Anti-Trump Smear BACKFIRES On New York Times, Left AND Right Slam Newspaper
Anti-Trump Smear BACKFIRES On New York Times, Left AND Right Slam Newspaper. Reporters for the elite newspaper are outraged after discovering that conservatives are digging up old tweets and social media posts from New York Times reporters and embarrassing them.In response to this completely normal media reporting, the Times ran an anti-trump smear claiming that it was a loose network of Trump allies trying to discredit the press. Apparently they are completely oblivious to what journalism is. The NYT is not above scrutiny and they are subject to the same exposure as anyone else. However they are trying to frame it as a political hit against them for being intrepid and ethical journalists. WrongThis time the far left, left, center, and right have come out slamming the paper over their elitism. They seem to have a belief that they are better than the rest of us. Well, they aren'tRecently the NYT was exposed for being biased against Trump in a leaked transcript of a private meeting where they seem to decide on targeting the president with a left wing smear. Now in the wake of a damaging past they are trying to paint their critics as Trump supporters.But in the end its just more fake news from the Times and everyone can see it. While the NYTimes does deserve credit for the work they do, we need to call out the increasing far left bias and activist journalism coming from these papers.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The New York Times is in panic because they claim Trump's allies are archiving old posts from social media that they're going to use as weapons to humiliate their journalists, and they refuse to back down.
Something interesting happened.
The story came out the other day, and I was reading it, and I thought it'd be interesting to talk about.
Because the New York Times is not above journalism.
Who do they think they are?
If your staff posts things publicly, then they deserve an investigation on them as much as anyone.
But the New York Times believes they're above everyone else, sitting atop an ivory tower, and they should not be subject to scrutiny.
And that's what I thought.
But in the end, I kind of felt like, well, you know, I get it.
The New York Times, they do this.
They hire these people who say these things.
There's a reason why I'm doing it today.
Because the left and the right, and even Brian Stelter of CNN, are dragging the New York Times over their elitism.
There's a viral post from Splinter News, which is woke far left, dragging the New York Times, letting them know, you are not above the act of journalism.
And it's been a really bad past couple of weeks for the New York Times.
They recently had one of their staff members outed by Breitbart.
As an anti-Semite.
And then the guy went and started purging old tweets.
They're now being dragged by the right for their past offensive employees.
But together, the left and the right and even mainstream journalists are telling the New York Times no.
We have had it with your elitism.
You're not special.
You're not above us.
And the New York Times put out two statements.
First, a story.
Trump allies target journalists over coverage deemed hostile to White House.
Spare me your lies.
This was a defense from one of the most prominent papers to make it seem like their journalists are only being scrutinized because they go after Trump.
Sorry, that's not the case.
I don't care who you are.
If you're in a position to have an impact, we want to know what you're doing and why.
No one is above this.
Not even me.
You want to dig through my history?
Fine, whatever.
We're all playing the same game.
But take a look at this.
The New York Times publishes this story where they're trying to frame it as though people are only going after him, after the New York Times, because they target the president.
They even issued a special statement.
Look at this.
A campaign targeting our staff.
A note to staff by New York Times publisher A.G.
Sulzberger calling attention to a Times story about a campaign led by President Trump's allies intended to harass and embarrass individuals affiliated with several leading news organizations.
Oh, please.
We see through you, New York Times.
You are not special.
You are human beings the same as everyone else.
And if your staff want to post offensive, outrageous, and anti-Semitic posts, then you will be exposed the same as anyone else.
Breitbart likes to point out that, in fact, the New York Times ran a story where they advised people how to go after Breitbart's business model.
And they think they're special.
And they think the rules don't apply to them.
Let's read the first story from Legal Insurrection.
I've got a lot to go through, because it's not just this for the New York Times, but a leaked transcript as well, showing their overt bias and how everyone has lost faith in them.
The paper of record, the Grey Lady, as it were, I believe that's what they're calling it, is now, it's gone through a transformation, where they hired woke, regressive leftists, and you are going to reap what you have sown.
So, let's get started here.
Before we do, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
YouTube is propping up corporate channels like CNN.
Now, although we do have Brian Stalter of CNN also come, you know, highlighting the New York Times', you know, faults.
It's still true that if I'm going to get a message out challenging the establishment and mainstream media, YouTube is holding me back.
And I need your support.
Share this video in order for more people to see this because YouTube used to recommend this kind of content.
They're holding it back now.
If you think my content is good by sharing it, you help me overcome that barrier.
Let's read.
Legal Insurrection writes, Trump supporters are quoting journalists' embarrassing social media statements, and the New York Times is furious.
The Times will not be intimidated or silenced.
Will Breitbart be, when you publish an op-ed targeting them?
I'm not saying you have to like Breitbart or agree with their opinion, but who is the New York Times to dictate who is or isn't a target of scrutiny and exposure?
They say the call-out-and-cancel cultures enabled by major media are out of control.
Old tweets, sometimes from teenage years, are dug up and turned into media-feeding frenzies.
In December 2018, Robbie Sove at Reason reported, media attacks Heisman Trophy winner Kyler Murray for homophobic tweets he sent out as a 14-year-old.
I kid you not.
Well, guess what?
That's the game you wanted to play.
Now they point out.
The New York Post, the Daily Mail, Yahoo and MSN.
It's not unique to just the New York Times.
This is a game played by the media.
And now, what was it?
Chickens have come to roost.
The cows are coming home.
You built this.
And you will reap what you sow.
Let's read on.
Media amplification is critical, and in the age of Trump, old tweets are used to political effect, as this NBC News post shows how Donald Trump's old tweets haunt him today.
The media has not been immune.
When Sarah Jong was hired for the New York Times editorial board, a senior and influential position, her long string of racist tweets was exposed.
Those tweets were not from her teenage years, and were made just a few years ago, making them arguably more relevant, given she was joining the editorial board of the most influential newspaper in the country, and maybe the world.
And their excuse?
She was just using the language of her oppressors.
Spare me the excuses.
I don't care.
I think the New York Times hired an overt racist, and they should be criticized for it.
The New York Times is not happy that journalists are being subjected to such scrutiny by Trump supporters.
In fact, the New York Times is furious.
They reported this, which I've shown.
They say that Trump allies targeting journalists, and they're trying to frame it as though it's only happening because the New York Times is going after Trump.
I'm sorry.
You're the paper of record.
You've hired overt racists.
You opened the door, and now the cows are coming home.
That's what's going to happen.
So they go on to show many of the statements from the Times, but they say,
this is standard oppo research stuff that politicians do against each other,
and the media does with vigor. There is no claim that quotes are fabricated,
they say, the New York Times quoted. But the material publicized so far,
while in some cases stripped of context or presented in misleading ways,
has proved authentic, and much of it has been professionally harmful to its targets.
And what do you think the New York Times does all day when they dig into people's pasts,
when they investigate private citizens, when CNN wants to expose the identity of someone who posted some
memes?
You are not above any of it, New York Times, and you get what's coming to you.
So they go on and they highlight a lot of people talking about this, but I want to show you the tweet from the New York Times.
Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent for the New York Times and MSNBC analyst.
A loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they call an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to Trump by publicizing damaged information about journalists.
Is that what they're calling it?
That it's just people allied with the White House?
No, it's not allies of the White House.
It's people who might like Trump, who might like the current Republican government, but they're trying to make it seem as though these people have teamed up with the president.
They haven't.
I'd like to stress this point.
Breitbart notes, in January 27, the Times published an op-ed by an author named Pagan Kennedy titled, How to Destroy the Business Model of Breitbart and Fake News.
The article was a puff piece, boosting the efforts of sleeping giants, whose ringleader was later unmasked by the Daily Caller as advertising executive Matt Rivetz.
The piece even reprinted instructions for helping the boycott.
It concluded admiringly, quote, A new consumer movement is rising, and activists believe that where votes failed, wallets may prevail.
This struggle is much more than ads on Breitbart News.
It's about using corporations as shields to protect vulnerable people from bullying and hate crimes.
But here's where it gets interesting.
I saw this story going around, but I was surprised to see Brian Stelter of CNN, of all people posting this, because he just did a segment where he had a guy claim Trump was literally worse than some select historical figures, if you know what I'm trying to say.
Some deplorable, disgusting historical figures.
Journalism is not an identity.
