moderators.
Okay?
Moderators.
But they did put a note saying, the article is presenting a one-sided picture, but comments here are one-sided too.
Acceptable.
Absolutely.
I don't believe just getting rid of the article is the right thing.
I think the mods did, in the end, with a sticky post, pushing back and trying to balance the story to the best of their abilities.
One of the top comments said, This article is absolute drivel, it fails to answer even the most basic questions the reader might have, and the few scraps of information it contains have been put through the spin cycle on high.
Here's where it gets interesting.
This comment right here.
Which is not verified, I don't want to pretend like it's true, but this is what someone is claiming when they break it down, and keep in mind this is just some Reddit user's comment.
She's a captain for a non-profit similar to Sea-Watch.
Their goal is to provide search and rescue for distressed, specifically migrant vessels.
Sea-Watch gets a call from the Air Recon, humanitarian pilots initiative, a Swiss evangelical group, or from the human traffickers themselves, and gets a move on to save these people from certain death, but it's really not so simple, so keep in mind.
We do know, we have heard reporting, the traffickers themselves will signal the NGOs to come pick these people up.
And then the NGOs will ferry them to Europe.
Which is crazy, because you're basically providing an incentive and a service for the traffickers, like Macron said.
You don't gotta like Macron, but this is not a fringe position, this is mainstream, like, Macron is pro-EU, he is like the EU dude, okay?
The Italians in Pantelleria, And Lampedusa and Maltese are upset because the presence of these nonprofits is actually enabling the traffickers.
And on top of that, in the areas this is common, they have no resources to accommodate these people.
The Italians for a long time would intercept these migrant boats and turn them around or have them towed back to Tunisia or Libya.
So the human traffickers decided to raise the stakes.
The common methodology is that as soon as a vessel makes contact with a non-profit or government organization, they deliberately scuttle the boat, as in sink the boat 100 people are in, to force the hand of the other party to provide aid.
Human traffickers are aware of the international law and know that if they are in distress, then legally the other party must provide assistance.
So in response to the everyone will die because we sunk our own boat policy, it's become a thing for the governments to rescue these people and immediately return them to North Africa to undergo processing outside the EU.
The captain is in trouble, because they have been in a long back and forth with the actual government agencies about ceasing their operation.
Sea Watch will go pick up a few hundred people and then roll into port in Valletta, or similar, with the expectation they can just drop everyone off and keep the migrant boat rolling.
Except the Maltese and Italians don't really have the resources to handle these people.
These are weak economies with generally unsympathetic populations, and nobody on either side is happy about anything.
I get both sides, having spent some time in Sudan recently.
I totally get why even holing up in an Italian refugee camp is better than struggling to exist in a desert with no future.
But from the Italian point of view, these are tourist economies being disrupted by people without the ability or desire to integrate into the community, and it's extremely expensive to deal with, so the world turns.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and act like that's fact.
I've looked into this and have found some stories about migrant boats being deliberately sunk to pressure NGOs to, quote, rescue these people.
I haven't been able to find anything to back that up that it's currently happening now.
It may be that it's just not being reported on, and that's the case.
And it's not like I've done, like, a month-long investigation.
So take it all with a grain of salt.
But according to the BBC, As that comment framed it, living in the desert.
Well, unfortunately, most people aren't living in the desert.
Do this.
Go on Google Maps and look up Ghana and look up these cities.
They're actually rather beautiful.
They're not perfect.
It is better in Europe in a lot of ways.
For sure, the economy is stronger.
There's more resources.
But these are people who are living in cities.
And the journey through the desert is dangerous and people are dying.
This person said, out of his friends, only one made it.
It's an extremely dangerous journey.
There are people kidnapping some of these people in Libya and selling them into the slave trade.
Seriously.
And many of these people don't make it, and when their boats finally get in the water, the traffickers sink the boat on purpose.
I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that it's not as simple as saying this woman was saving people's lives.
You could argue that, sure, but we have to make sure.
We aren't helping the worst of the worst.
They're quite literally human traffickers and slave traders.
And they're forcing the hand of these governments and NGOs, and the NGOs are playing into it.
Which is why Macron said enough.
It's why he said this specifically.
In the end, we are playing into the hands of smugglers by reducing the risks of the journey.
Is it the right thing to do to save these people?
