Tech Giants Are Driving Us Into A Technocratic Dystopian Future
We Are Heading Straight Into A Technocratic Dystopian Future. With the censorship of Project Veritas and my video on censorship itself we can truly see that 'the fire truck is on fire.' If any of us try to prove censorship and that political motivations drive the tech giants they shut us down. This is just another example of the encroaching nightmare dystopia. A future run by unelected billionaires who are accountable to no one and refuse to stop.While these tech giants have destroyed local journalism and slowly monopolized public discourse many far left activists have defended them as private businesses. Now Facebook seeks to launch a new currency called 'Libra' and has the backing of Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal.Tech giants will now begin slowly monopolizing the economy, removing your access to trade and speech. Its possible that Libra fails but we have already seen Mastercard and Chase bank 'debank' conservatives and political figures.Under the guise of social justice these companies have begun removing people they view to be 'unhealthy' for the conversation. But who gives them this right? How long until these companies ban you from finance and the economy for wrongthink?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
You'd think I was joking, and I kind of am, but not really.
For those that are listening on the podcast, what I'm displaying on my screen right now is this famous picture of Mark Zuckerberg walking through a convention center with a big ol' smile on his face as all of the people around him are wearing virtual reality headsets, seemingly oblivious to the real world.
I wonder what they're looking at.
You know, you could probably look it up, but the point of this picture is to kind of convey a message.
While I don't literally believe Mark Zuckerberg is going to be the Grand Overlord, He has a disproportionate amount of power.
He's causing problems, along with Silicon Valley, right?
He's a representation of the worst of Silicon Valley, in my opinion.
I'm sure he won't be too happy with this video, assuming he sees it.
But we've seen a wave of censorship.
We've seen it get dramatically worse, with the Project Veritas censorship, with my video being censored.
And now today, I have a series of stories that I want to go through and talk to you about how things are going to get worse from here unless something is done about big tech.
I had a conversation recently about how, in 1911, I can't remember the name of the oil company, but it was the big Rockefeller's oil company was broken up as an illegal monopoly.
What we're seeing now is much more dangerous.
Because it's one thing to control fuel, it's another thing to control thought.
And Silicon Valley has that power, and they're using it.
So the first thing I want to do is point to a very specific recent example of Mark Zuckerberg flaunting his power and getting away with it.
And then I want to talk about some of the more recent ramifications.
From the Hill, Zuckerberg could be held in contempt of Canadian Parliament after ignoring subpoena.
I won't read the story, but I'll give you the gist of it.
Canada wants Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg to explain to them some of the issues they have with the platform.
Mark Zuckerberg decided not to show up.
He wouldn't answer the subpoena.
Well, I can understand some people have argued he's not a Canadian citizen.
He owes them no allegiance and has no requirement to show up.
However, Mark Zuckerberg is causing massive political change and problems in their country.
So yes, he should be held accountable.
We can talk about international law all day and night.
But this is to show you that, sure, within the US we could probably take action against Silicon Valley and do something.
Recently we saw Google CEO Sundar Pichai beg not to get regulated.
But other countries, not so much.
So many of you may not be in the US.
I assure you, there are things your country can do they're not doing.
I don't know why.
We reported on this story in Subverse, and one of the original investors in Facebook, it's my understanding, said maybe Canada should shut them down.
But they don't.
No one does.
The politicians don't stand up to big tech.
Why?
Because they're not controlling fuel, they're controlling thought.
If you're a politician, and you oppose big tech, they will remove you.
We'll get into that.
I don't want to get ahead of myself.
Before we go any further, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work, because I am continually challenging the big tech oligopoly and censorship.
And of course, at some point, they're not going to like it.
And I'm going to be broaching several subjects in this video, which they're really not going to like.
So if you want to support my work, even though I'm still reliant on these big tech platforms, PayPal for one.
Scary.
But I also have cryptocurrency, a physical address.
So, if you want to support me, I'm not super worried about getting shut down entirely, but the time will come.
It will.
So, back to the hill.
I bring this video up just as an example of how Zuckerberg has flaunted his position and his power and authority over other countries.
In the US, he has testified.
Let's take a look at some modern examples.
The first thing I want to highlight is what many of you may already be aware of.
Big Tech Crackdown!
YouTube deletes Project Veritas video on Pinterest censorship.
Quote, I think that this is a watershed moment in the history of the First Amendment and Big Tech.
That's from James O'Keefe and I don't disagree.
For those that haven't followed the story, Pinterest had a whistleblower provide information to Veritas proving that Pinterest was censoring conservatives.
They were censoring some others, like anti-war leftists, but for the most part, Bible verses, Christianity, pro-life individuals and organizations were being censored.
This really struck a nerve.
Veritas had their video taken down.
They had their Twitter account suspended.
And then when I commented on the story, I displayed no new information.
They came for me too.
And this is important for you to understand.
Facebook has absolutely taken action against individuals of political influence.
And that's the first step.
If you're out of line, they will remove you.
Some people have said Donald Trump will never win 2020 because of the censorship and nothing
being done about it.
That's to be seen.
We'll see.
It's hard to predict because Trump has a lot of advantages.
But the point is, if you challenge, actually challenge these systems, they will shut you down and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
This morning I did a video on my second channel about a left-wing activist who was suspended from Twitter because his book had a symbol on it that Twitter didn't like.
Removed.
They're controlling what you're allowed to talk about.
In this circumstance, journalism that actually struck a nerve was removed.
You know what that means?
It means everything that we have said up until this point on Facebook, and on Twitter, and on Google, that has not been banned, has been within what is acceptable to the tech giants.
Of course, Facebook got rid of Paul Joseph Watson and Milo and Alex Jones, etc., because what they say is not acceptable.
What they say was helping Donald Trump.
However, everything I've said critical of Facebook and critical of YouTube and Twitter has been acceptable up until the curtain was pulled back and James O'Keefe showed, with the help of Whistleblower, that they were absolutely restricting certain information.
All of a sudden then, Google and Twitter said no.
And they took our content down.
And that shows you there really is a line that you are not allowed to cross.
Look, it's one thing if someone's preaching, you know, hateful things and they say it's bad PR.
It's another thing when you prove that they have ill intent and they're politically motivated, then they get rid of you.
Well, let's move on.
The reason I highlight this next story from the Daily Beast is to show you what is acceptable and what is the double standard.
This is proof, the story from the Daily Beast, we found the guy behind the viral Drunk Pelosi video.
This is proof that some things are acceptable, not on principle, on not causing problems for the elite tech oligopoly.
When Veritas publishes their video, they get a privacy claim.
Apparently, there were some individuals in that video who didn't want to be publicly known.
But they took action, and they are newsworthy, involuntary public figures.
It's unfortunate, but these things happen.
They took action, which had negative consequences, politically motivated, and now they are being thrust into the limelight.
This individual in the Daily Beast story just shared a video on Facebook.
But they argue!
He is newsworthy.
What happens?
They get cheered on.
On Twitter, the journalists, the activists, and Twitter itself say there's no privacy violation at all.
It's fine.
Veritas?
They're gone.
But of course, I did talk about this, so I do want to move on.
This is the specific example from the Daily Caller as to what James O'Keefe was suspended for on Twitter, saying a privacy violation.
But I do want to make sure we get through this stuff and go into the bigger issues.
Now, to the point of Facebook and why you have serious problems ahead.
This story is from May 3rd.
Mastercard faces shareholder vote that could force it to ban payments to far-right groups.
This vote is expected June 25th.
It's to come.
But Mastercard has already banned people for their politics.
This is already a dangerous precedent, and I'm sure many of you know this.
But you may ask yourself, we know about this problem.
This is not a Facebook problem.
I assure you, it is.
Facebook is planning a new cryptocurrency, Libra, and just got some pretty big, I mix the words up, pretty big backers, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, and Uber, are among firms that will invest around $10 million each in consortium that will govern digital coin.
The ability to exchange, the ability to trade is paramount.
First, they will restrict your ability to speak and think using digital platforms.
And the activists on the left will say, but my private platform and pave the way for massive unaccountable tech oligopolies with no allegiance to anyone and no accountability.
To do these things.
What do you think happens then when they roll out their digital coin?
They've already begun to monopolize the public space of speech.
The president on Twitter?
They can remove you and you are no longer in the conversation.
YouTube?
Facebook?
They can remove you.
You are not in their conversation.
How many people are meeting at City Hall to have conversations about who to elect?
None.
How many people are watching TV?
The ratings are collapsing.
The internet is where public speech is happening and Facebook will remove you.
They have removed people and now they're moving into the digital cryptocurrency space.
Many people said cryptocurrency will free us.
Will it?
What if Facebook, Twitter, Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, Uber, Google, etc.
I know Google and Twitter aren't involved.
I'm just saying as a hypothetical.
What if these big companies come together and then say, you know what?
We have now created massive incentives.
If you use Libra, it is cheaper to purchase something, perhaps.
But they're a private platform, they can do this, right?
They can.
What if you want to order a product on Amazon?
And Amazon says, we now accept Facebook's currency Libra.
If you use Facebook, you earn some Libra.
Interest.
It's actually better to use Libra instead of U.S.
dollars.
Who's going to stop them?
And then what happens when they start saying, we actually will charge you more if you use U.S.
dollars.
Not just a discount.
Now it's a convenience fee because physical cash is harder to deal with.
It's archaic.
And then what happens when Facebook says, we've already banned you for your speech, you're not allowed to spend our currency?
Certainly, you won't be able to use their new cryptocurrency unless you are following their hate speech guidelines and their privacy guidelines.
Certainly, if you publish journalism that would challenge the status quo and prove that they are censoring your views, they will remove you from the platform.
Strike one, strike two, strike three, and now you can't spend money anymore.
That's a terrifying future, and nothing's being done about it.
But listen, many of you may be saying, look, I'm not a conservative, why should I care?
Many conservatives are obviously facing the brunt of the censorship.
You've seen many people, Paul J. Watson, for instance, being banned from Instagram, and all he did was post selfies of him in the sunset.
He makes videos about modern art, he's certainly not the worst of the worst.
You can not like his opinions, fine.
But the reality is, they eventually come for everyone.
Like we've seen with the far-left activist challenging the rise of the radical right, as he calls it, getting suspended from Twitter, we see this story from just two days ago.
Facebook censors, quote, behind the scars photo series, spotlighting a larger body acceptance issue.
The censorship will not end with you or me.