Journalism is an action.
It is something you do.
If you go out and gather true facts and write them in a true and readable way, you have done journalism.
And it's a story from Splinter, which is really amazing because Splinter, as I mentioned earlier, is on the woke left.
They write, Many journalists are very indignant that Trump allies are reportedly combing through social media to identify embarrassing things they may have posted long ago that can be used to discredit them.
In this case, I'm afraid, the outrage seems to be missing the point.
What exactly is happening here?
According to the New York Times, and they go over what we already said.
They say it's people going after him.
Lots of people who work with major media outlets.
They plan to release these tidbits at politically advantageous times in order to discredit the employees and the media outlets themselves.
This is all portrayed in formal and quite ominous language.
There is a name for this that political reporters are familiar with.
Opposition Research.
But there is another name for this that is also accurate.
Media reporting.
Which is what Brian Stelter does.
So it's surprising, again, that even though his show recently said Trump is mentally ill or something to that effect, he's going to stand up and say, sorry, New York Times, you're wrong, and people will come for you.
Twitter is public.
Journalists who work in the publishing business can hardly claim that it is unfair to publish things that they published.
Laughing at bad tweets by New York Times reporters is a time-honored, and I would say honorable, activity.
There is little meaningful difference between what this shadowy group of, quote, conservative operatives is doing, and what media reporters at Gawker and the New York Observer did for many years, save for the motivation.
The media reporters were mostly motivated by laughs and kicks and a belief in editorial transparency, whereas the conservatives are motivated by, you know, a deep affinity for fascism, sure.
That's obviously over the top, but hey.
Still, the actions themselves are basically the same.
Social media is a powerful tool for making us all look like idiots.
Twitter is a machine that allows you to show the entire world what a dumb A you are.
I and every colleague I can think of who uses Twitter have made bad tweets that certainly make us look like idiots.
Because it is impossible to use Twitter for a long period of time without doing so.
Most people in the world are at least part dumb A. Our tweets prove that.
I do not think of this as a major crisis.
So what is really at the heart of the respectable media's panicked and outraged reaction to news that right-wingers are searching their social media for things to troll them with?
Well, clearly, the right-wingers can be expected to weaponize this information in bad faith, rather than saying, ha, look at this bad tweet.
They will be saying, the New York Times is not a credible news outlet, because someone on its staff made this bad tweet, and therefore, you should disregard that huge feature on Trump's tax evasion and whatnot.
Let me show you something.
Here's a tweet from Alan Bakari.
He is a reporter for Breitbart.
He tweeted, In the past few years, the media has deployed its resources
against anonymous redditors.
That's right, a guy who made a meme.
A meme maker. Yes, other people like, like, um, uh, uh, Donk, uh, Carpe Donktum, I'm sorry.
A forklift driver over a meme.
Conservatives in tech.
High school kids wearing MAGA hats.
The same journalists who were okay with that are now mad because, quote, it's only okay when we do it.
Alum says, The New York Times complains that investigating its journalists doesn't count as scrutinizing people in positions of power.
People in positions of power, like high school kids, forklift drivers, and random Reddit users?
They say, The New York Times uses a straw man, saying reporters are being investigated because of coverage critical of the president.
No, it's because the media is happy to use its power against ordinary, private citizens who oppose its agenda.
They aren't journalists anymore, they're inquisitors.
And you know what?
They get what's coming to them.
Even Politico.
Politico reporting.
Journalists' old tweets are fair game for Trump.
New York Times editors don't deserve special immunity from scrutiny for bigoted speech.
Spot on.
I got a couple more things I want to highlight.
First, Michael Knowles tweeting this, an important point.
point.
Somewhere, there's a leftist whose job it is to watch and transcribe my show every single
day in the hope that I say something that he might pretend gives offense so he can try
to get me fired.
That's what he does.
That's his job and that gives me joy.
And he makes reference to Media Matters.
And they do this.
There is quite literally a non-profit industry that targets conservative personalities to try and destroy them.
And the New York Times are shocked that people have finally started climbing up their ivory tower and pointing the finger at them.
The ivory tower of media is collapsing.
It's been collapsing.
And they are not immune.
And they are going to get what's coming to them.
Because it's not just what we see from the left calling them out, but other stories.
This one from the New York Post from a couple days ago.
Bias has killed the Grey Lady and Dean Baquette fired the fatal shot.
Dean Baquette, he's in charge of the New York Times.
We'll read through it and get his exact title.
Bear with me.
This is from Michael Goodwin of the New York Post writing.
While reading the transcript of a New York Times staff meeting, a Lily Tomlin line came to mind.
No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.
In this case, it is also impossible not to be disheartened and furious.
The transcript shows that the rot of bias at the Times is far beyond the pale and there is no hope of recovery.
Before they put out a statement saying, how dare you make fun of us?
How dare you scrutinize us?
This story was written.
Why?
Because in a transcript of a private meeting, we learned that they were targeting Trump specifically.
Read.
Let's read on.
He says, By giving reporters and editors license to try to stop Donald Trump from becoming president, then letting them peddle the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, Baquette helped unleash the hatred that is tearing America apart.
Never before has a single media institution played such a destructive role in the nation's life.
But Baquette is not finished.
The 75-minute meeting shows that he is now determined to destroy the president by painting him as an overt bigot.
I can't say the R-word because it's YouTube.
Quote, I think that we've got to change, Baquette tells his assembled staff, after acknowledging the paper was a little, tiny bit flat-footed when special counsel Robert Mueller performed so poorly before Congress.
In other words, Baquette had swallowed hook, line, and sinker Hillary Clinton's fiction that Trump conspired with Putin to steal the election.
Then again, this is the same editor whose paper was certain Clinton would win in 2016.
Quite a track record.
Which leads to Beckett's newest idea for stopping Trump.
How do we cover a guy who makes these kind of remarks?
How do we cover the world's reaction to him?
How do we cover America that's become so divided by Donald Trump?
You mean by you.
You're the media.
You are feeding this.
How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven't done in a long time?
That, to me, is the vision for coverage for the rest of the next two years.
New York Post writes, So here we are.
Here we are with multiple stories and people pointing out this is what the media does.
They don't realize they're playing the game.
the note to those in the 1960s as Beckett does is beyond ignorant.
So here we are.
Here we are with multiple stories and people pointing out this is what the media does.
They don't realize they're playing the game.
Listen, I fully understand.
I'm a journalist and political commentator, and I give my opinion, and I'm saying things now, pointing a finger at the media, saying, we are all playing the same game.
I get it.
The issue is when the New York Times acts like they're above us.
You're not.
If they're going to come after anyone, don't be surprised when they come after you.
Yashir Ali of New York Magazine and HuffPost says, Folks, I'm not breaking any news here, but it's been a rough two months for the New York Times.
Before you say it's been a rough few years, I mean it's worse than it's ever been.
I feel bad for all the hardworking reporters and its editors.
Let me make it clear.
This is not one scandal.
This is multiple scandals.
First, we have this story, which is the main story of today, that the New York Times thinks they're better than you.
They think they are better than you, and they're not.
We have this story from the New York Post, the second scandal, a leaked transcript showing that they are playing politics on purpose.
As we learned the other day in one of my segments, These woke leftists, these anti-Trump personalities, know they're doing it for money.
They say it as much in their own statement.
This woman wrote that they're doing what they're doing with woke politics for a sports website nonetheless.
Writing about politics on a sports website because it's better.
Because it gets more clicks, it drives more traffic.
But you're a sports website.
Write about sports.
The New York Times would be writing fairly and honestly about everything.
They don't.
They took a political position.
And the leaks have come out.
And then we have this other story, which is just from, what's the date on this one?
August 22nd.
Crap, I can't even, I'm not, I can't even repeat what this guy said.
New York Times editors, anti-Semitism and racism has been exposed.
And there it is.
This story is not the only one that's going to come out.
We know that the New York Times is willing to hire overt racists.
And they think it's that they're shocked when people come out and highlight it.
Yasher Ali is right.
He's completely right.
It's been a bad past couple of months.
It's been a bad past couple of years.
But I want to make one big point about the media.
They have always viewed themselves as above you.
We've seen statements, there's a clip from MSNBC, where Micah Brzezinski says something to the effect that it's their job to tell people what to think.
Sorry.