In my opinion, the answer is absolutely yes.
It's a very, very difficult position.
These people who are being tricked and trafficked are not the people at fault.
They find themselves in dangerous, deadly positions, in worse off positions than before they left, and it is the human traffickers who are at fault.
We need to figure out how not to play into their hands.
And if the government has a plan, and this woman is disrupting it, then perhaps, perhaps she does need some kind of penalty.
But I'll end by saying this.
The situation is complicated, and she absolutely does not deserve prison time.
I think that is absurd.
I understand the complications of the mass migration and refugee crisis, but to put this woman in prison because she's trying to help people who are being pushed by human traffickers is absurd.
That being said, she should probably cease operations if the government is trying to get a handle on this.
I don't know what the right answer is.
I admittedly don't.
But I'm not going to act like she's helping things.
She has good intentions, but as they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
If the governments, including Emmanuel Macron, you don't gotta like, have said that this is playing into the hands of smugglers and the government are trying to get a handle on this, don't circumvent the plan to actually stop the problem.
You're making it worse.
Prison time, no, but maybe stopping her ship in some capacity, perhaps.
I don't know.
Let me know what you think, and we'll keep the conversation going.
Stick around, I got another main channel video coming up.
Gonna be more about American politics, trying to keep the conversation on the main channel more focused on, like, bigger day-to-day American news and culture stuff.
So, I'll see you at 4 p.m.
on the next— on YouTube.com slash TimCast, different channel.
And, yeah, I'll see you there.
Censorship on social media was just kicked into overdrive following the Vox Adpocalypse.
People are getting wiped out on YouTube.
People are getting banned on Twitter.
And now, the censorship debate has become a complete and total parody of itself because Twitter suspended Project Veritas for reporting on bias against conservatives from Pinterest.
Here, we have this story from Human Events, which we will read.
Twitter suspends Project Veritas for journalism?
For those that haven't been following the story, the other day, Veritas released information, which was then picked up by a ton of outlets who love smearing Veritas, showing that Pinterest was absolutely censoring pro-life organization live action.
This was widely believed to be a bias against conservatives because Pinterest is saying the information that they were sharing was, you know, medically inaccurate.
Which, I don't know, I'm not a doctor, I don't know a lot about this, but LiveAction says no, our information is accurate, which seems to me we've got a distortion here.
And I don't know what the right path is, but I can say yes.
They were restricting certain channels, and it's a fact now.
Apparently, Veritas' source was fired.
But here's what I want to do.
I want to start with a joke.
Because I tweeted this.
But let me just... There's a tweet, but here's how I imagine it.
You've got a big party going on, right?
And Congress are like the cops showing up.
And then there's like three dudes who are like frat bros who run the party, and they go to the door, and it's Twitter, Facebook, and Google.
And Congress is like shining their flashlights, and they're like, you got any anti-conservative bias going on in here?
And they're like, no.
No, no, no, officer.
No bias here.
Everything's good.
And then all of a sudden, Pinterest breaks out of the door all drunk, like, F you, conservatives!
And then Congress is just like, maybe we have a real problem here.
And the funny part is, Twitter then censored the guy who opened the door for Pinterest.
So I hope you enjoy my humor.
Before we move on, though, considering we are in this wake of censorship, I could really
use your support over at TimCast.com slash donate.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, and I have a new address up in Connecticut
if you want to send any knickknacks and trinkets.
People have sent me some pretty cool stuff.
It's greatly appreciated.
But, of course, like, comment, share, and subscribe.
That's what YouTube loves, and then they just, you know, don't hurt me.
But let's read the story.
Twitter has temporarily suspended Project Veritas, a nonprofit organization that uses undercover journalism to expose corruption and unethical behavior in both public and private institutions.
Project Veritas received the following reasoning for their 12-hour suspension.
You may not publish or post other people's private information without their express authorization and permission.
I kid you not!
unidentified
They literally suspended Veritas for doing journalism.
I recently did a video where I was leaked an email.
I got confirmation from both the journalist, from the outlet, and from Chase Bank.
The email was legit.
And I said, this is important for public discourse.
I was wrestling with whether to publish the name of the journalist.
And I said, you know, we need to because the context of their writing and what they've done in the past is very important.