Right now in this country, we have a right to free speech under the First Amendment.
But many of us view the right to free speech as a principle.
Free speech is not a law.
The First Amendment is a restriction on the government that protects several rights, of which journalism is one of them.
But now we can see they take action against journalism.
We've known for a long time, because Gizmodo published the story, that Facebook was removing conservative news.
They were.
Admitted by a Facebook employee.
And that was Gizmodo publishing that, not Veritas.
Although Veritas did come out later with a whistleblower saying Facebook does this.
And finally they had enough and they actually took out the journalism.
They even censored my commentary on the journalism.
Well, it's not gonna hurt the story.
The story will continue and now here we are.
But there's a... We'll carry on.
There's more to this.
What do you think will happen to any politician who starts to challenge the status quo of the tech oligopoly?
I assure you, we do not want to create a world where Visa and MasterCard are teaming up with Facebook over a new digital currency.
If MasterCard is already talking about enforcing bans on the far right, and Facebook wants to roll out a currency, things are looking dangerous.
The right to exchange value and trade in a society should not be beholden, should not be held by a private entity.
This is a nightmarish dystopian future.
But what about those politicians who would dare stand up for free speech?
You may not like Carl Benjamin, you may disagree with everything he says, but he did stand up for free speech.
Has he made missteps?
Many people would certainly say absolutely.
And Twitter removed his campaign account.
How many people are watching CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News?
Quite a bit.
But their ratings continue to decline.
Even Fox News.
Fox News is number one, but their ratings are down.
Certainly not as bad as CNN.
CNN's are really bad.
And there's an argument to be made that these platforms may have, these channels may have never given someone like Sargon, Carl Benjamin, a chance to speak.
But the point is, If mainstream news and local journalism is being wiped out, and much of local journalism is being wiped out by the monopolization, the duopoly that is Facebook and Google in terms of ad revenue, Facebook and Google control almost all ad space, period.
Because of this, you have to use them to get your message out.
And if they determine that you've said bad words, you can't get your message out.
Will someone who defends free speech and challenges the tech giants be able to win ever again?
Today, maybe.
And I'll give props to Elizabeth Warren in this regard when she says we gotta break up the tech giants.
Perhaps breaking them up is the right move, but regulation, absolutely.
We can't allow them to move into the space of controlling the economy through incentivization.
Like, listen.
Many people argued they don't have a monopoly on public speech.
But who is speaking at City Hall?
Who is watching CNN for their speech?
Who's watching local news?
The ratings are collapsing.
The local papers are collapsing.
Local journalism is collapsing.
Our local speech is collapsing.
And it's being centralized.
And now they're going to do the same thing with currency, I assure you.
And then if you dare challenge them, they'll throw you to the wolves.
They'll ban you, they'll lie about you, they'll smear you, and they're aided and abetted by activists in media who are authoritarians.
So I asked, I was talking to my dad, I said, Dad, why won't these politicians come up and just shut them down?
One of these investors said that Canada should just shut off Facebook.
And he said, well, of course, they're bought and paid for.
Facebook's too powerful.
Nobody wants to challenge Facebook.
You'll have all of your ads removed overnight.
No one will ever hear your name again.
You won't win.
It's better to just play ball with the authoritarian tech oligopoly, isn't it?
What makes it even scarier is when you consider what ultimately comes of this.
Sure, Carl Benjamin can speak out in defense of certain things, but what happens when deepfake technology creates a fake video where someone says something that isn't true and Facebook allows it?
But if you make a deepfake of, say, Zuckerberg, and he doesn't like it, he can snap his fingers and it's gone.
But what if someone takes your face, my face, anyone's face?
Let's say there's a politician who speaks to the people, a true populist.
Let's say this is Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders.
Or someone who actually speaks to populism and says, I'm here for the people.
And then all of a sudden, a video emerges.
You can't really tell if it's real or fake, where they say something that isn't really that bad, but it is kind of damaging.
And then Facebook says, that's acceptable.
But then Nancy Pelosi video emerges and she's saying something that slurs her speech and Facebook says, we're going to provide the private details of the individual who shared this to a news organization who will smear him as a warning.
Don't speak out against us.
We'll shut you down.
Facebook will share your details if it benefits them and they'll take you down as will the other tech giants if it's a privacy violation.
In this story from CNET, Facebook's ad targeting has created a creepy image problem it can't shake.
These last few stories I want to talk about land into the more joking idea of Mark Zuckerberg as your overlord.
Sure.
There are politicians who still have an opportunity to challenge Facebook, but Facebook knows more about you than you realize.
In this story, they talk about, despite Facebook's denials, plenty of users are convinced the social network is listening to their conversations.
I fear we may be beyond the point where we can actually do anything about Facebook's control over speech.
They're waning to a certain capacity, but they do still have Instagram.
Facebook knows so much about you, they can predict what you want before you want it.
There's a funny story about a dad who received letters in the mail from Target about pregnancy and motherhood for his daughter and he got mad.
Why would my daughter get this?
And it turned out they knew because of the big data and the algorithm that his daughter was actually pregnant.
He didn't know that.
You might think to yourself, I want to challenge this, I want to defend free speech, but Facebook can already preempt that.
Facebook can ban you, say whatever they want, and it's because their algorithm can predict what you will end up talking about, and they don't want to risk it.
Reminds me of Captain America Civil War, when the big airships were targeting people they knew could potentially become dissidents, and they wanted only those who would fall in line.
We have this story from Vox.
Can Alexa and Facebook predict the end of your relationship?
Expiration dating may be closer than we think.
And many people said they have.
We have this story from the Washington Post, which makes it even scarier.
Social media should be a complement to real life, not a substitute.
Where they say, quote, addiction is actually the point.
That's what social media shareholders are investing in.
And we know it.
And I've talked about it.
Behavioral engineering, they call it.
I'm not joking.
There's a company that works with tech firms to manipulate the behavior of their users to make them do what they want.
We already may be in this era.
I mean, we're in the era, but we may already be in the world that it can't be changed.
Mark Zuckerberg is on top.
He can control what he sees.
These tech giants, these CEOs, talk about how they don't give their kids cell phones.
They don't want to see this.
They're isolating themselves.
Which brings me back to the original photo I shared.
Mark Zuckerberg, free in the real world while you are all in his virtual environment.
Now, look, I love virtual reality.
It's a fun game.
But I'm not talking about virtual reality in terms of a headset where we play a game where we fight robots.
Fun game, by the way, Robo Recall.
Good job, Oculus.
But let's be critical here.
The real virtual world is what the algorithm is feeding you that Mark Zuckerberg... And again, I'm being somewhat facetious, but I'm using him as a symbol of tech in general.
These companies want a healthy conversation.
That's what Jack Dorsey said.
A healthy conversation.
What they deem to be healthy.
We are living in their virtual world.
And if they don't delete this video, then no.
What I'm saying is perfectly acceptable.
Perhaps because they think they can't lose ever again.
They think they've already won.
They can delete my channel overnight and lie about me.
And they've done it.
They can say Tim Pool did X, Y, and Z. And what am I gonna do?
Go up against a massive, multinational, billion-dollar corporation in court?
Yeah, right.
The real virtual world we're living in is our Facebook feed, it's our Twitter feed, it's the YouTube algorithm.
It's what's being shown to us that they choose to show to us.
And they are free from it.
To an extent.
They may think they are.
In this story from Real Clear Politics, don't let Zuckerberg kill free speech.
Because these tech giants, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., joined in with European leaders to sign on to a manifesto of sorts to protect people from bad words because they want to promote healthy conversations.
So can Silicon Valley be deposed of their power?
I don't think so.
I really don't.
I think we're beyond that point.
And they only allow my videos, your comments, because they know it won't really have a big impact.
If it did, they'd take it down.
And they've shown us that.
Veritas had their video removed.
I had my video removed.
My video, which was public information, was removed.
With no chance to appeal.
That's them flexing.
Of course it didn't get rid of the story.
But it's a warning.
They took down a YouTube channel called Black Pigeon Speaks.
Admittedly, I'm not super familiar with Black Pigeon.
People are outraged.
Why was his channel removed?
He doesn't swear or insult.
He's just kind of a conservative.
His channel was restored.
It could have been an accident, perhaps.
I don't necessarily think there's a big grand conspiracy.
I don't think the people running these companies are twirling their mustaches talking about world domination.
It's just the dominoes falling over and the chips falling where they lie, and that's why we need something to be done about the massive power of these companies.
Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a dystopian nightmare.
Which we're walking into every day.
It's getting worse.
We've seen many YouTube channels get taken down.
And some people have argued.
This is a warning.
It's letting you know to fall in line or you will be removed.
And that's why the story about the Wall Street Journal and the new currency from Facebook really does terrify me.
Facebook tried rolling out some kind of internal currency a long time ago.
It didn't really work.
But now they have Libra.
And MasterCard and Visa are behind it.
And what then?
They can say, you're entitled to free speech on our platform, but you're a harm to our community, so we're going to remove monetization.
Like they did to Steven Crowder.
Steven Crowder didn't do anything wrong, they said he didn't break the rules, but you know what?
He was harmful.
So they took away his ad revenue.
Whether you want to argue that's right or wrong, think about what happens when people start using Facebook's currency.
It's one thing if Google wants to sell ads on your channel you can't monetize.
Crowder still has a way to make money through the channel he has.
But what happens when people start using Libra more and more?
What happens if this currency actually succeeds?
Maybe it'll fail, but what happens if it does succeed?
With the backing of Visa and MasterCard and PayPal?
That's pretty damn worrisome.
What happens then when Facebook says, listen...
We don't like your opinion, so we're not going to ban you.
All of a sudden, now you're outside of the economy.
And you can't use Libra.
It's not about whether or not you can actually earn the money.
It's not the fact that Facebook will ban you from their platform, or they'll restrict access to use it.
You'll then go to the store and say, you know, I want to pay in Libra, and they'll say, oh, you've been rejected.
MasterCard has already banned people.
Patreon has claimed it was MasterCard who took them down.
I fear that we're already here, and maybe we're not, but if Elizabeth Warren is going to say it, then I think it's not a fringe position to say these tech giants have too much power and we know it.
The privacy abuses, the sharing of our information, the selling of our information, the scandal after scandal after scandal, the censorship, the restrictions on left-wing activists, they're finally waking up to it.
I think we're seeing something truly dangerous unless something is done to change it.
But I could be wrong.
You know, I often say this to people.