It's the job of individuals to educate themselves to the best of their abilities.
I understand, not everyone can.
And unfortunately there is a large group of people in this country that believe fake news and nonsense.
You can look at what Snopes puts out in their fight with Babylon Bee.
If you're not familiar, Babylon Bee is a satire site, and Snopes keeps fact-checking them as if it's real news.
It's not.
It's a joke, and everyone knows it.
But this is part of the game.
The New York Times will send its journalists to dig up dirt on many people.
They will run pieces advocating for the destruction of a rival company.
And then they think they're better than you, and you shouldn't go after them?
I will say this.
I wouldn't be surprised if following this story, what do we see?
Way more people going after the New York Times.
Way more people digging up tweets and digging into everything they've ever posted.
Not because they're allied with Trump.
I certainly am not.
But I'll tell you this.
I criticize the New York Times for two big reasons.
First, they're hiring racists, and you've heard me say it.
But second, they ran a front-page fake news conspiracy.
You've done this to yourself.
You have fallen from the ivory tower a long time ago.
You're now sitting in the weeds, looking around, acting like you're more important than anyone else, when you're not.
You're the same.
Fake news, conspiracy theories, because you just want clicks.
The same as Deadspin wrote in their war with their new boss.
They don't care about real news and being honest.
I'll give credit to the New York Times for calling out the fake news about the Amazon, saying these fires happen every year, the fires in Amazon happen every year, and it was worse in years past, and it was way worse ten years ago.
It's fair to point out the New York Times does some good journalism, but the snoot, the snooty arrogance, This belief that they're better than us is everything I have always hated.
And this is the biggest problem the Democrats have always had.
People like Bill Maher, who I can get behind when he calls out the woke, aggressive left, but not when he calls for a recession.
It shows you what they really believe.
They're on the left because they believe they're morally superior to everyone else, and they will flaunt it above you, with not only a story trying to reframe what's actually going on, but a public statement saying we're being targeted.
It's a harassment campaign.
Spare me.
They just wrote five, was it, I believe they wrote five op-eds about GamerGate.
You're playing the game?
You want to support one half of the culture war?
Well, congratulations.
You are in it.
And now they're coming for you the same as anybody else.
I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
I hate the elitists.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
It is a different channel.
I will see you all there.
I made a video about the Young Turks host Hasan Piker getting suspended from Twitch, and I said I don't think he should be suspended, I believe people should be allowed to speak their awful opinions on these platforms, and yeah, Hasan Piker's opinion was awful.
Sure enough, like clockwork, we see all of these people aligned with, you know, the far left and Antifa saying, we're the free speech warriors to defend these people.
Well, here's the thing.
Every single time we see a backlash against the left, I defend their right to speech.
And then they gloss over me with hundreds of thousands of views on these videos defending the free speech of people like Antifa, the protesters, and Ahsan Piker, and they claim I don't exist.
That's fine.
You want to live in your wacky little WALL-E world?
You're free to do so.
But let me be clear.
Free speech means free speech for everybody, even wacko Antifa professors.
So when I first heard this story, I didn't care.
Well, because the first iteration of the story about the Antifa professor in Iowa or whatever was just that.
I saw a story circulating and it said, Professor avows his support for Antifa, and I said, yeah, what else is new?
I don't really care.
Now the dude's been forced to resign over this because colleges are illiberal, Ridiculous institutions where they're terrified of the children, or more importantly, they're scared of backlash because they don't want to lose customers.
College is trash.
It used to be something better, now it's an overpriced scam that's ruining the lives of young people.
And there's a lot of politics problems, but this is a part of that problem too.
So let me start off by saying one thing.
To reiterate what I just said, this man should not have been forced out of his job simply for saying he was Antifa.
You want to engage in violence or whatever?
Okay, that's a different story.
Simply coming out and saying you support Antifa because you don't like a certain, you know, group of people?
Fine!
Fine!
And that's a good thing!
Because you don't want your kids to go into a classroom where someone's going to be preaching some ridiculous ideology.
I don't care what the ideology is.
It's good for people to know what the professor thinks.
Free speech is better.
Well, the guy's been forced out of his job, but I can't help, but I absolutely must stress that while I disagree with this move to remove the Antifa professor, There's a little bit of you reap what you sow.
And no, this is not to gloat.
No, I'm not happy for this.
This is a bad thing.
And I'm not the only one who thinks so.
We have this story from Reason from Robbie Sove.
It is a blow to free speech.
Absolutely.
But let me explain something.
Something important.
You see this photo here on the bottom?
When Antifa showed up in Berkeley and torched a free speech sign?
What I didn't realize was that this was a replica of the original Berkeley 1964 free speech banner from the photo.
I kid you not, these illiberal authoritarian Lunatics made a replica of the original free speech sign and burned it in Berkeley.
These people are nuts.
They're illiberal.
They do not believe in free speech.
They oppose it.
They will burn that sign.
And you know what?
That's why it's important this guy tells us he believes it.
Because for us, the principled, who believe in a right to in-Korean expression, we want to know the guy's thinking this stuff.
We want to know who he supports.
Now, he shouldn't have been fired because this will discourage other people from coming out and explaining that they believe these things.
Listen, it's a community college in Iowa, I guess.
It's not the biggest story in the world.
But I absolutely will call out this illiberal lunacy.
So here's what we're going to do.
This is the original story.
Let's read through this just a little bit.
I'm not going to read through the entire thing of it.
It's kind of silly.
But I want to talk about Robby Sove's opinion on the matter.
I happen to agree that it is a blow to free speech.
If you don't want your kid to go to school with this guy, you need to know what he thinks.
Think about any one of these teachers who might believe other insane, you know, prophetic religions and cultish nonsense, and you don't know about it.
And when this happens, I'll tell you what, everyone's going to shut up.
But they're still going to want to push that ideology.
They say an adjunct professor in the English department at Kirkwood Community College prompted complaints after he posted an inflammatory message in the Facebook group Iowa Antifa and then confirmed to Eastern Iowa TV station KCRG that he is Antifa.
Jeff Klinsman, who taught at Kirkwood since 2010, commented on the image of a tweet from
President Donald Trump that read, "'Radical left whack jobs go around hitting people over the
head with baseball bats.'"
Well, I believe they're using batons in clubs, but that's not wrong.
Klinsman commented on the image, saying, "'Yeah, I know who I'd clock with a bat.'"
Don't play the game.
We know what you're alluding to.
And that's where you get in trouble.
I know who I'd hit with a bat.
Right, right, right.
He's crossing a line.
He's getting, or I should say, he's getting close to it.
And there should be some, like, I think saying something like that should prompt someone to say, whoa, chill out.
Don't, you know, strike one.
Stop.
Don't go any further than that.
That's nuts.
Instead, the dude's been outed from his job.
He wrote that he affirms he is Antifa.
He told the news station.
It's unclear if Klinsman was confirming his support for Antifa, a non-hierarchical organization committed to combating right-wing extremists, or if he was simply voicing his support for anti-fascism as a concept.
I believe there's photos of him with, you know, an Antifa garb.
I could be wrong.
KCRG has reported that Klinsman has affirmed that his behavior has prompted complaints to Kirkwood.
He could not be reached for comment by the Register.
Listen.
Let me read this first.
I don't know why this guy is news.
It's a small community college in Iowa, but it is.
For me, the news is that he was outed from his job.
They are investigating as a threat to the president.
I don't know why this guy is news.
It's a small community college in Iowa, but it is.
For me, the news is that he was outed from his job.
So this guy is dancing on the line.
It's not pretty and I'm not proud, but seeing what evangelical Christians are doing to this
country and its people fills me with rage and a desire to exact revenge.
So this guy is dancing on the line.
I believe the appropriate response is to tell him to stop or leave.
And perhaps that's what happened.
Maybe they said, stop, you know, dancing, like he's dancing in the line of violence, right?
That's a bit different.
Just being Antifa and supporting Antifa is different from saying you want revenge and you want to swing bats and stuff like that.
But I think the appropriate response is something like, Chill out, or you're done.
I guess, though, that may be the issue, because he resigned.
Now, this is a story about campus free speech from Reason.
They say by punishing Jeff Klinsman, Kirkwood Community College has dealt a blow to free speech.
This is a challenge, I gotta admit, because it's free speech up until the point you incite violence or post a threat.
