Trump Invited Me To The White House Social Media Summit, Here Is Why I Am Attending
Trump Invited Me To The White House Social Media Summit, Here Is Why I Am Attending. In one of the first articles published today about Donald Trump's White House Social Media Summit they claimed that there was no evidence of social media bias against conservatives.WrongAn outright lie or just pure willful ignorance. The first article I show in this video is proof Facebook routinely suppressed conservative news. I am not sure what the event at the White House will entail but I look forward to highlighting the far left and social justice bias held by many people at these companies and try to break down exactly what I think is happening and why.As someone who has been smeared by far left activists and fake news, done extensive research on the subject, as well as someone who has had his work censored on Youtube I believe I will bring an important bit of context to the event and I look forward to participating.Social Media and Big tech giants control a disproportionate amount of space in public discourse and the real issue is not the censorship of conservatives but massive billion dollar companies restricting speech and controlling public opinion.Today its conservatives, tomorrow its the centrists, and then its anyone who opposes the oligarchs.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I'm assuming based on the title of this video and the thumbnail, there are going to be a lot of journalists who are going to check this video to see what I have to say about the upcoming White House Social Media Summit.
Because of that, I want the very first article anyone sees to be this one from Gizmodo.
Former Facebook workers, we routinely suppressed conservative news from May of 2016.
Gizmodo broke the story.
Gizmodo had a former staffer talking about how conservative news was being removed, straight up calling it a bias.
You want to talk about there being no evidence of a bias against conservatives, it was Gizmodo, my understanding, that broke the story.
They say this.
Facebook's news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.
Imposing human editorial values onto the list of topics an algorithm spits out is by no means a bad thing, but it is in stark contrast to the company's claims that the trending module simply lists topics that have recently become popular on Facebook.
Plain and simple, it was about their bias.
And just to make sure you can see that's true, I will show you.
Look, here's a long quote where they say, I'd come on shift and I'd discover that CPAC or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn't be trending because either the curator didn't recognize the news topic or it was likely they had a bias against Ted Cruz.
So let's dispel the myth that there is no evidence I'm still kind of shocked.
I'm kind of in disbelief.
I don't know if it's real.
because the bigger announcement, here's my invite.
I'm still kind of shocked.
I'm kind of in disbelief.
I don't know if it's real.
It's from the White House email.
And I RSVP'd and I contacted a number.
And I'm invited to the White House.
I will be there on Thursday.
You can see here the same as many other people have posted.
I received this in my email, which you can see here.
Dear Mr. Poole, the President requests the pleasure of your company for the Social Media Summit to be held at the White House on Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 3 o'clock Eastern.
Kindly direct any questions to Redacted, the White House.
Now, there have been a lot of articles that have been talking about the Social Media Summit as a far-right troll convention.
I can certainly say there are some people going who are literally trolls.
I think Carpe Danktum is a memesmith, right?
And I know it's kind of a funny word, but it's really what he is.
Carpe Danktum makes memes, and the president likes them.
So my understanding is he's going.
There are other people who make content that are going, and I think, you know, at least as far as it goes with Carpe Donctum, because I don't have a full list of everyone who's going, you could consider him to be a troll.
I'm not saying that to be disrespectful, but he makes content that kind of is meant to incite a reaction, so there's a trollish aspect to it.
But no, but I'll say this, of course there are many people that are being smeared, the media is saying, you know, the tech companies aren't being invited.
I don't necessarily know what's going on.
I know there's going to be a social media summit, that one of the big aspects of it is discussing censorship of conservative voices, and not just conservatives, other people, at least that's what I hope to bring to the event.
So, uh, I was invited.
My intention is to make sure we highlight that the certain individuals on the anti-establishment left who have been censored talk about the sheer amount of evidence proving from a very just like, this is what we have.
Okay.
There is evidence.
I do have a concern that many of the people going are particularly biased in favor of right-wing views and the president himself.
As many of you know, I'm rather tepid on the president because there are some things I
think he's done that are good and some things that are bad, and I've never been a big fan
of his.
So I look forward to being there, and I'm honored, and it is with the utmost respect
I say thank you for the invitation.
I'm going to be, I gotta admit, I'm excited.
It's a big deal.
I want to make sure I can bring, to the best of my ability, a reasonably objective stance and view on what's happening with censorship and why it's happening.
So, there is some fear and some reason to believe that there is an overt effort to subvert the president and change the results of the election because we've seen statements from employees.
We've even seen Sergey Brin in a video published by The Verge, a left-wing source.
A video where he's—actually, it was from Breitbart, but The Verge carried the story, and it was fact.
Sergey Brin says, So the issue is, do I think there are a group of, you know, an evil Silicon Valley cabal twirling their mustache, you know, chuckling about how they're going to take down all the conservatives?
I don't think that's the case.
What I think is happening is these people are far on the left, not necessarily the far left, but they're far left and they have a certain ideology that isn't left or right.
Intersectional ideology, for instance.
They think they're acting In a centrist way.
To give you an example, well, somewhat of an example, I was talking to somebody who was a socialist, an overt socialist, and a far-left activist, who told me they were a centrist.
They're not, by no stretch of the imagination.
Their ideology was intersectional, they believed in overt socialism, and I said, what makes you think that's the center?
It's not.
The center is kind of like, it's like moderate policies, okay?
You can call the Republicans in this country far-right, It doesn't mean that simply because you agree with some things on the right, you're completely right-wing.
A centrist will agree with some left-wing things, some right-wing things, and the center is fairly easy to define.
Center, center-left, center-right.
So, let's read a little bit about what they're saying about the Social Media Summit.
And then, I know I started with overt evidence.
Here, they're doing it.
I've got more evidence about actions being taken by social media companies to their bias.
And kind of just to wrap up the point I was making before, what I think is happening is,
the people at the social media companies think they're the reasonable center
because they're looking at the far left and the center.
And they think that's the left and the right.
Meanwhile, there are conservatives with certain views that are not necessarily that offensive, and possibly even rooted in science, that are being removed.
And there are even liberals who have, you know, views that oppose the intersectional ideology, and these are individuals still on the left, who are also being removed.
So, talking about the bias, I would say we're looking at an ideological bias and a political bias.
But I think these people, like Jack Dorsey, genuinely believe they're not biased.
So to clarify, Jack Dorsey said, when I was on the Joe Rogan podcast, I told him, your rules are biased.
And he said, what?
How?
There's no rule that's biased.
Plain and simple.
The misgendering policy.
The misgendering policy specifically splits the ideology of mainstream America, yes, and I really mean mainstream America, versus the progressive activists.
Because regular Americans don't know anything about the gender debate, for the most part, and conservatives disagree with the use of preferred pronouns.
That is a fairly conservative position, in which case there is a rule specifically saying a behavior primarily held by conservatives cannot be allowed on this platform.
Whether you think that's right or wrong for a private company to do is not the point.
The point is there is a bias.
I want to discuss this and the ramifications, which we'll get into.
Well, read a little bit of this.
And, um, mostly because I want to present actually just one piece of criticism right here, where they say, social media companies have taken steps to curb hate speech perpetuated by members of the far right, including banning prominent internet personalities like Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones, and are taking steps towards annotating particular egregious Trump tweets, though critics believe the companies have not gone far enough.
They then go on to say, There is no evidence that Twitter silences conservatives as the president claims.
Let's be as specific as we can to avoid any hyperbolic decontextualization.
They said, bias silencing conservatives.
Okay, so you may say, Tim, shutting down conservative news isn't silencing conservatives.
It's a news organization.
Sure, we're splitting hairs at this point.
If a conservative writes a news story, and we know from Gizmodo, they've removed them because of their reflecting their biases, as the story says over and over again.
That is specifically going after the conservative reader, as well as the writer.
But let me give you some less, uh, specific examples, which absolutely will fall to, uh, a bias.
Like, so, uh, let me reframe the phrase.
The next story I have is specifically about the Proud Boys and Antifa.
I don't care what your views are on the Proud Boys or Antifa.
I don't care to get into an argument of what's far left versus far right.
Antifa are extremists.
They're as far left as you can go and they use violence.
You want to talk about the Proud Boys?
They have several members have actually been charged for starting a fight with some Antifa individuals in New York City.
They've been labeled and smeared, and I don't care if you like or don't like either group.
I don't care if you want to say the Proud Boys are far right and Antifa is far left, or you want to disagree that either is true.
Many people on the right will say Proud Boys are not far right.
Fine.
That's not the point.
The point is, we had two groups getting into street fights in Portland.
Okay?
We have two groups.
It's not just two, I'm saying.
There are two groups at these events, among others.
Twitter shuts down the accounts of Gavin McInnes and the Proud Boys ahead of the second event in Charlottesville.
Did they shut down Antifa?
The answer is no, they didn't.
And then what happens?
We see here on the Daily Caller's reporting.
Journalist Andy Ngo was attacked at a rally.
Rose City Antifa says that day was a success for the people of Portland.
Let's try and break this down.
Two groups routinely getting into fights.
One is decentralized and one is centralized.
I think it's fair to point out it's easy to get rid of the Proud Boys because they're a centralized organization.
Antifa is harder because they're purposefully, they're intentionally decentralized.
But I think it doesn't matter.
If you're going to get rid of one, get rid of the other, and if you're not going to get rid of one, then don't get rid of the other.
No one, like, the Proud Boys on Twitter who were banned weren't overtly calling for direct action.
Gavin has.