There really is no grand conspiracy, it's just dominoes falling over.
Mark Zuckerberg and the people at Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., Jack Dorsey, Sundar Pichai, they want more.
They always want more.
Humans always want more.
The drive to want more is not a bad thing.
It's a good thing.
If we were satisfied at any point, we wouldn't be successful.
Because think about it.
Think about the nomadic tribe who said, no, we need more food, more food.
If they had ever at any point stopped and said, eh, two days is enough, what happens when it rains?
There's a big storm and the food gets washed away or destroyed, or they eat it and they can't go out and hunt?
So they always wanted more.
Human drive for more is a good thing, but we also have to recognize we need limits.
This is why I'm a middle-of-the-road kind of person.
I don't think socialism is a good idea.
I think capitalism is a good idea, but capitalism needs checks, and that's what antitrust law is for.
It's not an extremist position to say that antitrust laws should be used when you have a duopoly.
Two companies controlling majority of the ad market.
We should probably do something about that.
I don't know what the right answer is.
I don't want to advocate for anyone to do anything, but I do want to highlight the issue.
I want to end this video by making one more important point.
In the story about the Nancy Pelosi guy that they doxed him, it appears all over Reddit.
And many people have claimed that the James O'Keefe story is being taken down.
That's actually not true.
I don't think I have it pulled up, the search.
But I did a search for both stories.
A lot of people are saying that Reddit is taking down the Veritas story on Pinterest.
They're not.
They're absolutely not.
So I just want to make sure at the end of this video I did that kind of little debunk.
You can search for yourself.
Take the link from Veritas.
Put it in search.
And you'll see it comes up.
But regardless of all that, thanks for hanging out.
It's mostly a joke about Overlord Zuckerberg, but let me know what you think.
He's flaunted subpoenas from other countries, you know?
I just don't see him ever stepping down, relinquishing power, and unless something is done, It's happened before.
Antitrust is not a new thing, and it's coming.
Facebook has been stocking up on antitrust lawyers.
Google is begging to stop the regulation, but the regulation is coming.
And who knows what form it will take?
But hopefully everything I've explained in this video so far, 25 minutes or so, was helpful.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I've shown you some pretty good examples of double standards and this dystopian path we're on, and maybe something will be done about it.
I don't know what that something is.
I just think authoritarianism is bad.
So let me know what you think in the comments below, we'll keep the conversation going.
Stay tuned, more videos coming up on my second channel, youtube.com slash TimCastNews at 6pm, and I will see you there.
This far-left activist guy wrote a book called Alt-America, in which the stars have little Klan heads on them.
So Twitter has suspended his account, and it doesn't seem like Twitter actually wants to bring this guy back.
It's kind of funny, because for the longest time, people like me, other, you know, moderate centrists, conservatives, and like, moderate liberal types, have been repeatedly saying- Actually, no, I should stop there.
There are even many progressives, and people like Glenn Greenwald, Mike Tracy, et cetera, who have said, if you push for censorship, you will be censored.
I can't tell you, I can only, how many times have you heard me say this?
How many videos have I made about censorship backfiring on the left?
Well, here we have this man, David Neiwert, shocked, I tell you, that Twitter actually suspended his account, OG, from Daily Kos, which is considered, I don't know, kind of fringy, but, I want to read what this guy has to say.
Yes.
It's quite literally always been that way.
This is not new.
It's been happening non-stop.
And no matter how many times I wiggle my arms in the air and tell you what's going to happen, none of these people seem to learn.
And they're still shocked.
That giant, multinational, billion-dollar corporations don't care about you.
You notice that Oreo has a little pride flag?
You think Oreo cares?
You notice all these companies changing their little icons to pride symbols?
They don't care.
They're just pandering to what they view is socially acceptable.
Advertisers, that is what Twitter, Google, whoever, The big companies want the ads.
Do you think Pepsi wants their tweet to appear alongside your silly book?
No.
Period.
And there you go.
Now, I certainly think the right to free expression on these massive platforms, which have a massive control over political and public discourse, is more important than their right to generating ad revenue, and we have a serious conundrum here.
They can't operate without ad revenue.
They are a private business, but they're causing too much damage to the public discourse.
When they get rid of someone's book like this.
I don't know what his book is about.
I don't care what his book is about.
He has a right to make the book.
He has a right to show the art.
And he shouldn't be suspended from Twitter because he presents his idea.
Period.
Unfortunately, these people don't seem to understand how business works.
They think that when, you know, Target changes their icon to a pride flag, that Target actually cares.
And I don't want to stress, obviously many of these people see through the corporate BS that they're being pandered to.
But when you stand up and say, Twitter, I demand action, get all your little journalist-y friends and your weird Twitter-out-y leftist sphere to start screaming and ranting and raving about how Twitter won't take action, advertisers see this, ad revenue goes down, and Twitter goes, I don't know, man, just ban anybody who posts anything about this.
Because even though you're fighting against it, do you think the advertiser cares?
Dr. Pepper doesn't care that you're the good guy.
Dr. Pepper just doesn't want their ad to appear next to your silly book.
So here's what we're going to do.
Rant.
We'll stop the rant.
Let me just read what this guy has to say, and we'll go through it.
Because, man, how many times have you heard me rant about this kind of stuff?
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, like, comment, share, subscribe, all of that YouTube engagement says, hey, YouTube, this video is really good.
So, David Nyewitt writes, having reached day four and counting of my suspension from Twitter for posting the image of clan-hooded stars from the cover of my book, Alt America, I can at least report one development.
Yes, my life has gotten materially better without it.
Now, I can agree with that.
Twitter is terrible.
I no longer, I don't really post content anymore.
I have brought this up before.
I used to actually link stories, like mostly what I would do, I'd find interesting stories and I would tweet like, hey, here's a story, check this out.
I don't really do that anymore.
Sometimes.
Rarely.
I never tweet my own content.
I just stopped.
And now I kinda, I just block people.
You know, I've never been a big fan of blocking, but I'm just, at this point, Twitter is just so goddamn awful, I'm like, I just don't even care.
Literally don't care anymore.
I'm just gonna tweet what I feel like tweeting, and then I ignore literally anybody who tweets at me.
Just don't care.
Yeah, so Twitter is a gross hellscape.
Let's read on.
Actually, my friend Luke from WeAreChange said, we were talking about it the other day, and he said, Twitter's become basically the new bumfights.
And I started laughing.
I was like, that's actually a really good point.
If you're not familiar, bumfights was this guy who would offer a candy bar to starving bums to make them fight each other, film it, and sell it.
And it's a joke.
It's meant to be hyperbolic, facetious, whatever.
But he's got a point.
Twitter works because it's like people like watching the mob just tear itself apart.
It's just people attacking each other.
But let's read on.
He said, it's true that I very much miss the stream of news that my feed provided when I had tried to tailor to my particular needs as a journalist covering the radical right.
I certainly miss the instant communication I have had with my colleagues.
None of that is easy to replace.
Now, I believe this man, David Neiwert, referred to Quillette as far right.
I think he did, I could be wrong, but I think that's where the guy's mind is, and Quillette is such a tepid, like, centrist, intellectual, dark webby—no, not far right at all.
But anyway.
But the low-level stress—let's do that.
But the low-level stress of being on Twitter, dealing with adversarial conversations, contending with the ugliness that erupts whenever trolls come rolling around, is one of those things, like regular driving during rush hour, that you most appreciate when you stop doing it.
Yeah.
Look, I've said this before, but my notifications are permalocked at 99+.
Like, the little bell icon says 99+.
I never click it.
You tweet at me?
Not gonna see it.
Period.
And Twitter likes to send me notifications randomly, because I don't even understand why someone will tweet at me, and it's like Twitter notifies me.
Like, I don't care!
Like, dude, it's not that I don't want to see the messages from people who are, like, trying to actually contact me.
It's just, like, why is Twitter randomly choosing which out of the 5,000 tweets in the past hour I got they're going to show me on my phone?
So I don't want to turn off notifications because I get DMs, and my DMs are private, and so that actually is useful for me as a tool of communication.
But I just swipe.
It'll be like, you know, I look at my phone and I'll have like 50 plus notifications.
Swipe.
Gone.
Don't care.
Not gonna read it.
And I gotta tell you, man.
There's a happy medium between just outright deleting Twitter, which I was really close to doing.
I've deleted most of my tweets because I'm sick of the platform.
But there's a happy medium between that and just like not engaging anymore.
So I thought about it.
I've got a lot of followers.
People want to see what I have to say.
So I'm just going to never interact for the most part.
And I'm just going to tweet what I feel like tweeting when I feel like tweeting it.
And then ignore everybody and their silly nonsense.
You know, some people agree with me.
It's not all bad.
But you know what?
I'm done.
David says, that said, for many obvious reasons, I am working to end the suspension.
But I am adamant about not removing an image that isn't hateful, but is pure political commentary.
But it's a private platform.
They can do whatever they want.
And I'm fighting for it because the reductio ad absurdum of Twitter's reasoning for the suspension would leave not just me, but any reporter who works to monitor and expose the activities of far-right extremists exposed to the constant threat of being banned simply for doing our mainstream jobs as journalists.
Oh!
You finally figured it out!
How many times have journalists been suspended?
Quite a few, actually.
How many activists have been suspended for trying to prove that, you know, some vandalism or violence or something was coming from the far right?
Quite a lot, actually.
I've made several videos about this.
When will you silly humans learn that your desire to censor certain images will censor you?
Partially Simpsons joke right there.
He says, I did hear back from Twitter, this is the statement I was given by a company spokesperson.
We don't allow hateful symbols in avatars or header images in order to protect users from unintentionally being exposed to abusive imagery that can be upsetting.
We know that some people may use these symbols to confront a hateful ideology, but that's not always obvious at first glance.
In this case, additional context in the account profile clarifies the intent, but that isn't always visible in the product.
So, for example, someone viewing the header on mobile wouldn't have the extra context and would only see the hateful image.
They don't care, quite literally, are telling you context is irrelevant.
Please, please, David, and everyone who wants to fight the far right, understand this.
They will come for you first.
Oh, I'm just shouting at brick walls, though.
It's like, you know, just shouting at a wall, and the wall's like, but you're a bigot.
Someone spray-painted on a brick wall, you're a bigot.
And no matter how many times you try and say to them they're gonna censor you, that's the only thing you see.
Look at this book.
This book could be pro-far-right.