The issue here is he got as close as he could get without actually doing it.
So, it's a grey area.
I'm sure there's going to be a lot of people who are going to say, no way man, that was a threat.
And some people are going to say, it was veiled, it wasn't a real threat.
I'm not going to tell you which side is right or wrong.
I'm just going to tell you that if we keep punishing people for saying things they believe, Outside of violence, I'm saying, like, literally their opinions on Antifa or, you know, racism or whatever, then you're gonna have secret groups, and they're gonna go into dark corners and they will fester, and that's the problem.
So Robbie Sove writes, in yet another example of campuses prioritizing nebulous safety concerns over free speech, a community college has pushed a professor to resign for stating his alignment with Antifa.
They go on to show his posts, but let's read.
On Friday, Kirkwood announced that Klinsman had resigned.
While the college did not immediately respond to a request for comment, the official statement certainly makes it sound like this was a forced resignation, saying, Kirkwood says their decision is based solely on their commitment to harboring a safe learning environment for our students, faculty, and staff.
The college has also stated, however, when the expression of views by him or any member of our community is perceived as placing public safety in jeopardy or hampers our ability to deliver on our mission, we will always do what is necessary in service to our students' pursuit of higher education.
I'll say this right now.
I don't think the guy should be out.
Based on his statements, even if they were toe on the line, I don't think he should be out.
I do not.
I understand why they removed him, though.
And this is a challenge, right?
A challenge about what is the principle of free speech versus the obligation of an institution.
And I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.
But here's, this admittedly is, well, let me read this, let me read this.
Robbie writes, this is a troubling confession.
Quote, when the expression of views by him or any member of our community is perceived as placing public safety in jeopardy, College officials believe they must take action, even if that perception is wrong, as it was in this case.
Neither Klinsman's support for Antifa nor his stated interest in hitting someone—implied to be Trump—with a bat represents any actual threat.
I absolutely respect that position.
Now, I'll entertain the nuance here.
I think even if he was trying to make an allusion to that, he shouldn't be removed.
He shouldn't be.
Because we're entering dangerous territory, and Robbie makes the excellent point of perception.
We can't have people say, you're making us less safe based on my perception.
And that's been one of the biggest problems with college campuses.
Someone comes out and says you can wear whatever Halloween costume you want, and they say, it's not safe.
What does that mean?
Well, in my perception, and therein lies the problem.
I agree with Robby.
It was not a direct or actual threat.
It was him just being a, I don't know, a boorish idiot on social media.
But Robby recognizes Antifa is a liberal movement that doesn't believe in extending free speech rights to its opponents.
And thus it's always somewhat ironic to watch this perspective used against them and other far-left anti-free speech folk.
Nevertheless, even those who do not recognize free speech as a right should still enjoy its benefits.
Okay, he's talking about his book.
So I'll stress this.
and a powerful example of what happens when administrators interpret a mandate
to protect student safety as an excuse to censor provocative speech.
He says for more about Antifa, order his... okay he's talking about his book.
So I'll stress this.
You know what?
I'm sorry your ideology is removing you, but this is your fault.
This is what your side believes.
Right now, there is a tacit alliance between the center and the right over issues of principle, free speech, liberty, libertarianism, etc.
I believe in many left-wing policies.
I like Tulsi Gabbard better than basically any other politician running right now.
I disagree with a lot of what she pushes, notably a minimum wage of $15 and all that stuff.
It's fine.
And I think Dan Crenshaw is also absolutely fantastic, but I disagree with him more.
Tulsi and Dan, I think, are my two favorite politicians right now.
What we have is there are people on the left, center, and right who agree free speech is paramount.
Then we have Antifa that will burn a replica of the original Berkeley free speech sign.
They don't believe in individual liberty.
They are not liberal.
That's a fact.
They hate liberals.
They hate liberals.
So when this guy gets kicked out, the first thing I did was I laughed.
I believe he was toeing the line, and I can understand why they wanted to remove him, but I believe it is a dangerous precedent, and I'm gonna agree here with Robbie.
Look, man, it's tough.
It absolutely is tough.
But I don't believe the perc—I believe we need to understand the hard line of what a direct threat is.
I think that's fair to say.
And if he said, I know who I'd like to hit with a bat, yeah.
Well, people—here's the thing.
People get mad all the time and want to do something, but have self-restraint and don't do it.
So if you said, man, I want to punch that guy, you know, oof.
Yeah, you can express yourself that way.
And it's even more alarming where someone might be extremely hyperbolic and be like, you know, I'm gonna kill that, you know, MF, or oh man, I can't stand it.
And they don't really mean it.
There was a joke I used to, a skit that I was talking to my friends about putting together that I thought would be really funny at the height of the NSA scandal.
Imagine this.
And I'm gonna have to be very careful on language here for this reason, because this is the part of the joke.
Imagine, here's the idea for a sketch I wanted to do.
There's two spies, or like, feds or whatever, in a van, with like, you know, the headphone, listening, and you hear guys talking, saying things like, alright, go get the, you know, the device, and we're gonna plant it on the bridge, and then, you know, they plan things, right, let's just say, and they talk about, alright, now, get your weapons and go do this, and they're planning something that sounds like it's going to be a serious mass incident, if you know what I mean.
And then the people in the vans are hearing all this in great detail about, you do this, I'll do this, that's the plan.
Alright, let's go.
And then they say, we gotta move, we gotta move, these guys are planning some kind of attack.
And they kick the door in, and it's like three really fat dudes just playing GTA with like Cheetos all over their face.
And they're like, they're playing Grand Theft Auto.
That's the point.
The point is, sometimes people will say something and they're just being hyperbolic and they're exaggerating.
And we're getting to a point now where in the UK, people are getting arrested for rap lyrics.
We're hearing now that you can't even post a meme without it being perceived as a threat.
So we need to know for sure what the line is.
And I think someone saying, man, I'd like to hit that guy, oof.
Yeah, I'd like to doesn't mean I will.
That's the point.
So look, you know me.
I do not like Antifa.
I think they're violent authoritarians.
So I gotta admit, there is humor in seeing the people who would burn a free speech sign get kicked out of a college because it's what you believe in.
I can't imagine you're upset about this.
It's what you wanted.
You wanted the authority to have the right to remove your speech, you know, when it's too provocative.
But I'll tell you what, I think that was wrong, and I'll admit, I'm sure this guy doesn't want to be forced out.
And I'll make one more extremely important point.
You have a person in a community college who says this.
You go to them and say, tone it down.
They will probably say yes.
Now what happens?
Well, now that he's got no job, there's nothing tying him to the community, and he can only go in the other direction.
As I've stated in almost every instance of these bannings, I'm like, listen man, if you're upset about hate speech, banning someone is the worst thing you can do for two reasons.
It will put them in a corner where they're surrounded by other people banned for hate speech, and they'll just escalate their rhetoric.
The other thing is you lose control of the situation.
If someone is posting, you know, bad words on Twitter or whatever, you can just say, please don't post that, otherwise we'll have to remove you, and many of them stop.
Instead, what do we see?
We see like an axe coming down a guillotine just saying, no tolerance, no second chances.
No second chances.
Now, Twitter is trying to do better, sure, but there are people being banned from YouTube who have broken no rules.
And therein lies the problem.
If you don't define them, and you don't give a warning, you will make the problem worse.
And that's the most important thing.
The best thing we can do is dialogue.
Bring people together.
Mix things up a little bit.
You know, Minds does this?
Minds.com?
I believe.
The main feed is a mix.
The algorithm isn't necessarily based on what you like.
It's also partly based on what you don't like.
I could be wrong about this, but the general idea is you will see things across the board.
And that's because they don't want an echo chamber forming.
And again, I stress, I'm not 100% on this.
I could be getting it wrong.
The point is, Removing this guy is going to make him more extreme.
It's going to get him to rile up his base, they're going to claim they're being oppressed, and it's going to make things worse.
It's a Chinese finger trap problem.
Don't try and pull because that's the obvious solution.
You need to do something counterintuitive.
And the counterintuitive thing maybe would have been to host an event on Antifa and bring in some people and have them sit down and have a conversation about it.
I really think that would have been the best thing to do.
Dialogue.
Like Daryl Davis says, when two people are talking, they're not fighting.