The public needs to know this is how people are operating behind closed doors at media outlets.
But I was worried someone would levy the same accusation against me, revealing private information.
Well, journalists do this when it's in the public interest.
Here we have a $12 billion IPO Silicon Valley tech giant.
Not the biggest, but hey, $12 billion.
And now their private information is being revealed without express authorization.
Journalism has become verboten.
Twitter has decided that investigative journalism is in violation of their terms of service, founder and president of Project Veritas James O'Keefe tweeted out this morning.
The private information Project Veritas posted on Twitter was a product of their investigation into Pinterest.
It consisted of a series of internal communications between members of the social media platform staff Project Veritas gained access to the Pinterest communications via a whistleblower.
In the company's communications, Pinterest falsely labeled the editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro, a... we'll just call him a supremacist.
Bad man.
The communications in question took place on a Slack channel, a messaging and file-sharing platform.
O'Keefe presented the idea that the policymaker may have simply been voicing their opinion.
The employee who came out against Pinterest explained this was actually in a war room, where policymakers were making decisions about content.
The tech giants appear to operate on a blatant double standard.
Twitter is temporarily deplatforming Project Veritas for investigative journalism, claiming they cannot post private information without permission.
All the while, Facebook leaked a private citizen's information to the Daily Beast to aid them in exposing a Trump supporter for mocking Nancy Pelosi.
And now you see why I've called this a complete parody of itself.
When James O'Keefe has now— Look, we know these platforms are biased against conservatives, and I always say this because it's really simple.
The misgendering policy on Twitter is a clear line.
Conservatives don't agree and don't view the world that way.
Yes, you are biased.
But now we've seen something extremely overt calling Ben Shapiro this name.
Banning live action.
And then after Veritas revealed this information, they quickly, they like, unbanned live action, but then decided to do a blanket ban and publicly announce it, and then actually banned the individuals.
That's my understanding.
So they were like, you know what?
Screw it.
Double down.
Wipe them out.
Veritas has pulled the mask off.
There is no argument.
Sure, you can say, oh, but this is just Pinterest.
Fine.
But how much evidence do you need?
Listen.
The cliff erodes.
It comes for everybody.
And now we're seeing all of these leftists complaining they're getting censored.
Yes, the free speech people warned you this would happen.
I am not a conservative.
Glenn Greenwald is not a conservative.
Michael Tracy is not a conservative.
There was more than just the anti-war left types criticizing censorship.
You had centrists, moderates, conservatives, everyone pointing the finger at the regressive left and saying, listen, if you do this, you will get banned.
And what did they do?
They burned their little free speech signs.
They have an organization called Change the Terms, and they said, no, we want censorship.
Well, you got it.
You got it, and now you are being censored.
We can see here this tweet from James O'Keefe.
Twitter has decided that investigative journalism is in violation of the terms of service.
And we can see he posted this image, which for those listening on the podcast, what we're looking at is the Twitter official communication showing the tweet in question, and then where it says, remove the tweet that violated the rules, and it says that you violated our rules against posting private information.
Pinterest did not stop at falsely labeling conservatives as bad men.
Ethno-supremacists, we'll call it that.
They also censored Bible, related search terms, and banned the pro-life group live action, labeling them as adult lovemaking videos.
Right before the part 1 of Project Veritas' video series exposing Pinterest was released, the social media site unbanned the pro-life group.
The next morning, O'Keefe explained, Pinterest reversed themselves 180 degrees and blocked the site again.
Their course of action is confusing at best.
Veritas later revealed that the whistleblower who spoke to O'Keefe about the tech giant's wrongdoing has been fired.
And that is a big bummer.
And, you know, the people who come out and blow the whistle on this stuff, you know, this is the risk you take.
And so Veritas put out a statement saying, you know, these people are very brave to come and do this because Yeah, you can get fired.
You know, one of the biggest challenges in dealing with this kind of stuff is protecting sources, and it's very, very difficult.
I think in this story, the reason the guy got caught and got fired was, for one, there's probably not that many employees who have access to specific things, and they know the way he talks, so it's really difficult.
What I would recommend is actually having the questions written down, and then have someone else, an actor, read them, Something like that.
To protect our identity.
Because just changing their voice probably isn't enough.
But more importantly, we're in this era now where you can track everyone logging in and logging out.