Gavin has crossed the line.
So, because it's a centralized organization, they get rid of him, and everybody who follows him in the Proud Boys, fine.
Antifa is decentralized, but they still advocate violence.
They still fly the banner when they engage in acts of violence.
We can argue all day and night.
You can claim Antifa are the good guys, Proud Boys are the good guys.
That's not the point.
The point is, two groups get into a fight, two groups are known to be involved in these situations, only one group is banned.
This, to many people, says bias, specifically against individuals.
Now I will stress, this one is an interpretable argument, and I'm gonna get people on the left saying that's not true, that's not fair.
Andy Ngo is not a proud boy.
He is a moderate, by most definitions, and he was violently attacked and put in the hospital.
And at this point, many people deleted tweets supporting Antifa, and now we can see something needs to be done.
This group, called Rose City Antifa, has actually been known to dox people.
I can't pull up the article.
Because it contains private information in someone's address.
Rose City Antifa is still active on Twitter.
Now, I don't normally like mentioning accounts, because my intention is not to get this group banned.
If Twitter wants to launch an investigation, fine.
In many circumstances, I have avoided naming specific accounts, like I did on the Joe Rogan podcast.
I refuse to say any names, because then all Twitter will do is say, aha, then we'll go after them.
That's not my intention.
Rose City, however, Needs to be mentioned because the context is relevant.
Andy Ngo was attacked by Antifa in Portland.
What these groups do is claim to be decentralized so that when Antifa physically assaults someone like Andy Ngo, they can claim it wasn't them.
Unfortunately, there were many people in Portland wearing specific Rose City emblems.
Rose City has their own logo for Antifa.
It is a specific cell And while it is technically decentralized, it's only technically decentralized.
If you fly the flag of an extremist group and engage in an act, then that extremist group is implicated.
We can see that many different organizations engaging in this behavior, flying the flag of Antifa, have not been banned by Twitter.
And we can then look at some of the newer rules Twitter is now implementing.
We can look at people like Farrakhan.
Uh, uh, the Minister Farrakhan who has made many offensive statements and hasn't been banned, though he has been banned by Facebook.
It seems more like a PR stunt than anything, but Twitter seems to be very selective in who they get rid of.
For one, there's someone like, you have the problem, the ideological evidence.
So let's do this.
Let's step towards the ideological argument now.
Megan Murphy, a feminist, a gender-critical feminist, I believe is the appropriate phrase they use to describe themselves, tweeted that men aren't women, though, and received a suspension.
When she came back in protest of this, she was banned.
Now, Twitter said to me, on the Joe Rogan podcast, that they did a study and found that there was a high rate of self-harm.
We'll put it there, but, you know, it's more extreme than that.
And thus, they were trying to prevent that.
And I said, Twitter has taken a personal decision based on their opinion of research they believe is correct.
And that implements a rule that shuts down the conversation for many other people.
I understand you're trying to protect people, but where do you draw the line and why?
Will you then say that anybody who is rude to people who are otherkin or trans species should be banned?
They don't.
And they have their own personal justification, which may or may not be correct.
I don't know.
It's their opinion.
That's the point.
But let's break this down to an even simpler ideological statement.
If conservatives believe you have a right to express yourself even if it's offensive, then the hate speech rules are specifically biased against conservatives.
There's a saying.
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
And there are many people who engage in overt acts of hate speech to prove a point.
I'm reminded, as I've mentioned in many videos, the episode of Futurama.
If you're not familiar, it's a sci-fi cartoon from, you know, the 2000s.
Zoidberg is an alien who eats the Earthican flag to make a statement.
He desecrates the flag as a symbol of the freedom it represents.
That would be akin to someone going on Twitter saying something egregiously offensive as a statement in favor of free speech, not actually in favor of what they're saying.
You see what I'm trying to say?
It's conflicting.
The point is...
If conservatives believe they have a right to be offensive and free speech protects hate speech, Twitter is taking a stance primarily against conservatives.
So let's take a look at some more evidence that I have.
First, Jack Dorsey said he was way- the company was probably way too aggressive in banning right-wing activists.
This is The Independent, by no means a conservative outlet.
Jack Dorsey from The Hill.
Conservative employees don't feel safe to express their opinions.
By no means a conservative outlet.
And I defer again to the original source.
These are just the few handful I've pulled up.
Former Facebook workers, we routinely suppressed conservative news.
If your employees are scared to speak, if you admit to being too aggressive, if former employees have routinely said they suppress conservative news, if even recently a whistleblower came out to Project Veritas saying, it's true, to another whistleblower from Pinterest saying, it's true.
And then, YouTube takes down my video commenting on publicly available information.
So let's get to the point about what I really want to stress here.
Recently, YouTube told me they concluded their investigation into a commentary video I did on publicly available information.
Project Veritas released a report where they had several names Of which, these messages that had people's names in it were talking about censorship.
Veritas determined the names were newsworthy.
That's their editorial decision, not mine.
I decided to comment on the story, information that was already in the public, that was linked to by many high-profile mainstream news organizations referencing the story.
YouTube deleted my video without chance for appeal, and without even the opportunity to blur out the individual's name.
When you engage in an act on YouTube, that could be considered a privacy violation.
Standard action is for YouTube to say, your video is now private by force.
If you blur the name, you can reinstate it.
I did not get that option.
That was not given to me.
For some reason, they just outright removed the video with no chance of appeal.
So I contacted people I know at Google and Creator Support, and I demanded the video be reinstated as it was publicly available information.
They refused and said it was a privacy violation.
How?
How is it that other news organizations are allowed to publish names, but in this one specific instance, I wasn't allowed to?
More importantly, I had recently done a report revealing the identity of a left-wing activist that works as a journalist who got, in my opinion, a Proud Boy banned from a bank.
I believe the facts support that to be the case, but the email showed their name, and the email showed how they insinuated that a bank account was supporting a right-wing group by providing them basic financial services.
I needed to publish their name to prove the individual had called for censorship and was biased in favor of the left.
YouTube took no action against me.
YouTube thought this was an appropriate act of journalism.
But when it came to the Silicon Valley story that proved censorship, that video got removed, as did James O'Keefe's video.
Strange, isn't it?
That I can challenge a left-wing activist in a different industry, banking, and YouTube had no problem with it.
But when it came to people close to Silicon Valley, all of a sudden this was egregious.
Now here's what I think.
Again, I don't think there is a cabal of left-wing activists conspiring to shut down Trump, and I don't necessarily even think it's about Supporting left-wing ideology entirely.
What I think it is, individuals like Jack Dorsey, who are on the far left and don't know.
They're in a bubble, so they think they're regular, you know, moderates.
They're not.
And they look at a conservative as far right.
They call conservatives far right.
And so then they say, oh, we can get rid of them because they're fringe, when they're not.
They represent the opinions of half the country.
They don't realize they're in a bubble.
The reason why I think YouTube took down my video on Pinterest is less about political bias and more about personal bias.
Someone, I received information following this incident, That apparently people at Google know a lot about the woman in question who was named in my video.
More than I would expect them to know or care about.
I believe this was action taken to personally benefit a friend or connection in Silicon Valley.
That's my opinion.
When I spoke to somebody, they gave me information they shouldn't have had.
Personal information about the individual and then tried walking it back.
So this says to me that in the instance of censorship with Pinterest, this was specifically, I believe, someone at Pinterest reached out and action was taken to benefit this organization on a personal level.
In the end, we have a sector of the economy, the tech sector, groups that control a large portion of our public discourse, that are biased to the left, not realizing it, and then imposing rules that will shut down conservatives.
But there's one last thing I want to show you in reference to the dangers of what's happening with social media.
We saw this story not too long ago.
YouTube debuts plan to promote and fund authoritative news.
And do you know what that means?
It means CNN.
It means Fox News.
And it certainly doesn't mean me.
What you're seeing here is public information.
Recently, David Pakman of The David Pakman Show published a bit of this information showing that in the last few months, Project Vertas was right.
Their interview was correct.
And here's the publicly available data to prove it.
First, we've got here on this list TimCast, The Rubin Report, The David Pakman Show, Steven Crowder, my main channel, this one, Tim Pool, Vox, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News.
These are just a few channels I pulled up specifically to highlight a point.
Right here we can see, around May 1st, something happened.
There's a blank spot.
Here's Fox News, receiving around 3% of suggested views.
After May 1st, it spikes to around 20%.
CNN, with an average of around 2 or so percent, maybe 3 or 4, we can see it fluctuate from 4 to 8, 5%, etc.
Now peaking around 16.5%, you can see the increase.
You can see for MSNBC, there were some spikes here and there, but it is generally up following May 1st.
We can then see TimCast.
See all these down here?
Getting around, you know, .3 to 1%, now zero following May 1st.
Zero for my second channel.
The Rhythm Report peaking at 1.93, now .04.
point nine three now point zero four the David Pakman show peaking at one one
point nine six now point zero three Steven Crowder the same thing from
nearly three percent two point zero three My main channel, from 2.81 peak down to .09.
Vox seemingly consistent, meaning Vox likely hasn't had any real changes, though they did peak here initially.
They look to be doing kind of okay, maybe even a little up.
But with Fox News, it's obvious.
Now Fox News is, you know, boosting Fox News and CNN shows, it's not necessarily political.
It's class-based.
The independent channels are being shot down and the mainstream channels are being propped up.
This is a problem for Donald Trump.
It is.