That guy's amazing.
So, that being said, he's gonna be at our event, and I'm so honored.
It is an amazing privilege.
This guy's amazing.
Look him up.
I'm gonna wrap it up here.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Dave Chappelle is one of the most offensive, outrageous, and funniest comedians today, and the dude just dropped a nuke onto the culture war with a Netflix special that may be one of the funniest and most offensive things I've seen in a long time.
Dave Chappelle is a legend.
I love this man.
I grew up watching Chappelle's show.
I grew up watching George Carlin, and more recently, Ricky Gervais, calling out all of the insanity.
Ricky Gervais makes fun of Twitter.
Dave Chappelle went so hard on the culture war, it was impressive.
Now look, Joe Rogan too.
I was at a Joe Rogan show last year, and Joe did an amazing job of calling out insanity and making fun of everybody.
And that's what it's supposed to be.
You give no free passes.
But I gotta say, boy did Dave Chappelle push that line.
And if I didn't know better, I would assume Dave Chappelle was trying to provoke a reaction on purpose.
Seriously.
He jokes about racism.
He uses homophobic and racial slurs.
He jokes about banging kids.
Like, wow.
Wow.
Some of the jokes he did, I wasn't laughing.
Not all of them.
I was just like, wow.
The dude, in my opinion, was trying to make sure they heard him.
The special is called Sticks and Stones.
My assumption is that he's literally trying to say, you know, words will never hurt me.
Like, I'm gonna tell a joke.
He rags on everybody.
He rags on poor white people on heroin.
And it was great.
It was really, really good how he did it.
And he talks about how, you know, he sees poor white people and himself being poor, and then he makes a joke.
That it's just that white people don't think they're supposed to be poor.
But it's a joke.
And so he's an equal opportunity offender.
And it was absolutely fantastic.
So here's the thing.
When this story started coming out, boy, are they mad at this guy.
This Vice article went around yesterday.
You can definitely skip Dave Chappelle's new Netflix special Sticks and Stones.
The comedian doubles down on misogyny and transphobia in both the special and the hidden bonus scene that follows.
Don't skip it.
Go see it.
If you haven't already watched it, you gotta see it.
Because it is hilarious, and it is a callback to what comedy is supposed to be about.
Some of it is intentionally, in my opinion, provocative.
And shocking.
Because comedians used to do that.
Sarah Silverman did that.
And she got to reap what she has sown with her politics.
She got fired from a job because of a joke she made like 12 years ago.
Chappelle opens the segment by, it's, oh man, I just can't stress how amazing it is.
He says he's gonna do an impression.
And he goes, he goes like this, he goes, duh, I'm gonna, I'm gonna, duh, look into your past and find out something you did wrong, duh, like 12 years ago, and then try and take everything away from you.
And he goes, who is that?
Who is that an impression of?
And they yelled Trump.
It's amazing.
When has Trump ever said that?
I'm gonna dig into your past and take away everything you've ever accomplished?
And I just want to give that man a standing ovation.
Because this is what we've all been saying.
Look, man.
In the real world, I don't like homophobia, transphobia, but George Carlin said it best.
Context matters.
It's the person behind the words.
I know Dave Chappelle doesn't mean these things, and he makes an amazing point about Kevin Hart.
You gotta see this, man.
You gotta see this special.
So Kevin Hart gets booted from the Oscars.
Or they were saying you better apologize to the gay community because Kevin Hart 10 years ago ever made jokes where he said if he saw his son, you know, showing any kind of sign that he was, you know, effeminate or gay, that Kevin Hart would smash a dollhouse over his head.
And then Dave Chappelle says, you know how I know he was joking?
You'd have to buy the kid a dollhouse in order to smash it over his head in the first place!
Because he's joking!
It doesn't make sense.
That's the point.
It was meant to be offensive, over-the-top, and silly.
But of course, Vice can't help themselves!
But you know what, man?
Seeing this Dave Chappelle special, with everything going on in the culture war, with cancel culture, with outrage, and I gotta admit, with what they're trying to do to the event I'm sponsoring in Philly, it reminds me of that scene in Infinity War.
And you got the, what are they called, the Outriders?
Those weird alien things that are trying to claw through the force field in Wakanda?
And then all of a sudden, Thor just, he lands, and he jumps in the air with the axe, lightning from his eyes, and he slams him to the ground, and the explosion wipes out, and that's what it feels like.
Hearing Dave Chappelle come up, and he doesn't care.
He doesn't.
He even joked about how, you know, he drags Jussie Smollett so hard, and he talked about how he was at an event, and there, a journalist writes down these jokes, and he thought he was done.
He talks about all this stuff.
Well, let's see what Vice has to say, because you know I'm singing its praises.
You definitely gotta see this.
I will stress this point, too.
Netflix going full steam with a special this offensive?
Dave Chappelle doesn't just say the F-word, which I can't say on YouTube, he screams it several times!
And it's not that I like that he's screaming that word trying to be offensive, it's that he's going over the top to make a point.
And that's why it's funny.
Because you know he doesn't really think bad things about these people.
He's just trying to be shocking, provocative, and outrageous.
That's what comedy is about.
Not always, but some comedy.
It does this.
Well, let's see what the party poopers over at Vice have to say.
They write.
Dave Chappelle made a return to Netflix Monday with a new stand-up special, Sticks and Stones.
Fans quickly realized that if you watch until the very end, the special has a secret epilogue called The Punchline, where Chappelle answers questions from audience members who went to his separate Dave Chappelle on Broadway stand-up show last July.
The special takes the comic's anti-wokeness shtick, yes, to a new level.
And the whole thing is repetitive and exhausting enough that it's a slog to even make it to the Q&A.
Did you know that Amy Schumer had a special that was panned?
Like everyone, hey it was gross.
I'm willing to bet this one's gonna be praised by the audience.
I'm willing to bet that regular people are going to cheer for this.
You know why?
They cheer for Joe Rogan.
They cheer for Ricky Gervais.
These crazy weirdos, the woke, far-left, regressive, whatever, only get by on your silence.
And that's a fact.
These activists, this insanity, this cancel culture, they get by because liberals won't speak up.
But when Dave Chappelle comes in, Joe Rogan, Ricky Gervais, and they make jokes and they laugh, then liberals are finally willing to stand up and laugh too.
So this is open season, man.
I'm seeing these posts, people saying, Dave Chappelle, Thor with that hammer, just slamming it into the ground.
And, you know, some people have said, but we'll see, I'll reserve, you know, we'll see what happens.
Some people have said, don't be surprised if you start seeing more comedians and late-night hosts.
Back up Chappelle, because Chappelle is truly funny.
Chappelle is truly a legend.
Chappelle's show was amazing.
He doesn't spare anybody.
He makes fun of everybody.
Good.
He should.
He should make fun of me.
He makes fun of Asians.
He does a Chinese stereotype and jokes about it.
Okay.
I understand I'm not 100% Asian, and I'm not Chinese, but me personally, I don't care if he makes fun of the Asian community, me personally.
Again, I know people are gonna get flagged, you know, rag on me, saying, but you're passing and all that stupid woke nonsense.
Nah, man.
I have family members that, you know, his stereotype impacts, and it's funny.
I was taught, I'll tell you this.
I love this story.
I was talking to somebody about my mom, who is half Korean, and how she does math tutorial videos on YouTube.
And they said, why am I not surprised your Korean mom makes math tutorial videos?
And I started laughing.
And I thought it was so funny, I immediately texted my mom, to which she started laughing as well.
Because it's not that we think it's... Because it's a joke.
It's silly.
It's meant to be funny.
It's not meant to hurt.
It's meant to just be like, of all the things you can do, you choose the stereotype.
So we laugh about it.
We find it funny.
And Dave Chappelle, he's willing to make those jokes too.
And he talks about how his wife is Asian.
And she's like, I don't like that joke.
And then he jokes.
He only brings it up when they're fighting.
It's an amazing, offensive, but great comedy set, reminiscent of George Carlin.
Dave Chappelle is incredible and I have tremendous respect for this man.
They go on, they go on, look, they're so angry.
Look at this.
He also found time to defend fellow controversial comedians Kevin Hart and Louis C.K., painting them as victims of an overzealous call-out culture.
Yes!
He makes, he defends Louis C.K.
It was amazing.
It was amazing.