How is anyone supposed to know it's critical or trying to expose them?
It quite literally could be pro-propaganda for them.
So do you think context matters?
I do.
And actually, outside of context, this shouldn't be banned.
Twitter is a platform where people engage in political conversations.
Twitter don't care.
Twitter wants ad dollars.
Advertisers don't want to be next to your silly book.
The problem with this rationale are twofold.
First, it accepts at face value that the image in my profile is hateful.
It is.
And treats context as meaningless.
Oh, this is hilarious!
I seem to recall many people referring to Count Dankula as a bigot and saying context didn't matter.
Here we are.
We've come full circle.
Congratulations on finally realizing that the push for authoritarianism that you, and there's actually a controversy involving Trump in the first amendment right now, but I'll get to that later.
Maybe for another video.
When you say, I want Big Daddy to censor my opponents, he goes, you know what, you're both annoying me.
SWAT.
And gets rid of both of you.
You know what Twitter wants?
Twitter wants people to talk about friends.
Twitter wants people to talk about the season finale of Game of Thrones.
Twitter wants you to talk about Chernobyl.
Twitter doesn't want you to post your book, which shows a bunch of Klan hoods.
Because that is bad for their bottom line.
Congratulations.
Your activism will be silenced, and I assure you, the actual far-right will take off the hoods, put them in their storage locker, and put on some other type of hat, and they'll change the meaning of whatever they need to say, they'll change the word, and they'll change their symbols, and they'll hide it all with dog whistles.
Now, of course, I understand the left sees dog whistles everywhere, But, I gotta say, there's a bit of catharsis in reading an article like this, where it's like, you know, me, you, everybody who's been watching my videos, we've been sitting here saying like, oh no!
Look what they're doing!
These people have lost their minds!
And now we're sitting back kind of like smoking a cigar like, yep!
Let's see how he concludes this so I don't have to ramble for another 20 minutes about the same thing I talk about every other week.
He says, I will admit there's a lot about Twitter I miss.
I especially miss its didactic qualities resulting from the 280 character limit, because it's been fascinating to see how readily people can absorb information when it's delivered in bite-sized chunks.
It's actually a really bad thing in my opinion.
Excuse me.
And not being able to connect with my fellow journalists is, frankly, something of a professional debacle.
So I will continue to discuss this with folks at Twitter and report back to you on how it's going.
Hopefully, at some point, my account will be restored.
In the meantime, did I mention how nice and productive life is when you're off Twitter?
Well, here, here, David, I completely agree with you on that one.
I have been spending less time on Twitter.
Admittedly, you know, all day every damn reading news, so Twitter is there.
But, um, you know, look, this is just another individual who doesn't understand their, their, like, first on the chopping block.
Okay?
When you want to expose someone, you need to have proof.
Your proof is hateful.
You will be banned.
And the people you're trying to ban will put on a nice suit and say, I don't know what you're talking about.
And then you'll never be able to prove it.
Let me, let me give you another one more anecdote before I go, because I've told this story before.
I was in the UK.
And I was arguing with someone about a particular individual.
Who is considered to be a racist.
And I said that they, on YouTube, had used some slurs.
This individual said, that's not true, you're lying.
And I said, what?
No, I'm not.
Like, this person on YouTube made these slurs.
Like, what are you talking about?
And they said, BS.
I've never seen that.
Prove it.
And I said, okay.
I pulled up my phone, searched on Google.
So-and-so says X. Couldn't find anything.
It was really weird.
Because, you know, the week prior, two weeks prior, in the U.S., I had seen the story.
Activists were sharing it, saying, aha, we've caught this guy.
So I'm here in the UK, and I'm not saying this is the exact reason why I couldn't find it.
I don't know why I couldn't find it.
But I'll tell you this.
On the Google search page, there was nothing.
At the bottom, it said, we have removed certain things for being offensive, yadda yadda yadda.
And I thought to myself, again, I can't prove that the article in question was removed.
I couldn't find it.
But when I saw that message, I said, well, there you go.
They are cleansing.
The worst of the worst.
They're hiding.
Listen.
When someone on the far left says something extremely, you know, violent or calls for milkshaking, that's not... I mean, it should be bannable, but for some reason they don't ban it.
We see that, and we say, you're nuts!
Then when you get someone on the fringe, far right, or wherever you want to call it, saying some extremist nonsense, Twitter bans it.
We don't want that on our platform, and they clean it up.
So as I've described it before, the right is being made to look prim and proper, and the left is being made to look like psychopaths.
Censorship is backfiring on the left, and they are shocked when it happens to them, because you know what?
They're so entrenched in their insane tribalism, that when someone like- So, here's what's really annoying.
I've been on the left my whole life.
I am still, like, moderate center-left.
Like, I'm actively like, Andrew Yang!
I love that dude, that dude's great!
He's not perfect, but he's a really good dude.
And I'm rooting for him, and I'm looking forward to the debates.
They don't care.
They don't care that someone who is a lifelong... I was a far-left anarchist when I was younger, going to these protests and everything, wearing black t-shirts, black jeans, skating, hanging out with other punks.
They don't care what my perspective is.
They don't care that I'm right.
All they know is the tribe said X and you do what the tribe says.
But now that they're being slammed in the face every single day by it, they're starting to wake up.
And I've been standing here the whole time like, guys, and they've been yelling at me.
Telling me off.
Insulting me.
So you know what?
I will still defend your speech.
I will still stand by this man and say your book should absolutely be allowed on Twitter.
Twitter should reinstate your profile immediately.
No questions asked.
We know what your intent was.
We know what the context is.
You are allowed to your opinion and your opinion is important for public discourse.
I want everyone to see your book.
I want them to see your perspective.
In fact, I would recommend people buy the book and read it.
It's important to know what people you disagree with think.
Knowledge is power.
If you can better understand the perspective of David Neiwert, perhaps we can actually come to a better understanding to solve problems in this country.
But what's happening is people are being pushed aside.
They're being divided.
Censorship doesn't work.
And people are not being exposed to new ideas.
You don't have to agree with him by no means, but I do recommend you try and research and understand those you do disagree with.
Perhaps many of you do agree with him, and you do like his book.
Well, then you should stand in agreement with me that we should make sure Twitter doesn't have the arbitrary power to silence dissidents and researchers and journalists and activists, and that all of this is important for public discourse.
It's a complicated problem, because as we've seen from the University of Missouri study, Twitter amplifies extremes.
When David tweets this, it's more likely to get shared and sent to people's faces than someone talking about moderate policy and social cohesion.
So I don't know what the solution is.
I do feel like it's content like this that is divisive and makes things dangerous, but at the same time, you can't Regulate human interest.
If humans want this and that's what they do, I don't know what to tell you, man.
Twitter doesn't have the right to engineer society in the direction it thinks is healthy.
That's a nightmarish dystopia where a few megacorporations are telling us what we're allowed to say and think.
Isn't that a nightmare?
I can't believe I grew up watching these movies like V for Vendetta.
You know, hearing stories of 1984, Animal Farm, etc.
All of these dystopian future novels about how megacorporations or totalitarian governments are gonna restrict thought, and we must fight against it.
The heroes were the resistance, fighting the authoritarian machine, the megacorporations, the government, whatever.
And here we have today, the left, cheering on my private business.
I feel like I'm living in some kind of like fantasy nonsense world, but you know what?
Hey, I'll say this.
Final thought.
Final, final thought.
If this is a wake-up call for someone like David, and he's willing to stand behind free expression, I welcome him with open arms, a handshake, and a welcome to the fight.
Let's make sure your speech is protected, as well as everyone else's.
You may not like their speech, but two things are important.
One, that the worst of the worst are exposed when they say what they think and we can see what they're saying.
And two, that you are able to expose them with your thoughts and opinions too.
I don't care if you're left, right, top, down, whatever religion.
The point is, let people speak their mind so we know what they truly think and we know their intentions.
And if they try and hide it, let people like David highlight information they think will expose them.
Otherwise, we're living in a strange NPC gray jumpsuit shaved head world where the megacorporation is sending us for re-education to tell us what we should and shouldn't think.
What a nightmare.
Goddamn.
Rant over.
Stick around.
More segments to come.
Next one at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you then.
Bill Maher often says some really dumb things.
He said something the other day like he made fun of Ivanka, and I'm just like, why are you doing that?
Making fun of somebody's appearance or, you know, whatever.
But!
Bill Maher rips political correctness SJWs over Oberlin College scandal.
I saw this story and thought to myself, you know, I'm not going to be the Bill Maher commentary channel.
I've done a ton of videos showing the things he said about social justice and political correctness.
But he made some really, he made a really, really important point.
Pushing back, calling on liberals to push back against the outrage mob.
And, uh, lo and behold, Mr. Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks is outraged.
No one helps the right wing more than Bill Maher in making so-called political correctness appear to be a significant issue.
Even if you think it's real, it is a minuscule problem compared to the horrors of the right wing, but if it affects Maher personally...
When he gets paid to speak on college campuses.
So to him, it's a huge issue.
Every weekend, he goes on TV and makes a tiny issue seem like the end of the world and creates false equivalency between progressives and right-wing based on his personal peek and pocketbook.
You know, I find it really funny that you have people like Cenk Uygur, who I will criticize in this capacity, but also like David Pakman, who I do have a lot of respect for.
We've had conversations.
But they're both of the opinion that the outrage mob is a fringe thing.
There have been people, like, Kevin Hart was supposed to host the Oscars, and then he got basically removed, long story short, because of jokes from 10 years ago.
Oh, but it's not a big deal!
Listen, man.
Just because this doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's not a big deal.
And he makes that interesting point, that it's affecting Bill Maher, so Bill Maher thinks it's an issue, so what?
It's hilarious.
When I was at Politicon and I was talking to Cenk, he started screaming at me.
I don't know if you guys know the story because it happened a while ago, but he was yelling at me saying nonsense.
I'm like, what are you talking about?
He called me a Trump supporter.
I'm like, what?
Sorry, dude.
No.
And I said something like, I can't remember what he brought up.
He criticized me for talking about Antifa.
And I said, so you're mad that I criticize them for physically attacking people?
And he's like, what about the right job and all these, you know, far right and I'm like, they're bad too!
What are you talking about?
It's this weird tribal world he lives in.
Where he thinks only his issues are important.
And what's funny about it is he's pointing at Bill Maher going, Bill Maher only thinks his issues are important.
Only my issues are important.