It's a problem for general conservatives in that much of the news is left-leaning.
Period.
The channels that are either center-right or right are mostly on YouTube and are mostly independent.
When you look at any political bubble, like, you know, buildup of YouTube channels, political bias, the mainstream channels skew left and the independent channels skew right.
If independent channels are getting shot down, even if Fox News is getting a big boost, it's still bad for everybody.
Now, here's why I think Fox News has the biggest increase compared to CNN and MSNBC.
As I just mentioned, many of the independent channels are conservative.
When most of the independent channels get shot down, the stories they talk about are similar to what Fox News talks about.
So Fox News sees a larger increase in viewership because most YouTube channels are going to be centrist to right-leaning.
There are left-wing channels, that's why I included David Pakman, that are being impacted by this.
That means that, in the end, the independent ecosystem that allows Trump, you know, his supporters to speak, is being shut down.
When conservatives are getting silenced, as per all of these different sources, from Gizmodo to The Independent to The Hill, and then we can see that independent channels that are typically in favor of Trump, I'm not necessarily, that's going to hurt the president, it's going to hurt the conservatives, and it's going to be detrimental to Trump's re-election campaign.
If that's something that the government should be involved in, I don't know necessarily, but I do know there's going to be a summit to talk about the ramifications.
My interests are in no way anything to do with Trump, the Republicans, conservatives.
It has to do with freedom and the right to free expression.
It has to do with stopping a handful of massive multinational corporations with a political bias from taking over the public space and imposing their opinions on others.
It doesn't matter if you think Twitter's rules are right or wrong.
It matters that no one elected Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey to determine what should or shouldn't be allowed in public speech.
Earlier today we learned Trump lost a lawsuit, meaning he is not allowed to block people on Twitter because he is creating a public forum.
If that's to be the case, then I will absolutely This is an issue of protesting massive multinational corporations that don't have our interests at heart.
And I'll end by saying one ridiculous thing.
Recently, there was a protest in D.C.
from conservatives who said Big Tech was censoring them.
what the president has to say and interacting with him.
This is an issue of protesting massive multinational corporations that don't have our interests
at heart.
And I'll end by saying one ridiculous thing.
Recently, there was a protest in DC from conservatives who said Big Tech was censoring them, and
for some reason a bunch of far-left activists were protesting against that.
It doesn't matter what you think of the opinions of conservatives.
They were protesting massive corporations restricting speech.
They were protesting private authoritarianism.
Techno-fascism.
And the left came out to protest American citizens?
I'm confused by that.
I will see you all in D.C.
at the White House Summit.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I will see you all in the next segment.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews at 6 p.m.
But, looks like they're not recommending it anyway.
I'll see you all next time.
For the second time, a rainbow flag has been set on fire and thrown in front of a gay bar in New York.
It's now being investigated as a hate crime.
And this brings us to a very interesting political conundrum.
A doozy, if you would.
Because the conversation that's been happening over the past week or so around flag burning involves the American flag versus the Pride flag.
Burning the American flag is legal free expression.
I believe you have a right to burn a symbol of something you oppose.
However, it is not a hate crime to burn the American flag.
It's legal and protected.
We then come to a problem, a conundrum, if you will, that some symbols are protected classes.
Well, that can only lead to some dangerous circumstances, especially when some symbols may be associated with a protected class are actually overtly political.
Take for instance, like the Islamic symbol, the symbol of Islam, the crescent, the moon and the star.
I'm not sure exactly, you know, if that's the right way to describe what it is,
but many countries have that symbol on their flag.
If somebody opposed Islam or Christianity and destroyed a symbol,
that would also, yes, be considered a hate crime.
Even though some governments are built around some religions.
It becomes a really interesting, I don't know, kind of conversation.
Is burning the American flag a symbol of opposing Christianity?
It's not.
But what if someone put a cross on the American flag?
This is where it gets really confusing, and I think the big problem here is, one thing I've said time and time again, I'll say for the 50 billionth time, The more classes you try to protect, the less you actually protect people.
Because you're creating, well you're quite literally creating protected classes of people, and when it comes to a point where that class doesn't need protection and actually can become oppressive, That's where things get disconcerting.
I'm not going to claim... I'm not claiming the LGBT community is oppressing anybody, okay?
You can make the argument fine, whatever.
I'm saying that when you have, like, the government of Turkey, right, which has the crescent and the star on it, could you not burn that flag in the United States?
You probably can't.
So what if you're a refugee from Turkey for some reason and you said, I want to burn this symbol of the nation?
Unfortunately, it contains a religious symbol.
Confusing!
It's a philosophical, ethical, moral, and legal conundrum, I'll say that.
But let's read the story, see exactly what happened, and then I've got some examples of how this is...
Confusing?
I guess?
So here's the story.
Rainbow flag again set on fire at New York gay bar.
Alibi Lounge owner Alexi Minko said staff members alerted by someone on the street found the flag had been set aflame between 12 20 a.m.
and 12 45.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I believe the reason the pride flag was burned was in response to the American flag being burned at recent protests and the conversation about the legal right to do so.
Many people have responded to me on Twitter saying something like, if you burn the American flag, fine, you're allowed to do it, but don't be surprised when someone punches you in the face, you'll, you know, or whatever, you'll get what you deserve.
No.
Wrong.
Completely disagree.
You have a right to express yourself, okay, within certain, within the realm of safety, I should say.
Flag burning to me is interesting because while it is protected speech, that's what the Supreme Court ruled, that's still a potential fire hazard.
So in many circumstances, the police have forced people not to burn a flag or to put it out because while your speech is protected, your right to burning things in the street is not.
Okay, well, let's read on.
They say, New York.
A rainbow flag was set on fire at the entrance of a New York City gay bar on Monday, the second such incident at the same club in just over a month.
I read this part already.
They found the flag at 12.20 to 12 a.m.
Okay, they say, New York City police were already investigating a possible anti-gay bias crime after rainbow flags at the Harlem bar's entrance were torched just after midnight, May 31st, a day before the start of the city's Pride Month celebrations.
I have to say that what I find odd was the timing of both events, Minko said.
One was at the beginning of Pride, and one was right at the end.
One has to wonder if there's a kind of message they're trying to send.
No injuries were reported in either incident.
Minko told the Associated Press that a staff member also had to remove the rainbow flags from the bar's entrance on July 4th, because people on the street were intentionally setting off firecrackers at the front door.
Besides that, he said, the club hadn't received any other threats during or after Pride month.
Monday's flag burning is also being investigated as a possible hate crime, and no suspects have yet been identified, a New York City police spokesman said.
Minkow said staff members didn't catch a glimpse of a potential suspect, but the building's landlord has cameras trained on the bar's front door.
Business at Alibi Lounge, which bills itself as the city's only black-owned gay lounge, is typically slow on Sunday nights.
Minkow hadn't expected the flag burning to happen again after police released surveillance video of the suspect in the May 31st incident.
Officers regularly surveilled the establishment after that, and had even stopped by Saturday night, he said.
Second time around, I'm really kind of in shock, I have to admit.
So, investigate is a hate crime.
And I asked on Twitter, I said, how is this a hate crime?
It's someone burning a flag.
And I guess, from a legal point, I was wrong to even imply it wasn't.
So, I mean, it was a genuine question.
How is this a hate crime?
Some people informed me of the law.
In fact, there are certain rulings that trying to intimidate a protected class is considered a hate crime, so if you burn that flag, you can get charged with that.
Which, to me, is kind of crazy.
Right?
It's, look.
There's littering laws, there's, you know, like, lighting an unpermitted fire or whatever laws, like I mentioned early on.
But burning a symbol and throwing it at someone, to me, it's kind of getting into murky territory.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, lighting a flag and, like, throwing it in the street.
So, sure, you're trying to intimidate somebody, but why should that be any different from burning an American flag and throwing a VFW or something?
Why is one protected speech and one not protected speech?
I think we're looking at a potential Supreme Court ruling.
I mean, what I mean to say is, if this guy gets caught and charged with a hate crime, I wouldn't be surprised if it goes pretty far and there's lawsuits because he says, you can burn the American flag, but you can't burn a rainbow flag.
Is the rainbow flag, you know, universally accepted as a symbol of a protected class, or is it burning a rainbow?
You know, where's the line?
So here's the thing, here's what I want to show.
This is a story from April 12, 2019.
Mississippi man pleads guilty to federal hate crime for cross-burning.
But let's look at the context of this.
A seminary Mississippi man pleaded guilty to federal charges that he burned a cross in an African-American neighborhood in 2017 to scare and intimidate residents.
Louis Bernard Revett 37 pleaded guilty to one count of interference with housing rights, a federal civil rights violation, and one count of using fire during the commission of a federal felony.
So there's your, you know, your fire crime.
But apparently this guy went into someone's neighborhood and burned a cross.
I think if you're going to start a fire, a potential hazard, then yeah, it should be a crime.
But it's, you know, well, let's read a little bit and see if we can find any differences.
The defendant's racially motivated actions sought to threaten and intimidate the peaceful residents of this community, said Assistant Attorney Eric Draband of the Civil Rights Division in a news release.
The Department of Justice will not tolerate abhorrent and hateful acts of intimidation And we will continue to prosecute anyone who commits a hate crime to the fullest extent of the law.
In his plea, Revett admitted that he traveled to what he knew to be a predominantly African-American residential area of Seminary, Mississippi.