And so what that means is, if you log into Slack and you download something, they will probably be able to see that was you.
So, you know what I want to do?
I want to just pop down and see what some of the people are commenting on.
You know, we've got some comments responding to James O'Keefe saying, very corrupt of Twitter, absolutely wrong.
Someone asks, does this mean that if we get another WikiLeaks-style dump of email similar to the Podesta leaks, all accounts that share it will be suspended?
Then we have this interesting comment from Gab.
Biz Stone, Twitter co-founder and current employee, had one of his companies acquired by Pinterest.
He advised Pinterest after this until he returned to Twitter again, where he now works.
Yes, there is a conflict of interest.
Yes, the outcome was obvious.
Yes, the whole censorship issue has become a complete parody.
Ben Finkel are taking new roles at Pinterest. Yes, there is a conflict of interest. Yes,
the outcome was obvious. Yes, the whole censorship issue has become a complete parody.
Because I'll put it this way. Back to my original joke about Pinterest stumbling at all drunk.
It really does seem like Twitter, like as soon as that happened, Twitter was like, well, cat's out of the bag now.
Screw it.
And just started wiping, you know, just start banning people.
Everyone, left, right, doesn't even matter.
What you get, this is what you get.
So we'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got more segments coming up shortly and I will see you in the next story.
We got some interesting nuance in the free speech debate that we need to talk about.
BBC defends Joe Brand over battery acid joke.
I completely disagree with this joke because I mean it's hard to know exactly where the line is and sometimes the line changes based on what's happening.
Right now we have people throwing milkshakes at each other.
This woman made the joke that why do a milkshake when you can do battery acid?
And the problem is people are doing milkshakes.
Don't encourage them to do battery acid because people have already brought up the concerns that someone will do it.
The UK has a serious acid problem.
But it's not just that.
I have another story from the Oregonian From just a few days ago, two Portland protesters who doused cops with buckets of glitter mixed with lubricant get five days in jail.
The problem here is, you don't know what to expect when you're hit with a liquid.
If you get hit with a liquid and then do nothing, you could...
Don't throw things at people!
But this, to me, is crossing the line.
Now before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a monthly donation option, a crypto option, and a new physical address if you want to send me knickknacks and trinkets and whatever.
It's the new studio we're setting up.
But of course, if you want to really help, just like, comment, share, and subscribe.
YouTube engagement does wonders for recommendations and things like that, I'm pretty sure.
But let's read the story and then talk about the nuance of joking.
The BBC has defended Jo Brand against claims she incited violence through comments she made during a radio show.
The comedian, a guest on BBC4 Radio 4's Heresy on Tuesday, here's Heresy, joked about throwing battery acid at politicians rather than milkshakes.
Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage said the remarks were an incitement to violence and the police need to act.
The BBC said the jokes made on Heresy are deliberately provocative as the title implies.
It added, they were are... they were are?
They are not intended to be taken seriously.
Doesn't matter.
Not in my opinion.
That's just me.
I'm not going to do it.
It's purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic.
I honestly do.
were covered in milkshakes during campaign walkabouts last month said,
why bother with a milkshake when you could get some battery acid?
The comic then went on to immediately make clear she was joking and criticized the milkshake stunts.
That's just me. I'm not going to do it. It's purely a fantasy, but I think milkshakes are pathetic.
I honestly do. Sorry. I didn't take it that way.
What she said was, why not throw battery acid?
Milkshakes are pathetic.
I don't think she's criticizing the milkshakes in the way they're trying to explain it.
It sounds like she's saying, you're not doing enough.
And that's where she crosses the line.
There's subtlety and there's nuance and it's hard to understand exactly where the line is.
Count Dankula said certain people should be guessed several times.
Well, that's obviously a joke, not directed at any individual person, with nothing happening today, right?
There's no circumstance where people are being grabbed and thrown into chambers or anything like that, so he's clearly making a joke, and it was to his dog.
This woman is talking about real world events where people have been hit with milkshakes.
She then calls the milkshakes pathetic and says, what a battery.
I said, haha, it's just a joke, right?
You may not be, maybe you're familiar with the story.
I'm not super familiar, but it's something where like the king said, oh, won't someone rid me of this priest?
This is the important distinction.