Ah man, Dave Chappelle.
Look, when I was a teenager watching Chappelle's show, we understood it was comedy.
And he makes fun of white people.
He makes fun of the history of the U.S.
He makes fun of the Founding Fathers.
And I get it.
It's a joke!
This is a guy who can bring you down, like, he can bring you to his level and say something that will offend them, you'll laugh at it and offend you, and you will laugh at it because you know that's comedy!
Um, so, it's such a refreshing thing to see this, man.
You really, really gotta watch this.
Look at this.
Check this out.
He says that a white- Okay, this is amazing.
By the time the Q&A plays at the end of the special, Chappelle has already shown his unapologetic approach to courting controversy.
His answers put that into even starker view.
He says that a white woman left one of his practice sets for the special at the Punchline Comedy Club, telling him, I'm sorry I was raped.
Chappelle says, he replied with, It's not your fault you were raped, but it's not my fault either.
To which the audience laughs raucously, as though that were a real punchline.
It was.
That's the point.
For one, he's saying, you can't make me do something, you will not dictate what he's allowed to say, and it's nothing on him if he wants to make a joke and you're offended by it.
The joke was, he's offensive, he's going over the top, and that's where he's taking it.
Of course in the real world.
He's at a dinner with his friends and family.
Someone said that he wouldn't say ta-ta.
No, it's a show.
And if you want to come in and throw your offensive whatever at him, he's going to tell you to buzz off.
Because it's a show.
Look at this.
He then followed the story about sparking an unlikely friendship with a trans woman who he says was laughing the hardest out of anyone at the trans jokes in his practice set.
The strange story of camaraderie seemed to highlight the common accusation that Chappelle is only interested in repairing his relationship with marginalized groups if he doesn't have to change anything about himself.
And you know what?
He doesn't have to.
He doesn't.
I don't care.
I don't care if he offends me when he wants to make a joke about Asian people.
It doesn't offend me.
You know, I'm offended by very little.
But if he wants to make an offensive joke, there were some things.
He joked about banging kids.
And I'm like, whoa!
Am I gonna demand his cancellation?
No, I'm gonna applaud his bravery in the face of cancel culture.
We can rag on Vice all day for being on the wrong side of history, but we've got this story from the Daily Beast, which is really interesting as well.
Because the Daily Beast tends to play to the woke left, not completely, but often.
They've got some writers that write fake nonsense, targeting conservatives, and moderates, and lying.
They publish ridiculous lies, like Huffington Post does.
Dave Chappelle calls Michael Jackson rape accusers liars, defends Louis C.K.
and Kevin Hart.
But the story can't quite get to the point that Vice did.
Because I think the Daily Beast recognizes, guess what?
People like Dave Chappelle.
People think he's funny.
And people like his offensive style of comedy.
The only reason Vice gets by on this trash is because liberals don't speak up.
Well, guess what?
I speak up.
And you know what they do?
They smear me.
They insult me.
That's the game they play.
And so long as moderate liberals refuse to speak up, they get away with this.
But you know what?
The Daily Beast recognizes.
They go through all of the really offensive things, but they dance the line.
They don't get too close to condemning him for doing it.
They just point out how, oh, you know, that's his humor.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
It is refreshing to see this kind of comedy.
It is refreshing to see someone willing to poke fun at everybody and take everybody out and spare no punches and just be themselves.
It is so refreshing to see someone not hide behind a veil of wokeness.
I miss George Carlin.
I was a kid watching his shows, being told by the hippie liberals why he was the man, how he was a champion for the left, for free speech and all these things.
And I grew up on that, and I respect him.
Because I know George Carlin wasn't a bigot.
He was making a point.
And Dave Chappelle is the same.
He's making a point.
For his criticisms of white people, his jokes, I should say, I shouldn't call them criticisms, to the woke left.
It is all deserving, and no one should be spared the stick of comedy.
We all deserve getting a pie in the face every now and then.
I've said that to other people.
Because if you think you're above everyone else, that's when you start abusing that privilege.
That you have a right to never be offended or upset.
Sorry.
And so I'm just so happy to see Dave Chappelle come down like Thor with that axe, slam it into the ground, boom, like a pie in the face to everyone.
Good.
Knock these people down a peg or two.
And don't get me wrong, as I stated, he spares nobody.
Everybody gets knocked down a little bit.
But at least those of us in this space that respect comedy are sitting back saying, Look, we're used to it.
We appreciate it.
It's about time someone stood up and made an offensive joke.
And you know what?
Like I said, man, it's like he's daring him, but I'd love to see them go after Chappelle, because he does not care.
Bravo, man.
I'm surprised Netflix did this, because Netflix has some pretty woke and bad shows.
This was incredible.
A++.
Five out of five.
Some dry moments, for sure.
Some really shocking stuff that I couldn't believe he said, but you know what?
It's a comedy bit.
It's a comedy bit.
So good.
Good on him, man.
I just had to do this video.
I, you know, I had, I was so, I, I, I, after seeing these articles and watching the video, I just had to make something praising this, and I cannot recommend it enough.
You need to go see it, if you haven't already.
Stick around, next segment will be at 4pm, youtube.com slash timcast, it is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
The Wall Street Journal published this story called Bernie's Green Leap Forward.
And it says $16 trillion in jail fracking banned oil CEOs in jail.
And this is from the editorial board.
This is from a couple days ago.
And I have to admit, When Bernie Sanders said that fossil fuel executives should be imprisoned, that was one of the biggest red flags I have ever seen come from Bernie Sanders.
In fact, it was so big, it was a big red flag.
It also had a little yellow symbol in the corner of it.
Yes, the communist symbol.
Now, some people are joking that Bernie's only calling for the gulags.
I think it's a bit extreme, but it is kind of weird to be calling for jailing people who have done things legally, albeit not morally, right?
Here's the thing.
There are a lot of things we as a people think are bad.
That doesn't mean we can just go and, you know, arrest somebody and lock them up because at some point we decide it's bad.
No.
What we do is we change the laws, we then inform them, you can't do this, and then they either choose to follow the law or not.
And if they refuse, we have a judicial system to deal with it.
Now, I do think it's kind of BS a lot of companies get away with, yes, overt illegal activities and pay a fine.
That's a different conversation.
I think it's getting pretty scary.
When we're seeing what Bernie is proposing among other people.
Now, here's the thing.
I was a fan of Bernie for a lot of reasons back in 2016.
Notably, he seemed genuine.
When he talked about gun rights, for instance, he said it was urban versus rural.
And I was like, right!
It's about bringing people together so they can share an experience.
He seemed to be...
He seemed to be someone who stood on principle, having been fighting for civil rights issues for a long time.
And here he was, refusing to flip-flop, but then something changed.
Something changed.
And look, I gotta admit, I don't agree with him on most of his policy.
It was an issue of, you know...
Here's a guy who seems like he's trying to bridge that divide and be honest about our problems, and now it seems like we have a guy who's gonna espouse establishment talking points and talk about throwing people in jail and spending 16 trillion dollars we don't have.
Here's the most important point with this story, though.
The reason I want to talk about this is because I'm so damn confused.
How do we live in a society where Donald Trump can tweet and send the market into turmoil and they criticize him for it, but Bernie Sanders can propose a $16 trillion plan and think that won't affect the market and destabilize everything?
The point I'm making is, our economy is very delicate.
It is a massive and intricate system with a ton of working parts.
Humans naturally, through a decentralized process, flow with the marketplace.
Competition arises, people develop new technologies, things change over time, the economy evolves.
We have a mixed economy, which means the government can come and make some changes when it needs to.
I think that's the right thing to do.
We need to let the system evolve and grow, but we also need to make sure We nip the bud of any cancerous tumors growing on our economy, things that would be bad for everybody if left unchecked.
I think that's what the government should do, essentially.
Let the competition run its thing, and, you know, do its course, do its, yeah, do its thing, and then eventually it gets to a point where something might be emerging, we all decide together, hey, that's bad, and we better stop it from getting out of control.
But what Bernie wants to do is he wants to take the entire delicate system and just start rearranging pieces of it.
That, in my opinion, will just cause it to collapse.
Because an individual, even a committee, can't figure out how all of these parts work together because it's decentralized and uses the computing power of economics and individuals to determine what should go where and when.