He admitted that he left the area, later recruiting a co-conspirator to build a cross to burn near the home of a juvenile victim, identified as M.H.
Revett and the co-conspirator constructed the cross using materials from, in, and around Revett's residence, placed the cross near M.H.' 's home, and lit it on fire.
Revett further admitted that he built and burned the cross to threaten, frighten, and intimidate MH and other African-American residents because of their race and color.
So one of the challenging things with the pride flag burning as opposed to this is Does it mean anything historically to burn a flag?
Now, when it comes to burning crosses, we know where that comes from.
We know that racists and white supremacists would do that.
So if someone does that, well, we understand the context and what people are going to assume by it, and you're not going to be able to argue that wasn't your intention, especially when you travel very far to do it.
Burning a pride flag.
Right now, there's something interesting.
What if this person is caught, and they say they were doing it as a form of protest against those who burned the American flag?
It reminds me of that episode of Futurama.
In Futurama, if you're not familiar with the show, it's made by Matt Groening, the guy from The Simpsons, Zoidberg, an alien, eats the Earthican flag, and everyone gets angry, and they threaten him.
But he says that he was eating the flag as a symbol of the freedom the flag represented.
He then later lights the flag on fire to guide a heat-seeking missile away from, you know, or away from the people.
It's sci-fi.
It's complicated.
But basically, he burns the flag to save the people of Earth, right?
We'll put it that way.
And he says he's not doing it to disrespect the flag.
He is destroying the flag as a symbol of the freedom it represents.
So then we come to an interesting conundrum.
What if someone is staging this not to intimidate people, but to actually make a statement about free speech?
I will say, throwing the flag in front of a gay bar, yeah, you're not going to win that argument.
But I think we have a specific First Amendment and legal conundrum in this regard.
Why should burning a symbol be considered a hate crime?
Now I can, look, you look back at historical context and this makes sense, right?
Burning crosses to scare people and try and drive them out of town and stuff like that.
But that was backed by overt acts of violence.
Burning a flag, is it?
And this is what's very challenging.
Breaking down, quantifying how we determine what is or isn't protected speech is very, very confusing.
I believe this individual will actually have a legal argument to say, how can burning the American flag be free expression, protected speech, but burning a pride flag not be?
They're both literally the same thing.
The only difference is the color of the flags.
You know, what's on the flag.
Now, you might argue the association and the attempt at intimidation, but then would you be able to argue that when someone burns an American flag, they're attempting to threaten and intimidate veterans?
Well, I mean, veterans aren't a protected class, but what about national origin?
National origin is a protected class.
Could you then argue burning an American flag is meant to intimidate people of a specific national origin?
I believe national origin is a protected class.
I could be wrong.
Let's move on to the political ramifications.
So in this story, which I'm not super, you know, I'm not going to read through.
This is from just from yesterday.
UBC barred from Vancouver Pride Parade for hosting controversial speaker.
This is where things become challenging in terms of protected classes and speech.
An event publicly permitted has the legal right to restrict certain political viewpoints or opinions.
But you don't have a right to use the same speech they do back at them, right?
So, to put it simply, if the Pride Parade hosts an event and burns an American flag, well, that's free speech, right?
What if the straight pride event burns a pride flag?
Would that be considered intimidation?
Because now you have a bunch of straight people burning a pride flag?
You've created a societal double standard.
So let me make this clear.
I don't believe people should be going around burning flags.
I don't think the pride flag should be burned.
Especially not thrown in front of a gay bar, because I do think that is...
It's threatening, it is.
I don't know if it should be a crime though.
The challenge here is double standards for political speech.
That's what's disconcerting.
Burning an American flag is okay, burning any other flag isn't?
Where do we draw the line?
Can you not burn the flag of Turkey?
Can you burn the flag of Turkey?
What if someone made an American flag with a rainbow on it and then burned that?
Is that hate speech?
Because you've seen it, right?
They use the rainbow stripes with the blue and the white stars, so it's an American flag with a pride rainbow.
Can you burn that?
I don't know!
And how do you figure it out?
This is the challenge.
So, while I will say, I detest anybody who would seek to threaten, harm, or target protected individuals and certain, you know, marginalized peoples.
But I can also recognize that this may actually go to the Supreme Court to make a decision about flag burning in general.
This might actually result in the right to burn the American flag being revoked in that it's a representation of national origin.
So you can't have a double standard within the civil rights law.
Now, again, I'll say I could be wrong about national origin.
But then, what if people decided to start burning flags like the Israel flag?
Can you burn the flag of Israel?
It's got a Star of David on it!
So you see where this kind of breaks down.
I'll leave it here because, you know, a lot of people have said to me, I've overtly defended burning the American flag.
And then immediately got a ton of people saying, yeah, but will you defend the right to burn a pride flag?
And I was like, I don't care what the flag is.
If you are in a safe place and you can burn it, burn whatever symbol as a statement of your expression, because I think free expression should be protected, period.
But now we can see where things start to break down.
And it's in the law.
Seriously.
They're investigating this as a hate crime.
Which is weird.
I'm confused by it.
But a lot of people have said, listen, it's historically in line with like cross burnings and other things.
So there you go.
And now we can see there's a dangerous double standard.
And this may actually, I'll say, result in the conservative benefit.
Conservatives who clearly don't want to burn pride flags and intimidate people, like the average Republican is not going to go and harass anybody.
In fact, I think now we have the most, like Republican party historically has been opposed to gay marriage.
Now they're very tolerant, right?
So there's been a societal shift.
I do not believe, I would say 99% of Republicans probably would never do anything like this.
It's a few fringe group of people, who probably aren't even Republicans to begin with, more, you know, fringe extremists who would want to go and burn flags anyway, because liberals don't burn American flags.
It's like the far left that does.
But in the end, this may actually result in a court ruling saying, hey, if you can burn the American flag, you can burn whatever flag you want, or Could result in them saying, well, if this flag is protected, then so is the American flag.
It might actually backfire on the left.
But let me know what you think in the comments, because this one's a doozy.
An ethical doozy of great proportion.
And I honestly don't know what the right answer is.
Because my LGBT friends, I don't want them to be scared or intimidated.
And anybody who dared threaten or intimidate them is going to get some pushback from me.
I don't want to say anything about violence.
If you come and attack any of my friends, I will defend them.
I will act in their defense.
If somebody threw some flaming trash in front of a bar or something, I'd just throw it in the trash.
I'm going to ignore it.
Plain and simple.
But I can understand why people might be, you know, it might be disconcerting.
They might be afraid following this.
The same could be true for the American flag.
If far-left activists burned an American flag and threw it on your porch or in front of your business, that might be disconcerting.
I will add, too, in Washington, D.C., political ideology is a protected class.
So I have to wonder if, can you burn a flag in D.C.?
Because that's what they were doing.
You can.
But now it gets really weird because is that flag a symbol of your politics?
And why should that be protected?
If in DC you could argue the flag as a political symbol and a symbol of national origin, how is it not protected?
I think we might get a ruling that you can burn the pride flag.
I really do.
I'm not saying I'm for it.
I'm not for burning any flag, okay?
I'm just confused by where we draw the line.
I know I'm gonna- look, I know, like, the response from conservatives on this one is gonna be like, it's an interesting debate, you should be able to burn whatever flag you want, blah blah blah, and I know the response on the left is gonna be like, Tim's a bigot for daring to suggest you could even get near the pride flag.
It's like, okay dude, look, we can't have double standards in this country.
If you're allowed to burn a symbol in protest, where do we draw the line, and why do we draw it where we do?
I don't know.
I look forward to the court rulings when this guy- if- when this guy gets charged, but I gotta say, I think you're gonna see conservatives point to this story as like, aha, here's the double standard.
You can't burn this flag, you can burn the American flag.
But I will stress, they didn't just burn the pride flag.
They burned it and threw it in front of a gay bar twice.
Okay, that's a bit different, right?
But I think they were trying to do it as a point not about Pride Month.
To me, it's probably having to do with the argument over the American flag because Trump tweeted about an amendment.
There was an amendment proposed saying you can't burn the flag.
Candace Owens said you should lose your citizenship.
I think that's all silly.
Burn the flag if you can do it safely.
I don't care.
But now we have someone throwing it at a gay bar.
Well, you may have crossed the line when you did that.
If someone went out into the street at a protest and burned a pride flag, I don't know.
I don't know.
I think, I think we've got, it can go two ways.
I do.
So the last thing I'll say, I'll say it again.
We may end up seeing the American flag become a protected symbol.
We may end up seeing clarification from the Supreme Court the pride flag is not.
But let me know what you think.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel and I will see you all then.
Breaking news!
Donald Trump loses his appeal.
But this might actually go up to the Supreme Court.
For those that aren't familiar, not too long ago, people started suing Trump because he blocked them.
And they argued he shouldn't be allowed to do that.
It's a violation of the First Amendment.
And a court said yes!
And lawyers said, what?
The decision seems to be kind of absurd.
It's a private platform.
and Trump is posting tweets, he should be able to block people, right?
Well, the first court ruled that when he tweeted, he was creating an interactive public forum.
And by restricting people from viewing or being involved in that forum because of their speech
was a violation of the First Amendment. It was appealed by the Trump team and they lost.
So now we have a lot of lawyers saying, what?
There's like ridiculous precedent being set here.
And some people believe it may get overturned by the Supreme Court because it's still a wrong decision that has wide-reaching implications.
I've got a thread by a lawyer on Twitter that we'll go through.