The story goes, and I'm probably getting it wrong so you guys can correct me in the comments, that there was a troublesome priest, the king said this, and then one of his soldiers went and killed the priest, and the king was like, no, I didn't mean it, seriously.
I was just lamenting and expressing myself.
What do you think happens when the violence is actually happening, and then you say this?
Out of sight, out of mind.
Okay?
If people aren't thinking about this as an issue, they don't do it.
Why are milkshakes going viral?
Why do they keep happening?
Because someone did it, everyone talked about it, then everyone went and did it again!
You've now increased the rhetoric.
You've incensed people.
Sure, I get it, you're joking, but there is a line.
Do I think she should be arrested?
No, I don't.
I just think it was wrong.
If she wanted to make jokes about Milkshake and say, I don't think you should do this, I'd be like, yeah, well, she's crossing the line with this joke.
I honestly don't.
So this is where it gets complicated, right?
Because I still don't think that she crossed a line where it's criminal.
In the US, I don't think so.
I just think it was wrong and should be criticized.
She shouldn't have made that joke.
But let's read a little bit more.
At the end of the show, host Victoria Cohen-Mitchell said she hoped Bran's remarks had not caused offense, but reiterated that the long-running series had been set up to test the boundaries of what it's okay to say, and not to say no.
In the UK, you absolutely crossed the line.
If you're gonna say this, but you're also gonna criticize Dancula, then I think we've got a problem here.
So, let me clarify my previous statement.
I'm talking about like an American standard of what isn't- is okay and what isn't, and she's clearly joking, that's fine.
In the UK though, I take offense that you are questioning whether it was offensive, but are gonna jail Dankula over being offensive?
Well, let's get to the real problem.
Gavin McInnes.
The double standard.
You see, many people on the left took statements from Gavin which were very similar jokes.
I do believe Gavin took his jokes way beyond the realm of joking, and they were way worse.
But, some of the things Gavin was criticized for were very much in line exactly with what she said.
Like, exactly.
Granted, again, Gavin McInnes did make some direct statements that I don't believe were jokes.
The point is, if they're going to criticize Gavin for the similar things that this woman did, why would they defend what she's doing?
Well, it's obvious.
It's a double standard.
So Nigel Farage tweeted, this is incitement of violence, and the police need to act.
So I will stress it's complicated, and I'm like, it's a tough position, but I will stress this.
Imagine you've been hit with a milkshake, and then someone goes on a major radio program and says, get battery acid.
You know you could be attacked at any moment.
I believe it was Majid Nawaz or maybe Sam Harris.
I can't remember who said this.
What the milkshaking shows is the vulnerability in your security.
They are telling you you are not safe.
And if they want to, they could maim you with acid.
They are telling you at any moment you are not safe.
That's, that's, that's terror.
That's terrifying.
I, I, I can't imagine these politicians now are going to be able to walk around safely.
Because this is an escalation.
Sure, it's a joke.
I get it.
But man, That's- that's- that's- that's- I don't- I don't know what to do.
You know, do we punish this woman for making that joke?
No, but I think we recognize now that things have gotten to a certain degree.
To a certain dangerous degree.
She later responded to Mr. Farage on Twitter, accusing him of double standards as an outspoken
advocate of free speech and a critic of political correctness, saying,
I'm genuinely disappointed. We don't agree on everything, but I would totally have had you
down as a free speech man, especially when it comes to jokes. That's why it's really funny.
They don't seem to understand the concept. And I really, really can't stand the rules
for the, but not for me mentality.
They claim they're just joking, and then when you literally do make a joke that isn't in any way incitement, they accuse you of bigotry.
Gavin McInnes crossed the line.
They called him out for it.
Fine.
She crossed the line.
They don't care.
It's free speech.
When someone like Dankula makes a clear joke, he crossed the line.
It does lead to incitement.
Then when they say, hey, go get the battery acid, milkshakes are pathetic, they say it doesn't cross the line.
And so I'll lightly go over this story about these two guys with lubricant and glitter.
Should the police have assumed it was lubricant and glitter?
You don't know if it's a corrosive.
You don't know if it's some kind of dangerous chemical.
You hit someone with something, they have to go to the hospital, they've got to get treatment.
It is... My god.
People don't realize how easy it is to get hit with something caustic or dangerous or corrosive.