The point is, Trump tweeting is like someone chucking a pebble into an intricate house of cards and, you know, bouncing off of some things and things getting erratic.
Bernie Sanders wants to chuck a boulder at the house of cards.
So I don't understand how they think it's possible that Bernie could enact a $16 trillion green leap forward, as the Wall Street Journal calls it, when we know a tweet can disrupt the market.
So let's read this story and see what the Wall Street Journal has to say about Bernie Sanders.
But before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do, share this video!
Because I know people are going to get mad that I'm ragging on Bernie, but you know what?
Let's just dive into it.
If you like the video, share it.
Let's read.
They write, Bernie Sanders published his version of the Green New Deal last week, and it's written with all the realism voters have come to expect.
You mean lack thereof?
Start with its price.
An historic $16.3 trillion.
That's ten times the Joe Biden's climate plan, which is wild already.
For the record, America's annual economy is about $21 trillion.
Mr. Sanders says climate change shares similarities to the crisis faced by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1940s, when the U.S.
within three short years was restructured the entire economy.
Oh, the good old days of coffee and meat rationing.
Maybe that isn't what Mr. Sanders had in mind.
But he pledges to declare a national emergency and push through a wholesale transformation of our society.
Hold on!
Aren't you the people who claimed Trump didn't have the right to declare an emergency to re-appropriate defense spending for a wall?
Now you want to declare an emergency and restructure the entire economy?
This is why I don't believe they're being honest when talking about real solutions.
Because it's rules for thee, but not for me.
We know Trump can disrupt the economy, but when they do it, it's fine!
It's fine, it's fine.
Trump can't declare an emergency, but when we do it, To start, he'd switch electricity and transportation to 100% renewables by 2030.
Are you kidding me?
How would you just do that?
He would ban fracking, which I believe makes us the largest producer of natural gas, which burns clean, I believe.
I could be wrong.
Ban drilling offshore and on federal lands.
Ban imports and exports of fossil fuels.
Cancel oil pipelines already being built.
And halt permitting of new fossil fuel extraction, transportation, and refining infrastructure.
I am a moderate individual, and this is nuts.
We do need to transform our energy sector and look for more renewable energies.
We do.
We don't do it by snapping our fingers and shutting down our economy and giving all of the other nations who hate us a leg up because they won't stop.
Bernie seems to think we can just do this, ignoring that other countries exist who don't like us.
So it is a challenge.
How do we get everyone on board?
I don't know if you do, so I don't know what to tell you.
Let's read on.
Nuclear power would also be phased out.
Oh, great.
He calls it a false solution, along with geoengineering and carbon capture, and don't worry about rising costs.
Quote, we do not expect energy prices to spike, he says, because the federal government is going to weatherize homes, electrify heating, and keep electricity prices stable.
What?
You can't!
That's impossible!
Thanks to the public provision of renewables, after 2035, electricity will be virtually free, aside from operations and maintenance costs.
Well, let me clarify something.
Weatherizing homes, that's not going to have any impact on the price of electricity for the most part.
So listen, if you're talking about electrifying homes as a stabilization of electrical costs, I think what you're really saying is, You will spend the same in energy costs, but the price of that energy will skyrocket and your use will decrease.
That is misleading in my opinion.
Because some things can be made more energy efficient and some things can't.
So yes, the cost of energy will wildly fluctuate, and all of this talk, I'd be willing to bet, if Bernie got elected, there would be a massive swing in the markets.
Now, I know I'm going to catch flack from a lot of the Bernie Sanders people, who are going to be like, Tim, you've turned on Bernie.
Yeah, man, come on, this is nuts.
The Green New Deal stuff they're pushing out is insane.
They talk about, you know, a four-year college education.
Look, let's read.
Workers in the fossil fuel industry will be given a just transition, including five years of wage guarantee, a four-year college education, if they so desire, plus early retirement support for those who choose it.
Where is all of this money coming from?
Let me explain something.
Okay?
I do believe government programs are a good thing.
I do believe we can do some of these things and they can work.
I do believe they need to be set on a time limit and very heavily controlled and restricted so they don't grow out of control.
Doing all of these things is like, I imagine it's a little kid going, oh, food should be free!
Like, America's so dumb!
Like, why spend money on food anyway?
That's what it sounds like.
It's a little kid.
Listen.
It's not about money.
Money is meaningless.
Money is literally meaningless, and I talk to people about this.
I see these posts on Facebook from people saying if the billionaires would just give up their wealth.
It's like, dude, the money they hold is access.
It doesn't actually guarantee them anything.
There's something that, you know, I've known several rich people for a long time, okay?
And I'll explain something very important.
I was talking to a very wealthy individual, and they were talking about traveling East Coast.
They came from New York to D.C.
and I said, so what'd you do, take a private plane?
And they were like, no, I took the train.
And I was like, you took the train?
For what, like 50 bucks?
Why?
You could fly here.
And they said, no, it would take too long and it's obnoxious.
No matter how much money you have, you still live within the confines of society.
So yes, you can have a lot of money and not worry about losing your home.
Some people own multiple homes.
But the issue is, it's not the money.
There are several individuals, many, who could take every penny they have and give it away, and they're still rich.
You know why?
Because the paycheck doesn't stop coming simply because they give money away.
So think about a CEO.
They're like, if only they gave up all their wealth.
First of all, that money doesn't guarantee anything if someone isn't willing to do the job.
No matter what, there are some jobs people might just never want to do.
Money won't get you what you think it will.
Some people will.
It's not the money.
It's the access, it's the value, it's the labor, etc.
So they act like simply because a billionaire has the money, that's going to make a difference.
What Bernie needs to understand, and what Bernie supporters need to understand, is what Bernie is talking about isn't just, the money is there, we can tax people, it'll exist.
No, it's whether or not people want to do this.
Let me make that clear.
You can claim, we're gonna train all the fossil fuel people to go to college.
Okay.
Do they want to go to college and do they want to do the job?
That's the question.
Because the answer may be a resounding no.
You'll find many people are proud of the job they do and they disagree with you and they think it's a good thing.
So then you enter the authoritarianism of these plans and how it always gets to this point.
Because you will have to force these people to do something they don't want to do.
You can talk all day and night.
The money exists.
We can pay for it.
But you're also talking about a transformation of the economy, which at its core is human labor.
The biggest cost for almost any business is human labor.
So you can go to somebody who works for one of these companies and say, we're taking you out of this oil petroleum engineering job, and we're going to train you to build solar panels.
And they might say, No.
I don't want to.
I don't like solar.
Sorry.
So what do you do?
What do you do?
The assumption is that this money will go into the hands of somebody who is choosing to do a job.
But the reality is, the economy is very delicate and hard to move.
One person can't do it.
Maybe with a gun they can.
But think about all of the people in all of the industries, where you will have to tell people, you are now going to do X and here's the money for it, and they might just say no.
It's really that simple.
I try to keep these segments short, but let me stress, we shouldn't be arresting people over controversial pipelines.
We should pass a law and have a conversation.
And just because there is a small minority of people claiming they should be arrested doesn't mean it's true.
We need to figure these things out, but ten, twenty, a hundred, even a thousand people can't say one person should be locked up indefinitely.
When I'm talking about regular people on the ground.
We have to work within a system that guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This isn't that.
What these people in the Green New Deal don't realize is that you might go to someone and say, we're going to give you free college.
And they'll say, I want to take interpretive dance.
And you'll go, well, actually, we need people to build wind turbines.
And they're going to go, no, I want to take interpretive dance.
And there you go.
There you go.
I was talking to someone about UBI and why I mostly disagree with it.
And I said, if you could do anything you wanted right now, what would you do?
And I was talking to my friend, and they'd say, I just skate every day.
I'm like, that's awesome!
I bet you'd be really good at a certain point, but never as good as the pros, and that would add nothing to society.
Therein lies the problem.
What would people do if given the choice?
They'd say, I'll be an actor, I'll be a musician, I'll be a pro golfer.
And it's like, yeah, that's great.
I ask people this.
How many people do you know who play guitar?
And they say, oh, I know a ton.
How many of those people who play guitar want to do it professionally and be famous?
Like, I shouldn't say famous, but a successful musician.
And they respond with a lot of them, actually.
And how many of them are good enough to do it?
And they say, almost none.
There you go.