First, we'll read the story.
But more importantly, this is going to backfire hard against the left, notably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has blocked many people But she can't.
According to these federal rulings, she is not allowed to block people.
Lawsuits are incoming.
So let's read the story from the Wall Street Journal.
It's very short, but we'll see what happened and why.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
If you'd like to support my work, there is a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course, Share this video if you like it because YouTube no longer has my videos appear in the suggestion feed.
Yes, the video might get recommended on the front page, but it's not being suggested following other videos.
So I rely on you guys to share this if you think people should hear what I have to say in these videos or the news.
Well, let's read on.
From the Wall Street Journal, President Trump can't block Twitter users' federal appeals court rules.
Court says the practice of blocking users violates free speech protections.
On its surface, sounds like a good thing, but there's a lot of implications.
Let's read on.
A federal appeals court in New York Tuesday ruled President Trump's practice of blocking some users on Twitter violates the free speech protections of the First Amendment.
The ruling stems from a 2017 lawsuit filed by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of seven people who had been blocked by the president's real Donald Trump account.
In the opinion, Judge Barrington D. Parker of the Second U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that a public official who uses a social media account for official purposes can't block users because he disagrees with their postings.
The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees, wrote Judge Parker, who was nominated to the appeals court by President Bush.
The Second Circuit affirmed a ruling by the District Court.
Justice Department lawyers appealed the ruling.
We have a quote from the Knight Foundation here.
Quote, with public officials across the country increasingly using social media to communicate
with and foster debate among their constituents, today's decision should make them think twice
before hitting the block button when they don't like what someone has posted.
Katie Follow, a senior attorney at the Knight Institute, said in a statement,
a spokeswoman for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
that public officials are increasingly using social media to communicate with and foster
debate among their constituents. Full stop. What about people who have been banned by Twitter?
They are now no longer able to access a public forum for debate with politicians due to the
actions of private individuals.
This is where things start to get really murky.
If a public forum has been created, why should Twitter have the right to remove people for what they say?
I believe this may actually result... With the appeals ruling, I'm not a lawyer.
Well, some lawyers have to say, but it feels like this might actually result in some lawsuits where they say, A private company should not be allowed to restrict access to a public forum with debate on, you know, with politicians.
That would be like, you know, AT&T for instance.
There's a phone conference happening and AT&T says we're going to block you from engaging with the president's conference.
I don't know where the line is.
Should a private company be allowed to remove you from a public event?
Let's say Trump is holding a rally at an arena, one of his rallies.
Can the company that owns the arena or the hangar or the field say you specifically aren't allowed to hear what the president has to say?
Honestly, don't know.
But I think it's interesting if the event is open to the public as Twitter is, but Twitter restricts your access to a public debate on issues, especially when Twitter's rules are specifically biased against conservatives, notably on the misgendering issue, right?
Plain and simple.
If someone, or whatever the view is, conservative or otherwise, if someone is a bigot, it's a legally protected opinion, meaning you can't shut someone down for having that opinion, even if they're, you know, a bad person.
Can a private company remove you from the public debate?
That's where things get bad.
So let's see what this lawyer has to say.
Gabriel Mollor has this great thread that was sent to me where he talks about why it's basically a bad idea.
And my favorite tweet here is where he says it's essentially people hating Trump so much, they've just destroyed Twitter for everybody.
So where is this one specific tweet?
I'm not going to dwell too much on this.
Here we go.
He says, This is one of those decisions that is going to come back to bite.
People hated Trump enough that they just impaired Twitter usage by all public officials and public entities.
But boy, they sure showed Trump.
And now we can see this from Will Chamberlain.
He said, if you live in NYC, Connecticut and AOC has blocked you, It's time to sue.
But why NYC, Connecticut?
Can't anyone sue AOC?
She's a federal representative, right?
Sure, it's a district in New York, but she's in the federal government.
So she should be able to restrict access to anybody, right?
Joey Salads says already on it.
I'm not sure if he publicly announced this before, but Joey is saying he's going to sue Ocasio-Cortez in the exact same way they've sued Trump.
Thus, this ruling is going to backfire on the left because they're the ones who want the protections.
They're the ones who advocate for the hate speech rules and the censorship.
Well, congratulations.
Now the left-wing politicians are not allowed to block people.
But let's see what Gabriel had to say, and why it's a bad decision.
So he goes on to cite the initial decision, but he says, this is a garbage decision. Twitter lacks the features
traditionally associated with public forums, which is why this panel and the district court
below strains to discover this interactive space theory. He says, I'm skeptical about this interactive
space business being a designated public forum because it leaps over the issue that Trump isn't
even in primary, isn't, isn't in even primary control over how users can see and interact with
that space.
That control lies more with Twitter itself and individual users.
He cites a paragraph, I'm not going to read it, but he goes on to say, If Twitter automagically converts into a public forum when a public official uses it, then axiomatically, the First Amendment is violated if the public official uses Twitter to impede speech he disagrees with.
So you would think that the panel would handle the issue of whether Twitter is actually a public forum with more care, but no.
There was another way out here, but the panel forecloses it too, holding that when a public official tweets, it is always state action and never private action.
Essentially, Trump is never off Twitter, even though this too bizarrely curtails his own rights.
He goes on to say, basically, what that means is that even when they leave office, look at this, he says, Well, one would hope former public officials could regain a private space on Twitter once out of office.
But that doesn't follow from the decision's reasoning either.
The public character of the interactive space exists independent of the public official.
It's very disappointing how unreasoned this decision is.
These are important questions, and the opinion barely nods at them before thunking its preferred conclusion down and walking away.
Essentially, While this will impact Trump, it is absolutely going to impact EVERYONE.
And in the end, what I think is going to happen...
What he said was, even after you get out of office, congratulations, when Ocasio-Cortez leaves office, she will not be able to block people.
That doesn't make sense.
So I was told by some people it will probably go to the Supreme Court.
And they may actually shoot it down because basically every lawyer is saying this is wrong.
It's bad.
But while we have that, and I will just briefly mention people are now suing Ocasio-Cortez,
there's another interesting feature that Twitter is rolling out this news breaking today.
Twitter says it has new rules to curb hate speech targeting religious groups.
And they specifically talk about anyone using a religious group, any religious group, and
saying certain things.
So BuzzFeed writes, on Tuesday, Twitter announced an expansion of policies around hateful content
that dehumanizes others based on their religion.
Following this update, the company will now require the removal of tweets that dehumanize whole religious groups, like those seen below when they're reported to the company.
Think about this.
This is why I do not agree with hate speech policies.
In the 90s and the 2000s, and this is the example I often give, people were denouncing Christian conservatives for resisting gay marriage and gay rights.
When I grew up, a lot of people routinely said disparaging things about Christians.
Congratulations.
You can't do that anymore.
People have the right to their opinion to say, your religion is bad and I disagree with you, right?
Granted, there are a lot of problems with it because people go crazy, but removing all of the flavor to leave a bland vanilla... Okay, I'm sorry.
That was offensive to vanilla lovers.
Vanilla is its own unique flavor.
But let's just say sweet cream ice cream.
That's literally ice cream with no flavor in it.
People don't normally buy that.
They want cookies in it.
They want brownie bits.
Twitter is removing everything and being like, don't eat ice cream, here's a glass of milk.
I like a glass of milk.
It's not bad, but it's certainly not ice cream.
Ice cream is what we really wanted.
I love using ice cream references.
You may notice that whenever I do this, I talk about ice cream.
Anyway, the point is, Twitter is systematically removing all of the flavor because people won't stop complaining and they're catering to the squeaky wheels.
I wonder then, I wonder how this will relate with their recent ruling.
You are not allowed to criticize a religious group.
You can say, you can't call them viruses.
You can't say, we don't want more religious group in this country.
Religious groups should be punished.
We are not doing enough to rid us of those filthy animals.
So I wonder, each of these contains an insult, calling them rats, viruses, maggots, or animals.
Are you allowed to say, I think religious group is dangerous and bad?
Is Farrakhan gonna get banned?
These are specific examples of what Farrakhan says.
So maybe they're preparing a way to ban him.
But anyway, this video won't be long.
I have a major, major announcement that's coming up in the next segment, youtube.com slash timcast.
For those on the podcast, you already heard it because it's the first segment in this, but I'll leave it here.
There's your update.
Donald Trump loses his appeal, but this will backfire.
Stick around.
4pm youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
There will be a huge, huge, huge announcement.
I will see you there.
Thanks for hanging out.
For those of you that skipped my main channel today, the announcement was I was invited to the White House Social Media Summit.
And we're going to be talking about censorship I can imagine and the impact of big tech social media companies on public discourse.
Following up from that video where I went into great detail about what's going on with censorship, as you may have heard me talk about a million times, we have this story from The Daily Caller.
Revealed Google's respectful code policy to edit politically incorrect terms from software including Trumpsh.
I don't know what Trumpsh is.
But there was another story last month, I believe it was last month, about a new political correctness auto-check in Microsoft Word, I believe it was Microsoft Word, where if you typed something that was an offensive word, it would change it to the politically correct version.
Now, on its surface, it sounds really stupid, right?
Look, if I want to say something that someone might be offended by, it's my right, why would you change it?
But think about a business context.
If somebody isn't an English first language person, and they want to avoid political controversy, they might really appreciate that you changed their word to mentally defected or something like that, that might be more apt.
I don't know what the right word is, everything's offensive, I'm trying my best, cut me some slack.