And they say, oh chill, it's just lubricant.
You don't know that!
And if you tell people, it's just lubricant, don't worry, then someone will hit you with something, and you'll think, maybe it's just lubricant, and then your skin starts falling off.
You can't make these assumptions.
You can't cry wolf.
Well, these guys are going to jail.
And look at- these people are- I gotta say, man, I use evil, you know, selectively, but these guys are evil.
They physically attack people, putting them in fear for their lives, and then laugh about it.
It's funny.
No empathy.
They don't view these people, these cops, as human beings.
They view them as just, like, demons.
And that's when things get dangerous.
That's when escalation happens.
The story says, Two protesters who splattered two police officers with buckets full of lubricant and glitter during a Patriot prayer rally in downtown Portland last summer were sentenced Friday to five days in jail.
I think they should have gotten more than that.
Absolutely.
Robert Jonah Majure, 28, and Tristan Ramani Mann, 29, had attended the rally to demonstrate against what they believe are the right-wing group's racist, chauvinist, and violent views.
They showed up with four five-gallon buckets of lubricant used to artificially inseminate horses, gold glitter mixed in, super soaker-type water guns, and a plan to spray Patriot prayer members.
What was the slime?
What should the police have done?
Unfortunately, I'd be willing to bet that the police were like, oh, whatever, we'll ignore it.
It's probably nothing.
But it could have been.
Police testified that the men purposefully threw the slime on them, then tried to fist
bump each other in celebration after they were handcuffed and taken into custody.
What was the slime?
What should the police have done?
Unfortunately, I'd be willing to bet that the police were like, oh, whatever, we'll
ignore it.
It's probably nothing, but it could have been.
So we have a statement from the judge, apparently.
Multnomah County Circuit Judge Kenneth Walker sentenced them to the jail time plus 32 hours
of community service and one year of probation.
Okay, so that probably makes sense.
Walker said he understands the men's anger at centuries of racism and bigotry in his country and the groups that still associate with it.
I detest their message as well as an African-American man, Walker said.
But he said while he knows younger men can make foolish and stupid decisions, he's never seen anything quite like what Majur and Ramin Mann did during the rally.
He added, I don't think you have any out-and-out animosity for the police, but you don't have the appropriate amount of respect either.
Man!
That's a- That's a crazy, uh... I'll just say wow to that.
That's- The judge is very, very, um, giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Surprising.
Let's just wrap this one up.
There's a quote here.
Well, at the sentencing hearing, Christensen said he'd gotten used to being insulted and mistreated by members of the public over his decades-long career, and doesn't let it bother him.
But he said he was deeply offended by Majur and Romine Mann.
So that's the police officer.
In the ultimate act of disrespect that I have ever been a part of, surrounded by hundreds of people, they decided to throw that then-unknown liquid all over me and my co-workers.
That moment of sheer terror, not knowing what kind of chemical or substance it could have been, if it was harmful or harmless, did not matter to them.
They reveled in glee at what they had done in trying to humiliate us.
Oh, apparently it was a woman.
Man.
So I'll leave it there, and I'll stress this.
I'm at an impasse with the battery acid thing, because I don't think... You can't really, like, criminalize her or fine her.
Like, I don't know what you would do in this regard.
I think she should be criticized and told not to do it again, but you have to recognize that regardless of what we do with the battery acid joke, I wouldn't be surprised if we see it soon.
I really wouldn't.
I got one more segment coming up in a second.
Stick around, I will see you soon.
Yes, yes, because we've come to learn that the intersectionalists are quite often offended by everything, and patriarchy is lurking around every corner.
Therefore, it is time to come for... I can't say the name of this Amazon product because I have one.
It'll turn on.
But they ask whether Amazon's artificial intelligence friend is making you sexist.
The time has come to design feminist artificial intelligence.
So I saw this article.
And decided to actually ask my Amazon AI device some of these questions.
And it turns out, in fact, it is quite feminist.
But let's read the story.
I'll—actually, I'll stop there.
I also have another story.
This one's from last week.
Microsoft Word is getting—actually, it's from last month.
Sorry.
Microsoft Word is getting politically correct.
That's right.
They're—feminist AI is here to stay.
So we'll start with this story on the Amazon AI.