It's like, okay, Jang, you don't seem to understand.
Everybody lives in a world with a view.
And you of all people should understand this because this is actually part of a left-wing argument on journalism that everybody has a bias and they're focused on specific things.
I totally get and understand that.
So for me, I'm wondering why the Democrats are doing bad, and I happen to agree with Bill Maher that regular liberals don't like this stuff.
They don't.
But let's read what Bill Maher just said, because he had on Barry Weiss.
I think she's great.
Not perfect.
She said some silly things, you know, got called out for it.
That's fine.
I try not to be overly disrespectful to most people.
I mean no disrespect to Cenk, I just disagree.
I'm not perfect, by the way.
I've probably said some silly things in the past, I know I have.
But, they bring up some interesting points about Oberlin.
And about how liberals need to fight back.
So let's read through this.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Dunnit if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, like, comment, share, subscribe.
All of those things help because it tells YouTube you like the content, and that's what YouTube uses to determine whether or not I'm worthy of being shown to anybody.
From the college fix, Bill Maher rips political correctness SJWs over Oberlin college scandal.
Comedian and HBO host Bill Maher took it to SJWs during the Friday episode of Realtime by noting that the recent verdict against Oberlin College, perhaps these devotees to political correctness, are finally finding that there's a price to pay for their antics.
I am glad to hear it, that Oberlin's story is an affront to justice.
But it came, in the end, they won and justice was served.
They won $44 million.
I'm not going to rehash the whole story because I've done a couple videos on it.
Oberlin College ordered to pay $44 million, probably going to be reduced to $33 because of some state limits, but it was a small bakery up against a massive institution and the outrage mob.
And the small bakery won.
Good.
They say, they go on to explain what I just explained.
Though a political progressive, Marr is no fan of PC, noting that it does more harm than good to the cause of liberalism.
I completely agree.
I feel like Bill Marr and I would have a really excellent conversation and agree on a bunch of different things, and he could explain some things to me.
I could criticize him for some of his, like, I get he's a comedian if he wants to rag on people and be mean.
There's some things I disagree with him about.
But I think he's self-reflective, and I think he's seeing the light.
You know, that a good liberal defends free speech.
Donald Trump and Candace Owens just tweeted about not being able to burn the American flag.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Hell no.
I don't know if I could do a full video on it, maybe.
You know, because I've got it all pulled up, but I'm like, I don't know if it... I probably will, though.
I think I'll do it in like, you know, two more segments, because I really, really want to talk about them saying no flag burning.
But I don't want to get into that.
Let's read this.
So they- so this is- okay, College Fix, come on.
College Fix is quoting Fox News, quoting Realtime, but I'll read it anyway!
That's silly.
During the real-time panel segment, New York Times columnist Barry Weiss stressed that social media comments on Twitter and other platforms can cause reputational damage.
NeverTrump conservative commentator Charlie Sykes added that the bullying culture and the calling-you-out mentality have intensified in recent years.
They have.
Spot on.
You know, Len, I can disagree with Maher on a lot of the silly things he says, and I know a lot of people disagree on way more.
But this is a good show.
It really is.
Okay?
Because Bill Maher is the kind of liberal you want to be at odds with.
He's the kind of person you want to say, Bill, that idea is ridiculous, and he'll invite you on!
And you'll talk about it, and he'll make fun of you, and you'll make fun of him.
Excellent.
Not this ridiculous, everyone shrieking at the top of their lungs, throwing bottles and molotovs, and trying to get people fired.
I'm tired of the term political correctness, Sykes said, later.
It's like performative wokeness.
In our monoculture, we have to find a way to humiliate, to drive people out that we disagree with, and I will tell you that there is a huge backlash.
The folks on the right were bailing on liberalism.
They're basically saying that, quote, the left wants to destroy you, they hate you, they want to take away your rights, they want to destroy your business.
Unfortunately, you have anecdotes like this that make it plausible.
Marr asks, How do we get mainstream liberals to stand up to that faction?
I'm right here, buddy.
I'm right here, and I'll tell you what.
There are good conservatives, there are moderates, there are centrists, there are libertarians, and we are all standing here side by side with the liberals, the real liberals who want to push back on this insanity.
I kid you not.
It reminds me of that meme of Lord of the Rings where Gimli and Legolas are next to each other and he's like, I never thought I'd be standing side by side with an elf.
What about a friend?
And I'm like, yes.
It was so surprising to me when feminist Megan Murphy, I'm pretty sure I'm getting this right, had a conversation with Ben Shapiro about deplatforming, misgendering, and I'm like, you have a staunch Orthodox Jewish conservative?
Right with a radical feminist, and they're having a conversation side by side against these weird, fringe, outrage culture, zealot, NPC, whatever you want to call it.
Alright.
So I can say this about Cenk.
I definitely think he's way, way better than a lot of these people.
You know, he wigged out on me.
I was shocked.
I've known him for a long time.
I've been on his show a couple times.
We saw each other at VidCon.
I had a fun conversation.
Political disagreements.
I'm more of the centrist, you know, center-left type.
That kind that he doesn't necessarily like.
I'm not a big fan of corporate Democrats either, so I agree with him on that.
But I'm not a fan of Ocasio-Cortez just saying nonsense.
I'm not going to defend her over tribalism.
So I do think Cenk is better, but again, there's a lot to criticize the man for, especially because he went after me.
But I try to do my best when I think someone is genuine.
And Cenk sat down with Tucker Carlson, and they agreed on a lot, and I have tremendous respect for that.
Andrew Yang sits down with Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, tremendous respect.
You want to sit down with someone across the aisle, that's what we need.
So Bill Maher is asking the right question.
What can we do to get them to stand up?
Because they have been inactive.
It's time to tell these people to go away, so we can resume the real, normal, sane arguments about how we are one country, about how we mostly agree on everything, and the little things we disagree on, we can fight bitterly over on TV, on the radio, in person, and get rid of the bike locks, and the bottles, and the clubs, and the maltovs, and all that other nonsense.
People don't need to be walking around with, you know, body armor and weapons, none of that stuff.
If we can get mainstream liberals to push back on these fringe weirdos and tell them off, I think we have some hope.
I do.
However, I will tell you what I think is going to happen.
I think, like Cenk Uygur coming out and slamming Bill Maher, we are going to see all of these digital media outlets get sick and tired of Maher, and they're going to accuse him of the worst of the worst, they're going to call him all the worst things in the book, and they're going to try and get his show shut down.
Mara's opposition to PC Madness almost led him to being ousted as a graduation speaker at Berkeley in 2014.
Two years later, Mara took it to Emory students who had a paroxysm of self-righteous indignation at a pro-Trump chalking.
I don't want to necessarily read this quote because I'm concerned about what YouTube will do.
But Bill Marr basically says, I so badly want to... He then goes on to say he wants to inflict harm on these kids into a place where there is actual pain and suffering.
What happened in this country?
So forgive me for stopping on that quote, but you know how YouTube is.
My next video on my main channel is gonna be a big segment about our Lord and Savior Mark Zuckerberg and how Silicon Valley is suppressing speech.
And we have to be very, very careful if we want to spread our ideas.
We found something that really struck a nerve.
The Veritas story.
So we do have to be really careful.
And that's why I think Bill Maher is right and Cenk is wrong.
And that's going to be the next segment.
Listen.
I made a video commenting on censorship.
And the Silicon Overlords said no.
And they shut me down.
They shut Veritas down.
They filed a complaint against Crowder.
You can see them flaunt their power beyond just the censorship against conservatives.
They've gone after journalism.
So yes.
This is a serious problem.
It's not just the SJWs, it's the entire tech oligopoly which is just littered with these people and their oppressive, regressive ideology that seeks to inflict pain and suffering on people for no reason.
You want to have a real discussion with someone like Bill Maher, a real liberal, his audience who claps and cheers when he says things like this?
It can be done.
You can have that conversation.
But these fringe weirdos will try and destroy you, and they have allies in the media.
I'll leave it there, because the next conversation we're going to move into is Our Lord and Savior Mark Zuckerberg.
Which, dear God, I hope you know is me being sarcastic.
Stick around.
That segment will be coming up shortly.
Admittedly, for those of you on the podcast, you may have heard it already.
So, I'll see you soon.
From Bloomberg, BuzzFeed staff plan to walk out in push to get union recognized.
My understanding is that it's been 123 days since BuzzFeed staff decided to unionize, and that came like a month after 15% of their staff were laid off, which is really weird, but yes.
123 days, I think?
Let's pop over to the BuzzFeed News Union Twitter account, and as of the 14th, It was 123 days, and now the 16th, so 125 days.
They want to unionize, BuzzFeed dragging their feet.
Vox, I think it took them like a year to get.
Well, let's talk about what happens when your company is failing and laying off its staff,
and you decide to unionize.
You get laid off.
Layoffs come after unionization.
Because the company doesn't have infinite money.
The company just laid off a huge portion of its staff, and now you're asking for more money.
They'll probably have to lay people off.
This is what bothers me.
You know, I just did a video about this when Vox went through this, but let me just tell you, okay, if you are somebody who works in one of these offices, let me make it very clear for you what exactly will happen if you push to get a contract.
Several things.
First, Well, the contract's been really good, and from that point on, things can be better.
What will happen to you will likely be bad.
Some people will get raises.
Some people will get benefits.
But the money has to come from somewhere.
So let me break this down.
Let's say your office has $100,000 to spend per year on a specific thing.
And they're paying three people $30,000 a year.
Really bad for New York, right?
Hypothetical numbers.
So there's $10,000 extra, but at that $30K, they're still paying taxes, insurance.
So let's just say for three people at $30K, it cost them $100,000 in that year.
You then go to them and say, hey, everybody, let's all get together and demand more money.
We want 40K.
Well, now they go, where do we find the $20,000?
I got it.
Fire one of them, take the money we would have paid them, and split it up between the other two.
While it's certainly great that one of those two people will get a raise, their workload will increase, and you got fired.
Maybe you'll be the lucky one who doesn't get fired.
But the point is, if BuzzFeed is already laying people off, I just don't understand what is going through their minds.
So here's what we're going to do.
We'll read this article.
Then I've got this blog from the BuzzFeed union talking about what they want and why they want it.
And what's really interesting about what they're talking about is they kind of omit the fact that BuzzFeed is losing money and laying people off.
So yeah, let's read it.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, Like, comment, share, subscribe.
It really helps the channel with engagement.