That's the point.
We can disagree with the PC police and the censorship, but from a business point of view, a lot of people don't want to be involved, so it makes a lot of sense.
So we can criticize Google for their silly nonsense, but maybe, maybe to those who don't want to be in the culture war, it's kind of a good thing.
I don't know.
At the end of the day, I think the whole culture around this is bad.
And whatever it is that Google is doing is going to be a bad thing too.
I get some people might want it, but they want it for the wrong reasons.
It's about time we stood up and said, listen man, stop being offended at everything because what's next?
Google's gonna make a respectful filter that just turns every word into dots because everything is offensive?
It literally is.
Everything offends everybody all the time.
Okay?
What I mean by that is, you don't know if one word will be offensive to that person or this person, and where does it stop?
Read Fahrenheit 451.
Let's read the story.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There is a PayPal option, a crypto option, and a physical address where you can send things.
But the most important thing you can do, share my video on social media, because YouTube no longer suggests my content anymore.
You will get recommendations and notifications, but they're no longer recommending mine and other independent political commentary.
It is a cross YouTube thing.
They're propping up the big tech companies.
Plain and simple.
You like my content, I ask you share it.
Otherwise, you don't have to.
But let's read on.
The Daily Caller writes, Google has undertaken a substantial program to ensure its code adheres to standards of political correctness.
The quote, respectful code policy, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Caller, applies both to new code and also includes an initiative to go back and edit old code that may include phrasing or words deemed problematic by Google's diversity and inclusion team.
Okay, hold on everybody.
Did you know there's a program called GIMP?
I believe it means Graphical Image Manipulation Program, and it's been around for a couple decades.
It's an open source program, I think, for Linux.
It's basically like the Linux version of Photoshop.
If you're not familiar with what Linux is, it is a free and open source operating system.
It's actually really amazing, and I recommend it.
It may be complicated for the average person to install, but there's a lot of great things about it.
Many people on the left are outraged because the word GIMP can be offensive, referencing someone who has been maimed or is differently abled.
But it's not.
It's not.
The word literally is just an acronym of, you know, Graphical Image Manipulation Program.
And the people, the foundation, I guess, who runs it said they absolutely refuse to change the name because different words are offensive all the time.
And sometimes they're not.
Sometimes they change.
One word that was not offensive 10 years ago is now offensive today, so what's the point?
They said, look, if you don't like it, just use the full name.
Graphical Image Manipulation Program.
I think that's what it is.
What's redone?
They write, this is a matter of utmost importance according to one of the documents obtained by the Daily Caller because, quote, the cost of not doing this is the harm done to other Googlers every time they encounter these terms.
Oh, God, that is... When I hear things like that, it's like somebody took a very fine needle and just started sticking it in me.
Just the cringe of the harm done by a naughty word.
I'm sorry, dude.
Listen.
You walk outside, someone might ride poppycock on the ground.
And I kid you not, someone might be offended by that.
What are you going to do about it?
In the real world, people do these things.
Okay, plain and simple.
You got to get it.
You learn to be an adult.
You know, I mean, what do they expect to happen in the open source community when people put out code and it's got harmful terms in it?
I think it's ridiculous.
Let's read on.
They say, at Google, inclusivity is central to our mission and our culture, and our values include treating each other with dignity.
I respect that.
I do.
But not in this way.
The authoritarian application of respect and dignity?
I'm sorry, it's the opposite of respect and dignity.
The policy rationale for new code reads, as such, it's important that everyone can do their work without facing the harmful effects of bias and discrimination.
Listen, you're right.
Someone shouldn't be biased against you or discriminated against your work simply because of how you look or what you do in your private time.
But I gotta tell you, there's no harmful effect of bias and discrimination because someone used a word you're offended by.
You know what?
What if I said this?
From now on, the word discriminate is offensive to me.
Period.
If you ever use it, it's offensive.
When do we draw the line and determine that a word shouldn't or shouldn't be allowed?
Should Google change based on the whim of one person?
Because here's what happens.
One person gets mad on Twitter, and then a bunch of people say, I agree and I'm mad too now, even though they weren't mad before and none of it makes sense, and then what, Google changes the word because one person decided to throw a fit?
It's ridiculous.
But I digress.
They say, however, terms in our codebase, ULS, and documentation can perpetuate that discrimination.
This documentation sets forth guidance which aims to address disrespectful terminology in code and documentation before they go into production.
The respectful terminology for new code policy was written by senior fellow Sanjay Gemmawat and VP of Engineering Suzanne Frey in April 2017.
It was modified in late July 2018.
The latter date coincides roughly with a campaign at Python to remove master-slave terminology from that programming language.
Master and slave.
It's terminology.
These words have meanings.
It is not offensive to... It's offensive to, like, what, seven people?
They say the FAQ of the document also clarifies that it does not seem to be a program with well-defined procedures.
Who decides which item in the documents are approved, anointed as disrespected?
What procedure is followed to make this decision?
Which senior executive established that procedure?
Can you insert a link to that procedure?
There is no official procedure right now.
The baseline is that Master Slave should definitely change.
It is explicitly called out in the policy doc.
but other terms in ongoing cleanup have enough people in agreement they should be changed that
cleanup they should be changed that cleanup work is actively happening. This language is kind of
broken. The guidance from the policy doc is to use your judgment and ask your project organization's
diversity and inclusion team. They say.
Oh, we just read that one.
Engineers are exhorted to avoid problematic terms in names of variables, types, functions, build rules, binaries, exported variables, test data, system output and displays, documentation, comments.
If the term is referred in the context of a certain team's code base, work with that team to identify a clear descriptive alternate term.
The document reads, your team can enable a pre-submit check in your code base to help
catch terms automatically.
So what's to stop somebody from forming a subcommittee or a small group and then just
being offended at everything?
Sit down and they say, we decided we want to use the term white to describe this color.
And then someone says, ooh, that's offensive because of patriarchy.
And I think you should use value 100 color base or some ridiculous thing.
It is a value not a color.
Therefore, the word white shouldn't be used because it is problematic.
Where do we draw the line?
We don't.
Because what happens is one person says, I'm offended, and if you're the offended party, then everyone just bows down.
And this is why things don't make sense anymore, and they're breaking down in the open source community.
You can't just change a word because one person was offended.
What about a different country where the word means something different?
Right?
There was a person whose name was Kike.
Okay.
I believe this was on Twitter.
Maybe Facebook.
Their name was Kike.
Can you imagine how you spell Kike?
Because this is like a Mediterranean Spanish name.
Yes.
It's spelled a certain way that is offensive.
Think about how offensive it is to actually change words without cultural context for other languages that use similar spellings.
See?
Now everything's offensive.
So I'm not gonna, you know, I get it.
We can read through every single thing they did.
They say there's a suggestion for whitelist and blacklist with a comment that, quote, this is not about the past usage or origins, but the connotations these terms have today.
And what will they have tomorrow?
Terminology equating black to negative and white to positive troubles me.
And I'd like to make sure we can write inclusively.
I literally just made that joke.
And there they go.
They're literally, they're literally doing what I was trying to exaggerate.
And then sure enough, later in the article, that's what they're doing.
Anticipating the objection that the usages of redlining and master and slave in computing have little to do with the history of American race relations, the FAQ of the document says, Words can have multiple meanings and origins, and while one person might not think about the sensitive, non-technical meaning of a word, another person might, depending on their background.
The argument, I don't think of this word as a problem, should not exclude it from critiquing.
There's the point.
There it is.
Full stop.
Okay, you know what?
I'm gonna be offended by everything.
And as they said, it doesn't matter if you're not offended, you're not considering the people who are, and the people who are have priority.
Done.
Okay, you know what?
Everything you do is offensive to me, so from this point forward, the word code is offensive because it's just, you know what?
It's offensive to me.
Because it references computers which are binary and predominantly use English.
So therefore, I don't think code should be used, and you should change your language.
So, um, here we go.
One of the Friglenax questions asks, are we banning witchcraft and wizardry?
To which the answer is no.
You know why?
Because millennials have only ever read Harry Potter.
A spokesperson for Google declined to comment on the respectful code policy as of press time.
You know, I don't know if people will become offended by all of this enough to make it stop, but I will say, the open source community, hackers, have historically been about free expression and anti-authoritarianism, but they're being taken over by authoritarians who are at odds with the general idea of open source.
It won't work.
You cannot be for open source and pro-censorship at the same time.
If they change the terminology in open source code, anyone can fork the code, meaning they'll take it and make a new version and make it as offensive as they want.
You can't do anything about it.
And then people will just use whichever one they think is better.
Period.
So you know what?
Let me know what you think about Google's, you know, PC policing.
This is just a really, it's one story, but it's an example of why something like a social media summit needs to happen at the White House.
It's one of the things I'll probably be bringing up, as will many others.
So I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
I got some more segments coming up.
Some interesting updates.
Prime Minister Farrakhan.
Prime Minister Farrakhan.
I don't know why I said prime.
Excuse me.
Minister Farrakhan.
Louis Farrakhan.
Now facing action on Twitter.
Stick around.
That segment coming up shortly.
Recently, Twitter rolled out new rules that you cannot disparage a religious group.
It is now hate speech to target a religious group.
And as such, Louis Farrakhan has had action taken against him by Twitter, and they forced him to delete a tweet, and his account has been locked.
Strangely, I actually got an email from Twitter about this saying, we wanted to let you know that this tweet posted by Farrakhan is now being deemed hate speech and must be removed.