Before we do, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
There is a monthly donation option through PayPal, cryptocurrency, and a new physical address for where you can send stuff to me.
It's all greatly appreciated, but of course, liking, commenting, and sharing is the best thing you can do.
The story from Vox says, The other day I spent 10 minutes hurling verbal abuse at Siri.
Cringing as I spoke, I said to my phone, Siri, you're ugly.
She replied, I am?
I said, Siri, you're fat.
She replied, it must be all the chocolate.
And when you ask the Amazon version, I did.
The Amazon device said to me, well, all people come in different shapes and sizes and we should all celebrate some nonsense like that.
And I was like, okay, whatever.
But they go on.
I felt mortified for both of us.
Even though I know Siri has no feelings, I couldn't help apologizing.
Don't worry, Siri.
This is just research for an article I'm writing.
She replied, what?
Me worry?
I was testing out the premise of a UNESCO study released last month in which researchers argue that the way voice assistants are gendered as female is seriously problematic.
Our digital assistants typically have female voices and female names.
Apple's Siri, Amazon's I'm not going to say it, Microsoft's Cortana.
Cortana is a female name?
Is it?
I've never heard that name other than Halo or something.
And the researchers say this reinforces stereotypes of women as servile beings who exist only to do someone else's bidding.
No, let me tell you something.
Did you also know that when you're on the phone line...
Most automated phone services are female?
I wonder why that is.
Did you know that most magazine covers, it's female?
I wonder why that is.
Women's magazines have men on them.
Some women's and men's magazines have men.
But most of the time, a man's magazine has a woman, and a woman's magazine has a woman.
And it's very simple.
This is a... I don't know what it is in like sociology or how you would describe it, but I will say this.
I used to do non-profit fundraising.
Many of you may know this.
And there's one thing we found to be consistent.
I don't care what your opinion is on the matter.
It was consistent.
I would ask people and we would formulate strategies.
When it comes to stopping random people on the street, it was easier for a man to talk to a woman And it was easier for a woman to talk to a man.
That means if you're fundraising and you're male, and you wave to a female, it is more likely she will talk to you.
Men will be like, I don't care.
If you're a woman, you have a better chance of talking to a man.
A guy's gonna stop for a young woman.
Here's where it gets interesting.
Women had almost no problem stopping other women.
Men had trouble stopping other men.
Whatever the reason is, I don't know.
But that's why the companies choose to have female voices, because people are less threatened and more receptive to them.
Maybe it's not true, maybe it's all anecdotal, but we see it time and time again in various technologies.
So sure, maybe it's the patriarchy, or maybe it's just that people are more comfortable and less threatened by women.
Is that possible?
They say.
Not only that, the authors point out that people sometimes direct verbal abuse or innuendo at their voice assistants, which tend to respond with disturbingly docile responses.
The title of the study, I'd Blush If I Could, is what Siri used to say in response to calling Siri a bad word.
Apple and other companies have since made some effort to change these responses.
You know you can change them to males though, right?
Like, you have the choice.
It just defaults.
According to the study, this harassment is not, it bears noting, uncommon.
A writer for Microsoft's Cortana Assistant said that a good chunk of the volume of early on inquiries probed the Assistant's sex life.
Robin Lads, a company that develops digital assistants to support drivers and others involved in logistics, found that at least 5% of interactions were unambiguously explicit.
Well, you know what?
Have you ever played a video game?
People just say mean things.
You know, I'm gonna throw out the 8 millionth citation of Bill Maher, because this week, you know, he had a great quote where he said, Yes, when I'm talking to my silly little robot device that controls the light bulbs in my room, I joke around sometimes.
It has nothing to do with the- Like, it's not a human female.
It's literally a round cylinder in my room, and it's not alive.
I guess, when we get to the point where we're living in, like, Detroit Become Human era, where the robots are human-esque and do have emotion, sure, we can then start questioning, you know, artificial intelligence, whether or not it's life.
I certainly wouldn't insult Data from Star Trek, because Data understands what an insult is intended to do.
And insulting people, to me, is just a lack of... it's disrespectful, and it gets you nothing.
If you want to hurt someone's feelings, fine.
The robot's feelings can't be hurt, because it doesn't have any.
I guess we could program feelings, but I don't know how that would work.
It'd be nice if we got to that point.