From Bloomberg, BuzzFeed staff plan to walk out.
BuzzFeed News employees are planning a walkout for Monday.
According to people familiar with the matter, just days after a similar protest by staff at Vox Media led to that company's first labor agreement.
BuzzFeed US's journalists agreed to unionize in February, excuse me, saying they would seek better benefits and fair pay after seeing some colleagues lose their jobs the prior month.
What?
Since then, they've been calling on BuzzFeed's management to recognize their union.
So hold on.
The company is losing money, so they had to lay people off, so now the employees are trying to unionize to ask for more money.
It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy of destruction.
You know, then they're gonna lay people off, then people are gonna be like, oh, it's unfair, and then they're gonna collapse even further.
Like, what?
I don't think these people understand how money works.
The News Guild, which represents BuzzFeed's union, didn't respond to a request for comment.
A BuzzFeed representative said the company has made an offer to voluntarily recognize the union, but the terms haven't been accepted.
It has been on the table since last week.
We hope they'll accept it.
Unions and companies frequently spar over which workers should be included as part of a new bargaining unit.
On Thursday, Davey Alba, a BuzzFeed reporter, tweeted to BuzzFeed Chief Executive Officer Jonah Peretti and BuzzFeed News Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith, We're so close, there are only two issues left to resolve in our voluntary recognition agreement.
Job cuts.
In January, BuzzFeed eliminated 15% of its headcount, part of a wave of layoffs at media outlets this year.
Publishers like BuzzFeed, once the darlings of the media industry, have struggled to find profitable- I'm sorry, profitable business models.
The tumult has led journalists at several media outlets to opt for collective bargaining.
While that hasn't prevented layoffs, it has in some cases cushioned the blow.
For instance, agreements can help ensure that workers who lose their jobs get severance
pay.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Earlier this month, hundreds of Vox Media employees walked off the job.
A day later, they reached a tentative labor agreement.
The union contract includes minimum salary guarantees and four months of paid parental leave, among other things.
So I will just stress this before moving on to BuzzFeed's statement.
If people are getting laid off, and you say, hey, we need severance packages if we get laid off.
They need to get money from somewhere to pay for that severance package.
What don't you understand?
So what they'll do is, if I'm gonna have to pay you $70,000 a year, how about we fire you now with, you know, a month and a half of severance, so you're gonna get, you know, five grand or so, or, you know, six grand or whatever.
And then, that extra 60 or so whatever after, you know, minus the taxes we save, we can use to pay for the severance packages of everybody else.
Get it?
It means they will, yes, lay somebody off.
Maybe that somebody will be you!
But anyway, people don't seem to understand that money is finite, and if your business isn't making money, you know.
So let's look at this.
This is the BuzzFeedNewsUnion.com slash blog.
I'm assuming it's the BuzzFeed Union.
Maybe it's not, but it makes sense that it is.
They say, seven things you definitely want to know about the BuzzFeed News Union.
Oh, that's so funny, you made a listicle.
They say, what is the union?
We are you.
You are us.
We join together to fight for a contract that ensures better, more equitable workplace conditions.
After months of identifying our grievances and goals, more than 90% of newsroom staffers from all US bureaus signed the union cards.
I would definitely be in the 10%.
I'd be like, never gonna happen.
And I would actually, here's my thing.
I don't want to be a part of a union.
I've never wanted to be a part of a union.
I have no problem with unions.
I think they're very... I do have some problems with unions.
I'm sorry.
I think collective bargaining is great, and I think people coming together to make demands is awesome.
I'm not interested.
That's fine.
I'll just leave.
That's just me.
That's just me.
I'm not saying you shouldn't.
I will say that there are certain stupid rules in federal law about what unions can or can't do, which I always found nonsensical.
If I'm going to leave, I'll leave.
But personally, the unions I've been forced to join, because, you know, some jobs I worked at, you have to.
If you don't join the union, you literally can't get the job.
I think that's BS.
I was forced to, and then I wasn't able to get promotions or raises because of union contracts.
Gee, that's fun.
So I worked my ass off, and I saw other people not working their ass off, and then I said, man, that's not fair.
I'm working harder than them.
Don't I have an opportunity to move up?
And the management said, no, because union contracts forbid it.
What?
And then they said, that person who's not working, it has seniority over you.
So they get benefits.
I'm like, but they're not doing, they're making work harder.
I didn't like it.
So I said, why can't I just leave and not be a part of this union?
They said, this union contract, everyone's got to be a part of it.
I said, I quit.
I don't want to be involved in that stuff.
You can, if it works for you, that's fine.
But I don't like the idea of being forced to do it.
So, no.
They say we are you, you are us.
I get it.
No, I am not you.
And many people are not you.
What do we want?
We want an inclusive contract that covers all non-managerial editorial staff.
This is a media industry standard called an editorial unit.
Within the unit, we'll also argue that certain titles should be included, but if our union is only made up of specific titles, instead of recognized as a whole, management can exclude people from the union by changing titles or adding new ones over time.
Yeah, no matter what they can do, they can always make you a manager, and then you are no longer in the union.
We want people to be able to change jobs, collaborate, and experiment without jeopardizing their union protection.
But that's fine.
I can agree with that.
They go on to say that certain things are being held up because, you know, BuzzFeed doesn't want to recognize certain shows.
So let's look at this.
Oh, oh, this is from, uh, we got stood up.
They're mad about that.
Well, they're gonna do a walkout, but let's read this.
What's happening now?
This is from April.
After abruptly canceling our last session, management has agreed to meet with us Monday at 2 PM.
We're ready to make progress.
Who has the power to recognize us?
Apparently, uh, it looks like Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News.
Why is this important?
Well, they say the sooner we're recognized, the sooner we can get to working on a contract that improves our working conditions, which I believe you deserve good working conditions.
One that guarantees due process during terminations, 100% agree, that should be granted, and I believe that's a great thing to be arguing for.
A diverse newsroom.
I don't know what that means, or what you're asking for, because I'm pretty sure BuzzFeed does that.
I don't know, maybe there's something contract specific.
And I can agree with this as well.
There is a means to do that.
It's called going to your boss and saying, I want more money.
And when they say, we're not going to give you more money, you say, I quit.
That's it.
That's how business works.
Like, I don't understand.
I think one of the problems with, like, um, one of the big differences between the left and the right is that many people on the left are reliant on collective power, whereas many people on the right rely on personal responsibility.
So, I'm kind of a weird, like, hybrid position, and my politics are probably reflected in this, in that I believe in a lot of collective policy, for sure, but I'm very, very much so for myself, want to be left alone.
So let me tell you what I do.
Let me give you all a lesson.
How to get a raise.
You want to get a raise at work?
Here's what you do.
Let's say you work at McDonald's.
And they're paying you 10 bucks an hour.
And you want more money.
Start applying to Burger King and Wendy's.
You know, I'm using these businesses as an example of comparable industries.
Apply to Burger King and say, I must get $12 an hour.
And if they say no, have a nice day.
You still got your job at McDonald's.
Go to Wendy's, I want $12 an hour.
They say yes, there you go.
Now you go to your boss at McDonald's and say, I want a raise of $12 an hour.
And if they say we can't do it, say, I got an offer to work at Wendy's at $12 an hour and I'll take it.
And if they say, I'm sorry we can't give you the raise, well then go work for Wendy's at the higher salary.
But I tell you what, it's very likely they'll say, okay, we'll match it.
They might try and call your bluff.
Be prepared for it.
It's really, really simple.
Here's what I tell people.
Let's say you have a career.
You have a good job.
Let's say McDonald's calls you right now.
And I mean no disrespect to McDonald's.
I actually think Burger King is worse than McDonald's.
Let's say McDonald's called you right now.
Your phone rang and it says McDonald's.
You're like, what the hell is this?
And a guy says, John, I want you to work here starting tomorrow.
What do you say?
Yes or no?
Most... Well, I'll give you a second answer.
Okay.
Most people say, no, of course, I don't want to work at McDonald's, I'm not gonna do that.
Let me first start by saying, if you need a job, you need a job, take the job.
But more importantly, the correct response is not yes or no, it's how much?
You then... You say, I want a million dollars, right?
So if McDonald's called me right now and said, we want you to work the register, I'd say, okay, give me a million dollars and I'll work for a month.
I want a million dollars for one month.
Then McDonald's says, that's insane, why would we pay you that?
Because I don't want to work there, and I don't need to work there, and if that's what you've got to pay me to get me to work there.
So I had a friend who wanted to get a job at a media company.
Well, he kind of did.
He wanted a job.
And they offered him something like 60.
And he said, I'm not going to take it.
It's too low.
I'm going to say no.
And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Don't say no.
What do you want?
He's like, eh, I don't think I want it.
I said, would you take the job for 90?
No, not really.
Would you take the job for 120?
OK, 120 I would do.
I said, great.
Email him that.
But they're going to say no.
And I'm like, great.
Then you don't take a job you didn't want in the first place.
And he's like, oh, good point.
So this is the way I view, you know, media.
If I'm getting paid unfairly, you know what I did?
I was at Vice and I said, here's what I want.
They said, we'll give it to you and we'll pay you X. And I said, great.
And then I didn't get what I wanted.
So I met with the bosses and said, I'm not getting what I wanted.
You agreed to this for that.
And they said, we'll take care of it.
And I said, okay.
They didn't take care of it.
So I went back in and said, it wasn't taken care of.
This is now the second time I'm coming in.
I want changes today or I'm done.
And they said, changes will be in effect immediately.
And then after the third time, where I said, the pay raise came in, I'm still not getting everything I asked for when I'm coming in, I'm quitting, they said, I'm sorry, have a nice day.
And I left.
That was it.
End of story.
That's what I do.
But I guess a lot of people don't want to do that, so when they have problems, instead of talking to their boss saying, here's my problem, they go and just complain to their friends?
Look, I'm not gonna rag on you if you want to and you think you deserve it, but I'll end by saying this, BuzzFeed doesn't have the money.
They're laying people off, They're gonna lay more people off.
I guarantee it.
I'll take that guarantee, right?
I would make that bet.
Of course, I think I could be wrong, but yeah, I'd be willing to take that bet.
So anyway, stick around.
More segments to come, and I will see you in a few minutes.
Did you know that Donald Trump has frequently called for it to be illegal to burn the American flag?
The first story, from the Daily Wire, Trump endorses amendment that would let Congress prohibit flag burning.
However, I believe it was ruled officially in like 89, flag burning is protected speech.