It's really weird to ban religious criticism.
It really is.
It's weird in my opinion.
I think the problem with Farrakhan is that Jewish is both an ethnicity as well as a religion.
And that's the struggle.
I think you should be able to criticize anybody you want.
If you want to be a bigot and say nasty things, go and do it.
Okay?
Plain and simple.
I'll avoid you.
But I'm not gonna put race and religion on the same platform, okay?
Criticizing someone's race is unfair because you don't know what they believe or who they are based on their race, but criticizing a religion, well, that's literally their ideology, and I think you should criticize ideology.
Well, let's read the news and see what's going on, because action was taken, much- I'm sure many people are happy about that.
Before we get started, Head over 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, just share this video because YouTube has restricted suggestions for my and many others' content.
If you like what I do, sharing it is the only way things will get suggested from this point forward, so I really do rely on your help.
Appreciate it.
From the Washington Examiner, new Twitter rule means Farrakhan must delete video comparing Jewish people to termites.
A new Twitter rule prohibiting dehumanizing language announced Tuesday will result in
the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan having to delete a video that compared Jewish
people to termites.
Quote, Today we are announcing an expansion to this policy which
will address dehumanizing language towards religious groups, Twitter said in a statement.
This is just the first step.
Over time, we'll expand the policy to include more groups and update you along the way.
It went on to explain that tweets that violate the new policy but predate it will need to be deleted but added.
It will not directly result in any account suspensions because they were tweeted before the rule was set.
I think that's fair, but I do disagree with these expansion of rules.
Look, let Farrakhan say the nasty nonsense, okay?
I want to know what he's saying.
Please.
You know, now all they're doing is sanitizing the platform and allowing people who have nasty views to get away with it and mask their nasty views.
These people want to explain how nasty they are.
Let them do it!
Then I'll avoid them.
Please.
They say, one of the most controversial tweets that was still permitted on the social media site prior to Tuesday was a video of Farrakhan giving a speech to honor the 23rd anniversary of the Million Man March that he posted on October.
We have a tweet thread from Oliver Darcy, which I'll go through.
In his speech, Farrakhan said to the members of the Jewish community that don't like me, thank you very much for putting my name all over the planet.
I'm not mad at you because you're so stupid, he says.
So when they talk about Farrakhan, call me a hater, you know they do, call me an anti-Semite, stop it.
I am not going to read the next bit because I do not like this man or what he is saying.
He says, I don't know nothing about hating somebody because of their religious preference.
Sure.
CNN's Oliver Darcy first reported that the video is no longer visible on his profile, and an error message appears, sorry, you are not authorized to see the status, and that Farrakhan will not be able to tweet until the video is down.
So I have that thread from Oliver Darcy.
There is a tweet from Twitter safety, which we'll read first because it's the context.
They said, today we're announcing an expansion to this policy which will address dehumanizing language towards religious groups.
This is just the first step.
Over time, we'll expand the policy to include more groups and update you along the way.
It is a mistake.
Stop, Twitter.
You made it worse in the past.
It's only gonna get worse.
I'll tell you what will happen.
People are gonna say, why did you ban Farrakhan and not this group?
And then they'll ban the next group, and the next group, and the next group, and eventually there's nothing left on Twitter.
Period.
Darcy tweeted, I imagine this rule will affect anti-semitic content that has been posted by Louis Farrakhan, such as comparing Jewish people to termites.
Twitter says, if dehumanizing tweets about religious groups are reported to it now, the company will require the user to delete them.
Twitter does add, though, that while tweets that break this rule sent before today will be deleted, they will not directly result in any account suspensions.
We read that stuff.
He goes on to say, Update.
It appears Twitter has actioned Farrakhan's tweet comparing Jewish people to termites.
When trying to visit the URL, an error message now reads, Sorry, you are not authorized to see the status.
Twitter's spokesperson confirms to me that it has actioned Farrakhan's 2018 tweet comparing Jewish people to termites, which violates new rule prohibiting dehumanizing language against religious groups.
Farrakhan will be unable to tweet until it's removed.
We went over this stuff, but here's what I have.
When I pull up his account, at Louis Farrakhan, you can see up here at the top, it says, sorry, you are not authorized to see this status.
This is what happened when I tried to click the link.
Actually, let me try and click it so I can show you from Oliver Darcy.
He has the link, I'm clicking it, and sure enough, nothing pops up but this.
You are not authorized to see the status.
So I'll say this, listen.
One of the biggest complaints of social media companies and censorship is the bias.
The fact that he was able to say this but other people were banned for saying things like men aren't women though, it's absurd.
But this is the wrong thing to do.
They are going increasingly in the wrong direction, making things worse.
Do you know what happened last time a social media company took action against Farrakhan?
It resulted in a massive backlash.
And I have that story.
For those that didn't catch it, back in May 3rd, Snoop Dogg backs Farrakhan, tells fans to support him, shows some love to a real brother.
When Facebook banned Farrakhan from all of their platforms, Snoop Dogg told his followers, like 13 million people, everyone upload a video about Farrakhan because they can't ban us all.
This is where we go.
Sure, you want to ban Farrakhan?
Fine.
But now you're going to get all of these different political tribes saying, why not this group?
Why not this group?
We'll read a little bit of this story back from May, for context.
After learning that Farrakhan had been kicked off of Facebook and Instagram for dangerous speech, rapper Snoop Dogg came to his defense and urged his fans to post their favorite videos of the Nation of Islam leader.
Farrakhan was booted from the social media site, along with other controversial figures including Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson.
Farrakhan has a history of making anti-semitic comments, having, I'm not gonna read this next part, but he said nice things about Hitler, which is ridiculous, in the 1980s, and more recently, accusing Jewish people of being involved in, not, my, my god, I'm sorry.
How they didn't ban Farrakhan a long time ago blows my mind, and I'm gonna say straight up, complete BS on the part of Twitter for having to change the rules to try and act like now they have reason to do this.
This is, this is ridiculous, and I'm gonna say, They're taking action against Farrakhan now, but to me it still reeks of bias.
Because all this does is prove that over and over again, this guy said ridiculous, insane nonsense, and people who are Trump supporters, conservatives or otherwise, and even some liberals, some left-wing feminists, are being banned for opposing your personal ideology, intersectionality.
It is... This is just more proof that the only reason they take action is when they're forced to take action.
That even after years, like how are you going to allow Farrakhan on the platform in the first place after what he said about Hitler?
That to me is insane.
So Snoop said, if you're down with it like I'm down with it, post your favorite Farrakhan videos on your Instagram and Facebook page.
Show some love to a real brother.
He uploaded a second video.
I don't know if they have it.
They say in a previous video, Snoop Dogg discussed Farrakhan's social media ban, calling the embattled leader a dear brother.
He said, how the F y'all gonna ban Minister Louis Farrakhan for putting the truth out there?
Snoop Dogg asked.
I stand with him.
I'm with him.
Ban me, mother effer.
Facebook expanded on its decision to remove a number of accounts on Friday in a statement to CNN.
We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate.
That's a lie.
That's a lie because everybody knows these people have been posting this stuff and it was totally political.
The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.
They went on to say that they reached out to Snoop Dogg for a statement but This is an old story, so I don't want to rehash the old story, but I do want to get into some of the responses to Oliver Darcy.
Now, it's important because Oliver Darcy reportedly, routinely reported on Alex Jones, and even said it was the media pressure that got Alex Jones banned.
Here we can see that Oliver Darcy, once again, is reporting on the suspension and banning of individuals for their speech.
I do not want to see Farrakhan banned, or Alex Jones, or anybody.
I think they should be allowed to say their nonsense, so we know to avoid it.
And it's the duty of journalists and regular people to just break down the rhetoric and push back with true information.
Period.
But a lot of people were saying, someone said, uh...
Finally, they took care of that quote right-wing extremist and that's important context because when they banned Milo and Loomer and and apologies Watson They said they were banning far-right figures including Watson, Yiannopoulos and Farrakhan because apparently they don't know what they're doing One person said, took him long enough.
Another person said the same thing.
This person says, I had the same notification only just now.
And this is really interesting.
I received an email from Twitter saying basically the same thing.
You reported a tweet to us from Farrakhan at the time.
It wasn't in violation of our rules.
While we were unable to take action then, we appreciated you speaking up and getting in touch.
We'd like to let you know that we recently updated our rules to prohibit dehumanization based on religion.
As a result, we've now locked the account you reported because it's in violation.
Okay, what if, um, what if supporting Trump was a religion?
What if your religion was genderism?
What if two-genderism was a religion?
Where do we draw the line?
Who gets to recognize what religions are legitimate?
If someone now claims they have a religion called the two genders and that they believe they have a right to say these things, is that against the rules?
What if you quote a verse from the Bible that violates their rules on hate speech?
You've now protected religion.
Where does the line stop?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you then.
Meet the anti-woke left.
This story's actually a little old, it's from the 4th of July, so about 5 days, almost a week, and I didn't want to really do a video on it because it's the dirtbag left people, it's like Chapo Trap House, and they make all these points that I agree with, But this is a really good example of exactly what's wrong with the dirtbag left.
And so here's the thing.
Here's the lead, so I don't bury it.
Meet the anti-woke left.
Well, now they're being called reactionary grifts.
Rationary grifters.
Because the mainstream left, the activist left, who have a position of, you know, actual authority within media organizations, even though Chapo Trap House is huge, Are ragging on them.