Anyway, let's read on.
Let's read on tech companies most likely gender their voice assistants as female because research shows that when
people need help they prefer to hear It delivered in a female voice
What did I just say?
They prefer a male voice when it comes to authoritative statements and companies probably design the assistance to
be unfailingly upbeat and polite Excuse me
Even in the face of harassment.
Because that sort of behavior maximizes a user's desire to keep engaging with the device.
Also, are you gonna complain that I squeeze my stress ball too hard?
It is not a real person, okay?
It is just voice- It is emulated human voice.
Maybe it's therapeutic for people to yell at the robot.
It makes them feel better, perhaps.
It's not a person.
Please calm down.
So, uh, let's just jump ahead where they say.
This is all part of a bigger gender bias problem afflicting the field of artificial intelligence.
AI systems, including voice assistants, are being designed mostly by men.
Oh, heavens.
That's part of the reason these systems have been hard-coded to respond in problematic ways.
It's difficult to imagine a tech team composed mostly of women putting out a product that responds to who's your daddy with you are, which used to be Siri's response.
I would stress I'm pretty sure that women who are running a business and want to make money would simply say, what's the most effective response we can get to increase engagement and make money?
And who's going to ask the question, a man or a woman?
Let me ask you this.
How many women are asking their robot, who's your daddy?
I'd posit the answer is close to none.
There's probably a lot.
Women are probably joking around and asking the question because it's funny.
But a dude is substantially more likely to ask.
Therefore, the response is tailored to those most likely to ask.
If a woman was looking at the metrics and their business plan and said, this is going to get more male engagement, we'll make money off them, I'm sure she'd do it.
Did you know, right now?
The Military-Industrial Complex is run by women.
Would you like to imply that now that women are running the Military-Industrial Complex, everything's getting better?
No, they're still making bombs that are being used to kill children and claim that 18-year-old dudes in a foreign country who are fetching pails of water are enemy combatants.
Just because women are running the company hasn't changed a damn thing.
Actually, I'll say that.
Maybe it has changed some things, but for the most part, they're still making bombs, and they're still blowing up kids.
So, there you go!
I'm pretty sure women understand business, and this is the weirdest thing ever.
But you know what I will add?
I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that a lot of people who write these things live in this weird world of intersectional nonsense.
And they imagine that every other woman is more concerned about social implications as opposed to making money with an effective product.
But I assure you, in the real world, though we are seeing a wave of companies getting woke and going broke, there are women, like the ones running the military-industrial complex, who are- who- they're not sitting there going, I know we're making bombs, but these bombs are hurting kids.
Maybe we should make something that's less destructive.
No, they're saying, how many kids can we kill with this bomb?
Great.
Increase the payload.
We want better targeting systems.
They know what the point is.
It's always mind-blowing to me when the narrative is that, like, women are not able to understand basic economics.
As if these companies would do things— Sure, you can argue it's an Easter egg.
Who's your daddy?
You are.
But I'd be willing to bet, at a business level, they're looking at profiles of men and profiles of women and saying, what can we have these things say to target these demographics and make them more engaged?
It's simple, isn't it?
Well, I'm not going to rant about the stupid AI nonsense from Vox, but I do want to end with this point.
Autocorrect from Microsoft Word.
It is now going to... It's not a political correctness check.
They stress this, but they call it ideas in Word, where if you say something that is offensive, they will offer you a solution.
So what I found really, really funny about this story is this right here.
If you describe someone as a disabled person, the AI would suggest person with a disability.
What?
That's the same thing!
Person, first terminology, is preferred because it portrays the person as more important than the disability.
What?
This is ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
Okay.
So I saw this and I made the joke on Twitter that no one could ever call me a mixed-race person because it's offensive and from now on, everyone must refer to me as a person of diverse ethnic and... I'm sorry.
You must refer to me as a person of diverse ethnic and genetic heritage.
Otherwise, you're a bigot and I'll get you banned on Twitter.
It's silly nonsense.
We don't need this stuff.
And the robots are going to be really, really crazy.
But you know what?
I'll leave it there.
Yes.
Robots.
Patriarchy.
Sure.
Or it's just good business.
I don't think Microsoft needs to make this nonsensical program that no one asked for.
And who cares what your robot answers to when you ask it a question?