This would be an amendment that would allow them to specifically prohibit the burning of the flag.
The idea being, it's my understanding, that while they will still consider it a form of expression, they will specifically prohibit flag burning and nothing else.
But let's read and figure out what this actually is.
And then we also have some, in my opinion, questionable comments from Candace Owens, which we'll go through.
On Friday, Reps Steve Womack and Steve Daines introduced a constitutional amendment to give Congress the authority to prohibit burning the American flag, which I really doubt will ever pass, but let's read on.
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds in each house concurring therein, that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of several states within seven years, after the date of its submission and for ratification.
Excuse me.
The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the U.S.
Both Womack and Danes issued press releases regarding the proposed amendment.
Womack stated, our flag is more than a cloth painted red, white, and blue.
It is a symbol of worldwide freedom, unity, and liberty.
I agree with that, but I also recognize that some people don't take kindly to what the flag
represents because we do have enemies in this country.
It has guided troops into battle, yes, flown during our triumphs and challenges, absolutely, and has placed over the caskets of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.
Generations have fought to defend our stars and stripes, and the American people have simply given too much for the flag to not have the ability to protect it.
I have tremendous respect for this country and its flag.
I also have criticisms for this country.
And what the flag represents, but for the most part, I believe in respecting the flag.
The flag should not touch the ground, it should be folded properly, and it represents something incredible.
Throughout the thousands, tens of thousands of years of human history, we have made a pretty damn awesome place.
And we have brought about civil liberties for so many groups that couldn't have it in the past.
I understand this coming from my family, what it means, because I get, you know, listen, Maybe for people who aren't of dual ethnicities or various heritages, I am a person of diverse genetic and ethnic heritage.
And in a lot of countries in this world, that's really bad.
It is.
And people don't like that.
It's impure.
America is very, very different in that I can do whatever I want.
I'm a full citizen with full rights.
America's on awesome things.
And that flag means a lot to me.
Because I've been to countries where they would do bad things to me if they found out who my parents were, right?
So, there are still many countries in this world who are very backwards.
America's on a damn good job.
They're going to say that Daines made a similar comment, adding that our nation should always render the flag the honor and dignity it is due.
Several veterans organizations have endorsed the proposal, including the American Legion of Montana and the Department of Montana Veterans of Foreign Wars.
On Saturday, Trump himself, a full-throated endorsement in a tweet, saying that he wants an amendment for a strong ban on burning the flag, a no-brainer.
They go on to say, however, although the tweet is approximately 70,000, quote, likes, as of publication, numerous Twitter users excorcheted the president for his support of the proposed amendment.
Jeffrey Gooderman, a psychologist and self-described ardent critic of Trump, linked a clip from a 2012 interview in which the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that flag burning was indeed a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
And I have a tremendous respect for Scalia's statement when he said, if I were king, I would jail all the bearded hippie weirdos whatever.
But I am not.
And they have a First Amendment that protects them.
And that is a tremendous statement.
So he said something like... Okay, here's what he said.
If I were king, I would not allow people to go about burning the American flag.
However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged.
And it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government.
That was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.
Burning the flag is a form of expression.
Speech doesn't just mean written words or oral words.
It could be semaphore.
Burning a flag is a symbol that expresses an idea.
I hate the government.
The government is unjust.
Whatever.
I will say this.
I've absolutely no problem with restricting burning in certain circumstances because you don't want someone to light a fire and start a bigger fire, you know what I mean?
So, it's not absolute.
In my opinion, Trump is wrong, as is Candace Owens, and she tweeted about, you know, wanting to take away citizenship, which Trump has tweeted something to the effect as well.
I'll say this.
I think there's reasonable restrictions on burning a flag for fire safety reasons, and if done properly in the right way, you should be able to burn the flag.
There seriously are issues of people playing with fire that we won't take into consideration, because that is very different from yelling things.
And that's true for, like, any other kind of expression.
If you want to get a big sign with poles on it, and they say, look man, you can't have the pole because the pole could turn into a weapon, that I can understand.
The Daily Wire goes on to talk about the ruling in which the majority opinion for Texas v. Johnson, Justice Brennan, wrote that, you know, flag burning is essentially protected.
Justice Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, they say that the Daily Wire reached out to Womack and Danes for comment, but didn't get anything.
But I want to do this.
Let's jump over to Candace Owens, who tweeted, If I were president, the punishment for burning the U.S.
flag would be the renunciation of citizenship.
No jail time, no fine.
Simply one year to liquidate your assets and get the hell out of our country.
In exchange, we'd extend citizenship to a hard-working legal immigrant.
And surprise, surprise, basically everyone disagrees.
There are a lot of people who agree with her.
I tweeted in staunch disagreement, and I lost like 50 followers.
Out of 336,000, that's pretty good odds.
That's pretty good numbers.
Right?
Most people agree.
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
In fact, I will say I am personally disgusted by those who would desecrate the flag.
I take great pride and it is an honor to be in a country of such success and progress.
So, when it comes to historical ideas and, you know, items and stories and history, things that represent where we came from, I really, really value these things.
Ancient history is very important.
The burning of the Library of Alexandria is a curse upon this world.
The knowledge that we lost.
So when I see someone desecrate the flag, it's offensive.
I'm like, listen, man.
That represents the success and the progress we've made as a country.
Burning the flag also represents another bit of that success.
Again, with recognition for the potential for fire hazards.
When I see protesters burn that flag, I laugh.
Right?
It makes me not like the person.
Like, you know what, man?
I get it.
I'm not gonna hate someone for doing it, but it does give me a sour taste.
But I do see that, and it represents the fact that we do not live in a tyrannical dictatorship.
It means that we have succeeded, and we have found true liberty.
That you can point to whatever politician, whatever symbol, and tell them to go F themselves.
And that means a lot, because there are countries that would chop your head off for doing something like this, but America is not one of them.
In America, we can say screw you to anybody, and you can't do anything about it, and that should be protected.
As much as I don't like the idea of desecrating symbols that represent progress and, you know, unity and things like that, and that's how I see the flag.
I fully recognize there are people Who the US has caused problems for.
Obama flew drones over foreign countries and bombed children.
So certainly people will see that flag as a sign of oppression.
I can respect that, understand that.
But I disagree with judging us by our worst, and we need to strive to oust the authoritarian dictators The militaristic, whatever you want to call them, who want to drop bombs on foreign countries for no reason will run at war with them.
I disagree with that.
Trump gets no special favor from me when he does commando raids in Yemen and works outside of Arabia and drone strikes continue.
And he gets no favor from me when, um, I don't know if the story pulled up, but he's called for, um, removing citizenship as a potential ramification of burning the flag in the past.
So, no.
No.
You don't get to complain about censorship of conservatives.
Oh, there was another tweet from Candace that I don't think I've pulled up.
You don't get to complain, there we go, here it is.
You don't get to complain about censorship of conservatives, but then get angry that activists who don't like you burn your symbols.
That, burning of that symbol should make you, should make, give you a sense of pride to a certain degree.
It reminds me of that episode of Futurama, and this one's really sad to me because I feel like the left has lost their way.
In an episode of Futurama...
If you're not familiar with the show, there's an alien guy named Zoidberg.
It's Freedom Day here in future, you know, year 3000, and Zoidberg eats the Earthican flag.
It's basically the American flag, with instead of stars, an Earth.
Everybody gets angry.
Everybody!
How dare you!
And they chase him off, and he says he ate it as a symbol.
He ate it because eating it represents the freedom of the flag itself.
And there's one guy who is all of the worst things in the world, his lawyer, he sacrificed life and limb, or limb, and risked his life in wars defending Earth, and defends Zoiberg's right to eat the flag, making the point that he's right.
You know, eating the flag is another symbol that represents the freedom of that flag.
And the guy is like, he's like a polygamist.
So no matter what he says, everyone hates him.
But I'm reminded of that.
And I'm reminded of when mainstream liberals were very much like, yes, we understand this.
We don't like it.
We get it.
And now where are we?
The regressive left trying to censor speech because it offends them.
Well, you know what?
I'm offended when someone burns the flag.
Admittedly, I don't go into a rage or anything.
I'm kind of a tepid individual, as most of you know, but I'm like, oh man, like, you know, I just don't like the idea.
I don't.
But you know what?
You have a right to do it.
You do.
And so I'll disagree with that, and I'll say, yeah, but you know what?
That's freedom.
And that's a good thing.
Candace Owens also tweeted, 1A has limitations.
You can't yell fire in a movie theater without consequence.
You cannot yell racial epithets at someone without consequence.
And if I were president, you sure as hell wouldn't burn a flag without consequence.
What?
Check this out.
Ethan Supley, the actor, this is great.
He says, we get it.
You're against free speech and would like more regulation.
Understood.
Spot on.
This is, I can't believe that Candace Owens tweeted this.
The first one seems like, I don't know, can like just plant up to Trump supporters, whatever, because Trump said it, but a lot of Trump supporters were like, no, no, no, no, bad take.
This tweet is quite literally the regressive left argument.
And I was shocked to see Candace Owens tweeting this, and I'm like, well, okay, Candace, that's, no, that's what the left argues.
Consequence.
Literally everything you do has a consequence.
Okay, so when Haley said, you can't do X without a consequence, yeah, you can't literally walk outside without a consequence.
It might rain on you, a bird might poop on you, you might get hit by a car.
Yes, things happen when you do things.
Okay?
Apparently, and I was educated by you guys, you can yell fire in a movie theater.
You can.
It was actually a court ruling, I tweeted out the Wikipedia link to it, where they said that because it doesn't create the potential for direct harm, you can do it.
But here's the thing too, yelling fire in a movie theater is...
It's now a reference to incitement.
So while the specific example doesn't make sense anymore, it's used as more of like an idiom, I suppose.
But I will say this.
Candace is wrong.
Trump is wrong.
I can certainly understand the sentiment of not wanting someone to burn the flag, but no, you have a right to do it.
And admittedly, I also understand why you don't want hate speech.
I detest hate speech.
Hate speech exists.
It's a real thing, you know.
Crowder has the change my mind.
Hate speech isn't real.
Change my mind.
Well, I see what you're saying.
In a legal standard, it's not real, but it can be defined as speech targeting, you know, specific, you know, various groups based on certain characteristics to demean, belittle, etc.
I don't like the idea that someone would say, this group is like, you know, is this, like an insult.