For being anti-woke.
So welcome to your civil war in the left, or whatever, the ongoing issue.
The problem I find with these people, the choppa people, is for one, all they do, and I assure you they'll do it now, is like spam message me and post about me.
I agree with basically everyth- like almost everything this woman says.
Oh, but they don't agree with civility.
So when I call for, like, respecting speech, and, like, um, um, winning your arguments fairly, They just attack me.
So instead of generating allies in media, their ridiculous idea of no civility drives away potential allies and people who have influence.
Congratulations!
I am not going to support you because all you people do is lie and post nonsense about me.
It's not civil.
You want to ask me a question?
You want to challenge an idea?
You want to change my mind?
I'm open to it.
You wanna just post nonsense and insult me?
I'm going to ignore you because you're nasty.
Congratulations.
That's your political faction, and it's why you have Chapo Trap House and not much else.
See, this woman, A. Lee Frost, makes a bunch of really great points.
She does.
About why she supports Bernie, about class issues, all things that I've basically said too.
But you know what?
I'm not a dirtbag left.
I'm not woke left.
I'm just like center-left moderate.
Congratulations.
Let's read a little bit of the story and then read about how they're being called grifters.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
PayPal option, crypto option, physical address, you get it.
The best thing you can do is share the video because YouTube doesn't suggest independent political commentary anymore.
This is a story from Spiked.
Meet the anti-woke left, dirtbag leftists Amber A. Lee Frost and Anna Kachian on Populism, Feminism, and Cancel Culture.
The staff writer, Frasier Myers, writes, The left is in crisis across the West.
It is out of power in most countries and out of touch with its historical working class base.
Class politics have given way to identity politics and noble causes like anti-racism, anti-sexism, and anti-discrimination have congealed into a stifling morass of political correctness and competitive victimhood.
I completely agree.
Thankfully, there are some pockets on the left who recognize this predicament.
I'm in New York to try and understand the thinking behind the dirtbag left.
The phrase was coined by Amber A. Lee Frost, a writer, commentator, and activist, to describe a loose constellation of American leftists who reject the civility, piety, and peace that has come to characterize much of the left.
They say that Frost is co-host of Chapo Trap House, which offers a funny, irony-laden, and often downright vulgar take on contemporary politics from the left.
She also writes a column for The Baffler and is a trade unionist.
Newer on the scene is the acerbic and wickedly funny Anna Katchian, art critic turned cultural commentator, who co-hosts the podcast Red Scare.
Red Scare saves its most biting criticism for neoliberal feminism.
She makes a bunch of good points, okay?
First, she says, You can tell people that I'm trans.
She says, I'm not trans, but you can say that just for fun.
Their reasons for rejecting wokeness are both pragmatic and political.
The majority of people are not woke.
Why would we dismiss the majority of people as hopelessly reactionary?
I completely agree with you.
Not only that, for Frost, identitarian divisions based on gender, race, and sexuality are a distraction at best, and an act of detriment at worst.
I agree.
The biggest divide in American society is class, and that's it.
I'm a class-first person.
I agree.
I agree.
You guys ever watch Freedom Tunes?
He did the parody of Dave Rubin.
It was meant to be exaggerated, where Dave just keeps going, I agree.
I agree.
I think he was saying, I agree.
You're hearing in the election how much we need to elect a woman, or we need to elect a woman of color.
But the most left-wing candidate is an old, white, heterosexual man, Bernie, and I want him to win.
So I'm now rooting for Tulsi Gabbard, mostly on her anti-war platform, when she's defended speech.
She's even said identity politics is divisive.
Come on, get with the times.
But would the first woman president not be a breakthrough for women?
They're always talking about little girls.
How would little girls know that they can be president?
It's just so stupid.
I was a little girl once.
I've never felt limited by the stuff, says Frost.
She raises Margaret Thatcher.
You Brits had a girl boss.
She showed those bro minors.
Frost describes herself as socialist.
I certainly don't.
She says she came to socialism through feminism and organizing, but she says this is funny.
She says, it is all about middle-class women trying to get spots in the boardroom.
A lot of this stuff is, fight the power, put me on the throne.
Or it's, men are rude to me and they explain things to me.
I completely agree!
How are we not, like, political friends on this issue, okay?
Like, listen, you want to argue for socialism?
I will, we can argue for it.
We have a discussion, we can debate it.
But we agree on these issues.
So what about censorship, and suppression of speech, and the right to the individual to actually have the ideas you're holding?
They will ban you for saying these things too.
Of course.
I suggest there are many real struggles that women face, particularly working class women, from low pay to childcare.
So why do these issues rarely get a look in?
They don't care about working class women.
Frost says, half of the time they're smearing them as reactionaries because they voted for Trump.
I-I agree.
I completely agree!
This is what's mind-blowing to me, like, it's like the Chapo people get mad at, like, the-the couple of things I say that they can get mad about, and they ignore all the things that I say that they literally agree with.
And I'll tell you this, I'm sitting here saying, I agree, I agree, over and over again, but I assure you, they're gonna take this, and they're gonna start smearing me and just saying nonsense.
Okay, fine, whatever, dude.
I'm not saying it's the Chapo hosts, to clarify.
It's their fanbase.
Whatever.
So we get it, right?
She goes on to say something about, like, NAFTA and a bunch of other things that are like, okay, let's read this.
Where's the NAFTA thing?
Okay, she mentions NAFTA.
Here we go.
Just as significant as Trump's victory was Hillary Clinton's loss, they tell me, in that
it represented a rejection of an era of neoliberalism.
I'm from Indiana, Frost tells me.
Bill signs NAFTA that obliterated the towns where I'm from.
People are extremely bitter about Bill Clinton for very good reasons, and she is married
to that, literally and figuratively.
She defends that legacy.
How did we not see Trump coming?
You're right.
You're completely right.
And Bernie Sanders held many of these similar positions.
I think if you're a conservative, you should see exactly why people like me and her would support or had supported Bernie in the past.
My biggest issue with Bernie is not his current positions on, like, college and healthcare and stuff.
I disagree with him.
But listen.
Bernie's a lifelong politician.
He fought for social justice, like actual civil rights.
I agree with those things.
He said NAFTA was bad.
He said protect our borders.
And I agree with all of those things.
In 2016, he said open borders is a Koch Brothers proposal.
We must protect our borders.
He even, uh, my understanding is he voted for protecting our borders.
But he's been pushing the identitarianism non-stop.
He said in 2016, white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
He lost me.
Tulsi Gabbard didn't.
Okay?
I still respect her.
A lot of people don't seem to get it.
They're like, why is Tim saying he supports these left-wing politicians?
Uh, do you get it yet?
Okay?
I'm not a conservative.
I've never been.
I agree with conservatives on issues of liberty.
I am, like, rather moderate on most positions.
I'm strongly anti-war.
My most, my biggest position out of any political position I could have is opposing the death penalty.
It is complicated.
I get it.
We can talk about it.
The point is, Bernie endorsed identitarianism.
Not for me.
Andrew Yang and Gabbard, I think, are pretty damn good.
And most conservatives understand, and there's even conservative support for Tulsi Gabbard.
But let's do this.
We get it.
They say all this stuff, and now they're being called the reactionary grift of the dirtbag left.
Chapo and its imitators look lazier and more useless every day.
I don't care to read this, like, I don't know, living Marxism, whatever nonsense.
The point is, this is what happens on the left, and it's why the left is struggling.
I can say something like, I'm gonna vote for Tulsi Gabbard.
You would imagine that people like this would be like, okay, well, while we disagree with him on a lot of issues, that's a pretty good position to have.
They agree, right?
No!
They just insult and degrade me and others.
They're right about the woke left, but they don't care about other leftists?
This is why they're gonna burn down, okay?
It's why, look, they've got a big base, and I get it, but how are you gonna claim to still support Bernie Sanders and be opposed to wokeness?
Bernie's fully woke.
He's embraced it like crazy.
It doesn't make sense to me.
It doesn't.
The bigger issue here is, the left fights itself.
Obama called it a circular firing squad.
So what happens?
Strangely, even though I can say I've criticized Trump on war, but I can praise him for the North Korea Iran stuff, I've criticized his boorish behavior, the insults, when he mimicked bodyslamming a reporter, it's all stuff to criticize him for.
I've even criticized him for lying.
But what happens?
Conservatives say, I disagree with you, Tim, but I respect your honesty and your willingness to support free speech.
Why are the conservatives coming to support me when most of my videos that talk about Trump are not positive?
They're like tepidly against him, right?
I'll give him credit for the things he's done right and criticize the things he's done wrong.
At the very least, you'd think with my support of a Democrat, these people would be like, we agree.
It's the conservatives.
It's like moderates and center-right individuals saying, well, liberty is more important.
It's okay if you disagree about Trump, as long as you're honest about why.
It's the most mind-blowing thing.
I have had so many conversations with Trump supporters where I'm going to be like, here's why I don't like Trump, and they go, oh, okay, I can understand that.
Okay.
And then you talk to these people and you're like, here's why I don't like Trump, but you gotta recognize these things Trump did are actually pretty good.
They freak out and get angry.
You know what?
I'm over it.
Go ahead and become the reactionary grift of the left, to Chopper Trap House, and destroy yourselves.
Because while both factions, the anti-woke left and the dirtbag left, agree on, like, Bernie, They're too busy fighting each other to actually win.