That doesn't mean you can't say something like, on average, people in, you know, Nordic countries are this height.
That's not hate speech.
Talking about a general, like, ethnic characteristic of the group is not hate speech.
Saying something like, on average, people in Southeast Asia have black hair.
Yes, that's true.
Okay, that's not hate speech.
But saying something like, all people are X, and X is some kind of insult, like all of group X are, you know, morons!
I hate it.
I don't like it.
It doesn't help.
You have a right to say it.
You have a right to say your stupid things.
Everybody does.
You have a right to be dumb, you have a right to be crazy.
That's just life.
So, no, I don't agree with Candace, I don't agree with Trump.
You can burn the flag as much as I don't like it, I recognize what it represents, and I like what it represents.
So it's a paradoxical emotion, I would say.
Because at the same time, you are destroying a symbol of something I appreciate, while creating a symbol of something I also appreciate.
So...
It kinda leaves me in a tepid position where I say, you know what?
Let's just defend expression.
And let's keep in mind that anybody who wants to say they should be allowed to burn the flag, but other people shouldn't be allowed to speak, are hypocrites.
And conversely, I don't admittedly follow Candace all that often, but if you're gonna complain about conservative censorship, but then say that no one should be allowed to burn the flag, nah, I'm not playing that game, okay?
You're wrong.
I'll leave it there.
I like that comment from Ethan Supley, though.
I got one more story coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you shortly.
I believe this may be the first time I've ever talked about Taylor Swift, because she's being slammed for doing, uh, they call it pinkwashing.
Pinkwashing is when corporations pretend to support the LGBT community, and everyone thinks it's complete absurdity that no one really believes she cares about any of this.
But I will say this.
There is in fact a rumor that Taylor Swift herself is gay.
Just a rumor.
Don't ask me.
But I think it's interesting because if it's true, and she really does want to like get involved,
and like start talking about this, and they're attacking her for it,
man, that's really sad, isn't it?
Like, you know.
But I don't want to act like she is.
She's notorious for dating dudes, and then like breaking up with them and writing songs about
it.
But this is an interesting story because we often see this.
There's no real way to win, right?
Is it pinkwashing or are you actually supporting them?
Well, no matter what you do, you'll be accused of doing something wrong because, as Obama calls it, Obama calls it a circular firing squad over on the left.
That's what it is.
From the Daily Mail, she's jumping on the queer bandwagon and trying to capitalize off of it.
Music fans blast Taylor Swift for her new Pride-themed anthem and accuse the corporate star of exploiting gay culture for cash.
Yeah, corporations do this, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
Before we get started, though, TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
This is a semi-controversial story, I guess, but it's probably going to be fine.
But if you want to support it, TimCast.com slash donate.
Like, share, subscribe, et cetera, and comment.
The engagement really helps.
But yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let's get back to the story.
Taylor Swift has been hit with backlash following the release of her pro-LGBTQ single, as detractors accuse the corporate pop star of jumping on the queer bandwagon to make a profit.
The track, titled You Need to Calm Down, was released last week to mark Pride Month, and its lyrics positively reference gay activist organization GLAAD.
I actually think that's a really nice line, you know what I mean?
anti-LGBTQ sentiment with the lines, control your urges to scream about all the people you hate
because shade never made anybody less gay.
I actually think it's a really nice line, you know what I mean?
Like, if you want to hate somebody, here's the thing about hate speech, right?
You're allowed to do it.
I don't like it.
But I know you're allowed to do it.
One of the things I hate about it is that if you really have a grievance with somebody over something, articulate it and talk about the actual idea you're upset with.
If you just arbitrarily hate somebody because of their characteristics, well then we're not going to agree.
Plain and simple.
You're allowed to do it.
You're allowed to hate.
So I can like that line, but let's read on.
While fans have been quick to praise Swift for being an ally to the gay community, others are blasting the 29-year-old for what they believe is a cynical exploitation of queer culture.
Swift has been the subject of ire on social media with hundreds of Twitter users hitting out at the new single.
Taylor Swift has never been all loud for the LGBTQIA plus community before, and now suddenly she's doing this?
Another celebrity jumping on the queer bandwagon and trying to capitalize off it one blasted.
We have another one that says, she jumped on the bandwagon of commercializing pride only when it was safe to do so.
Where was she five years ago?
Ten.
No.
Taylor Swift stan owns an album by an LGBT artist or even knows that what GLAAD is.
But now TayTay threw the first brick at Stonewall.
Dear lord.
Like, dude, Twitter is a nightmare.
Good on Taylor Swift.
Like, think about it this way.
Is she not allowed to come out in support of the LGBTQ community at any point now because she didn't do it soon enough?
Maybe she didn't know about it.
Maybe now she's just learning their issues she wants to talk about, and they're attacking her for it.
Why would anyone want to come out for anyone in support of any group if no matter what you do, you get accused of all the wrong things?
Might as well not do it.
But then they attack you for not doing it.
See how this is just insane, isn't it?
Someone said, uh, LMAO I see Taylor Swift is trying to get that corporate pride campaign money.
Another added, uh, so I, okay, I read that.
Other users accused Swift of trying to make a corporate cash grab like the many brands who use pride themed promotions in order to sell their products.
Yup.
Taylor Swift's new single is the corporate rainbow logo of the music world.
I cannot, another stated.
You know what's really funny about, um, I cannot?
Like, the I can't even or I cannot is literally the, um, well, I never of, like, our generation.
It means nothing.
Excuse me.
Last week, Swift surprised fans by performing her hit Shake It Off at the Stonewall Inn, the New York gay bar widely regarded as the birthplace of the current gay rights movement.
Her performance came just weeks before the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in which queer patrons clashed with police officers, setting off widespread protests.
This one person tweeted, Taylor Swift's performance at Stonewall felt so exploitative.
It made me sick.
Marsha is turning in her grave and raising her middle finger at y'all.
There are so many other artists who are fighting for the community.
Don't let these corporate-made exploits represent you.
Wake up, fam.
You, but you, you won!
Like, when you have Taylor Swift, Pepsi, Oreo, and McDonald's cheering you on and changing their logos, you won!
There are still bigots, okay?
There are still people who are homophobic and transphobic and all those things.
And again, I stress, you're allowed to be.
I disagree with it.
I don't, you know, you know what I mean?
But listen, listen.
Progress.
Like gay marriage, Supreme Court, like all of these really great things are happening.
Why are you ragging on Taylor Swift?
Clap!
You did it!
Here's the thing about these, like, activist groups, and not necessarily LGBT, but, like, I worked for non-profits, and whenever there's a mission, the mission can never end, because people's lives are the mission, okay?
So I've talked about the far left, regressive left, whatever, as an autoimmune disorder.
The way to describe it is, there was a time when bigotry was a serious problem.
You know, like, all these different forms of bigotry.
And again, I understand the word bigotry, I know what it means, I'm just using it in this kind of context, represents, like, hate speech and all this stuff.
So these activists said, we're going to stop your discrimination.
And that was a good thing.
And what happens when you do, for the most part, stop the overt discrimination with, like, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and, like, the, you know, Pay Equality Act and things like this?
Well, you won, but the activists who defined their lives fighting for this can't stop because they have nothing else.
So they start attacking healthy cells.
Taylor Swift performing for you and cheering you on is the ultimate symbol of victory.
One of the most famous mainstream pop stars is now cheering for you.
But the fight can't end.
The mission can't be over.
This must be some kind of symbol of hate.
Exploitation.
That's what it is.
Oppressors.
Oppressing us.
No.
You won.
Mainstream society at its highest levels are now supporting you.
Congratulations.
Be happy about it.
You know, it's mind-blowing to me because When I think back to my family and the things they went through with miscegenation laws, today, when I think about commercials with mixed-race families, I'm like, we won.
We really did.
We won.
We have our rights.
We don't have to flee anymore.
I never experienced this.
My ancestors fought hard to make sure I had something they never did, and they did it.
And I will never resent that.
I will be happy about that.
And certainly, there are still people who are angry every time they see that mixed-race couple on TV.
Well, you know what?
I certainly recognize that it is pandering when a lot of corporations do every single commercial about some kind of mixed-race family.
But I laugh about it, you know what I mean?
I'm like, hey man, you know what?
I can criticize the pandering nature of what they're doing, but you know what?
It represents that my family won.
We are safe, we have our rights, marriage, family, two generations of mixed-race families.
We did it.
Why are they getting mad at Taylor Swift?
You did it.
You won.
When YouTube changed their logo to the rainbow flag, there it is.
Could you imagine trying to shut somebody down for calling you gay when you call yourself gay?
Steven Crowder has a compilation of a bunch of things which were disrespectful comments in passing.
And I'm like, whatever.
It's a dude saying mean things.
Welcome to real life.
That's the worst you have now.
And they say, oh, but it makes the, you know, it inspires people to do worse things.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
We won.
Okay.
Like your social justice movement.
You did it.
Taylor Swift is here cheering you on and now you're mad about it.
I don't know what you're on about.
You know what?
Several social media users were less than impressed that Swift, who identifies as straight, would take to the stage at the venue.
What's wrong with that?
However, Swift was joined by openly gay actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson at Stonewall, and he praised the pop star for bringing attention to the issue of gay rights.
Bravo!
He said, I'm so happy I don't have to keep this secret any longer.
Look who came to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Stonewall.
Taylor Swift, you are a gem.
Thank you for everything you do.
And that's the right response.
Glad said, you could be glad with a limited edition sticker invoking Taylor Swift's lyrics from You Need to Calm Down.
They sell out quickly, so reserve yours right now.
That's great.
Glad and Jesse Tyler Ferguson are saying the right thing.
You did it.
You won.
Why would you be mad?
That's really weird, in my opinion.
They say, meanwhile, since the single's debut last Thursday, Glad told NBC News that they had received an influx of donations.
Good news, huh?
You know what?
There are some people who are never happy.
And what the problem is, is on the right, people ignore those who are never happy on the right.
On the left, however, people aren't happy.
They get articles, they get listened to, TV shows get shut down, people lose their jobs.
But listen, if they can't even support their own victory, why would anyone listen to them?
Congratulations, you've got one of the biggest pop stars to perform for you and support your cause.
You've done it.
Is the war over?
No.
But most of it is.
And there's still pockets.
I understand all that.
But there's some people who will never be happy.
This should show us one thing.
When those bad-faith actors start complaining about some TV show or some movie or some offensive joke, they're not being honest.