When you guarantee anybody can just do a job, they will do something we don't need they're not good at.
It's tough.
I don't know what the answer is.
What I do know is you can't snap your fingers and say the economy will change because you're assuming people will just agree to take the jobs you think they will.
They won't.
And maybe, here's the other problem.
Let's say you go to one of these guys, a petroleum engineer, making $150,000 a year, and you say, we're going to make you do solar panels.
And they say, I don't want to do solar panels.
I like doing petroleum.
Well, you have to.
Well, then you better pay me more.
We're not going to pay you more.
Well, then I'm not going to do it.
Either they don't do it, or you pay them more, and that's not going to make sense in the economy.
I'm sorry.
Because then you've got ridiculously expensive solar, and you can't pay for it.
Just claiming it costs something ignores the human issue of whether or not people will
choose to do a job.
Like look at all these numbers.
This is the last point I'll make.
Look at all these numbers.
And now tell me you think all of that will translate into people agreeing to do something.
It won't.
I'll leave it there.
A couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
In a story from Axios, they claim that Trump has, I believe twice, called upon dropping
a nuclear bomb or firing an ICBM into a hurricane to disrupt it.
First, let me just say, that won't do anything, because, I mean, I think the blast radius of like a standard ICBM might be like, I could be wrong, but what is it like, you know, 7 or 8 miles or something?
Our most powerful nukes aren't nearly as big as a hurricane as big as South Carolina, so it would not do anything.
I suppose there's, like, an idea of using, maybe, like, I don't know, 20 MIRVs.
This is, um, multiple, uh, what is it, what is it called?
Multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles, which drop, like, 12 payloads at a specific area to disrupt, maybe, a current.
But you would need a substantial, that's, like, that's, like, 200 to 400, uh, warheads.
So, it makes no sense.
I don't think, you know, even at that capacity would have an impact on the strength of a hurricane.
It's a major phenomenon we can't control.
So I'll make that clear.
And I'll stress, I really know, I'm not a scientist, man.
Don't quote me on that.
I know nothing about it for the most part, except that it doesn't work.
But here's the thing.
Trump claims he never said it.
He claims he never said it.
And this story from the Daily Wire makes a really interesting point, though I disagree with what they think is most likely.
They write, did Trump suggest nuking hurricanes to identify leakers?
There's something that I really want to do this because I love talking about the concept of coloring the water.
This is a trick used to figure out who is leaking information.
And in this instance, the assumption is, or the argument, that Trump purposefully told people insane things so when the story came out, he would know exactly who did it.
I'll explain this concept moving closer to the end.
We'll come back to this.
Here's the thing.
They point out how Trump says crazy things all the time and stands by it.
Even posting memes.
So why would he deny this?
I think the simple solution is someone misinterpreted the president.
Maybe he made a joke.
Maybe he didn't say it at all.
And it's fake news.
So, actually, let's read this, so I'll show you what Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire has to say, and then I want to talk about the concept of coloring the water, and I've made a video about this before.
Before we get started, go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a bunch of ways you can do it.
The best thing you can do, just share this video so that I can overcome this deranking from YouTube.
Seriously, man, you know, The growth of my channel, it's very obvious that at a certain point they shifted how the algorithm works because they're being berated by ideologues lying about how YouTube radicalizes people.
And YouTube keeps saying they don't, but they will bend the knee in two seconds.
That means, if this content is good, word of mouth is the best thing I can do.
Share it if you like it.
Otherwise, you know, whatever.
I don't deserve it.
Knowles writes, President Trump refuted reports Monday morning that he wants to bomb hurricanes.
The story by Axios that President Trump wanted to blow up large hurricanes with nuclear weapons prior to reaching shore is ridiculous, he tweeted in the third person.
I never said this, just more fake news.
The billowy heirs of Andrew, Katrina, Sandy, and Irma can breathe a sigh of relief.
On Sunday, Axios reporter Jonathan Swan and Margaret Talev published the scoop that President Trump plans to unleash nuclear weapons on the weather.
President Trump had suggested multiple times in senior homeland security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States, according to sources who have heard the president's private remarks they wrote.
Axios went on to acknowledge that Trump didn't invent this idea, and the idea keeps resurfacing in the public even though scientists agree it won't work.
As early as 1935, after a hurricane ripped through the Florida Keys, a group of Chamber of Commerce executives suggested bombing storms as a preventative measure.
The U.S.
Bureau broached the question again in 1950, but with Cold War underway, warned the public not to waste bombs on hurricanes.
A decade later, the U.S.
Weather Bureau Chief Francis Reichelderfer announced plans to study the effects of bombs on storms.
But high costs and uncertain fault halted the experiment.
I think a bomb can stop a thunderstorm.
I was reading something about it, but not a hurricane.
Of greater interest than the President's private remarks are the sources who relayed them, and perhaps therein lies the key to this bizarre story.
The report presents three distinct political possibilities.
President Trump claims the reporters of the sources made it all up.
I think that's possible, though I don't really believe that's likely.
I mean, that's a stretch.
President Trump claims the reporters or the sources made it all up.
The mainstream media have fabricated stories about the president before.
But in this case, the reporters stand by every word in the story.
They even gave the White House press team nine hours to respond.
We can see this from Jonathan Swan, who said, I stand by every word in the story.
He said this in at least two meetings during the first year and a bit of the presidency.
And one of the conversations was memorialized.
I don't know what that means.
Someone saved it?
Not to mention that we gave the White House press team full visibility of everything we were reporting nine hours before publication.
We published their statement in the story.
Now let me ask this question.
Who cares?
Who cares?
I do not care if Trump's talking about nuke in a storm.
I really don't.
Seriously.
But I do like the idea behind coloring the water and what it means.
So I'll get to that as we go to the third possibility.
One more paragraph and I'll explain it.
The second possibility is that President Trump really wants to nuke a hurricane, but if that were the case, why would he deny it?
President Trump tends to stand by even his most outrageous ideas, as when he suggested last week the US buy Greenland from Denmark.
I agree!
Trump is not ashamed of presenting far-fetched ideas.
Look, it's in the realm of possibility to buy Greenland.
It is in the realm of possibility to nuke a storm.
Trump posted a meme about Trump Tower in Greenland, and he's standing by it.
If Trump really said we could nuke a storm, I'd imagine he'd come out and be like, one nuke probably wouldn't do it, but what about 500?
Maybe that would, I don't know.
I think it's silly that Trump would deny something he actually wants to pursue.
Trump doesn't strike me as the person who would propose something and then immediately walk back and be like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
No, Trump strikes me as the person who's gonna stand up and be like, let's blow it up, and then people will be like, that won't work, and be like, eh, whatever, so what, we'll try anyway, right?
He's not the kind of guy who backs down like that.
But I really, really don't think this is about ferreting out leakers.
That, to me, seems weird.
The third possibility seems most likely.
I don't know about that.
I mean, maybe.
It's weird, though.
That Trump raised the strange idea to ferret out leakers.
For years, the president has invaded against leakers as traitors and cowards vowing to find out who they are.
How could a disgruntled staffer resist spilling news of a prospective nuclear attack on storm clouds?
Just this past February, the White House suffered its worst leak yet when a staffer sent the President's private schedules to journalists.
Is it mere coincidence that Axios broke that story as well?
Well, that's interesting.
Now it sounds like maybe it really is.
This weird story breaks in Axios, so they leak some weird information, and sure enough, Axios leaks it.
They say the president has a leaker on his hands.
Perhaps his nuclear rhetoric targets not any seasonal deluge, but the steady drip, drip, drip of damaging press.
Many of you probably understand the concept of coloring the water based on what it's called, and based on the idea of what a leak is.
But let me- I love this.
I love this thing.
You can do this at home with your kids, and it's amazing.
Here's what you do.
You take five plastic cups, and you put- you take a needle, and you poke a hole in the bottom of one of them, so you can't see it, and you pour water in each cup.
Eventually, a pool of water will surround all of the cups, and you don't know which one is leaking.
Unless you color each cup a different color.
You put red in the first one, blue, green, yellow, orange.
All of a sudden, the water at the base of the cups turns blue.
You know where the leak came from now.
It's a simple way to explain it and it's a really fun thing to do like with your family and the school.
It's cool.
It makes so much sense.
So the idea here is that Trump would be in the presence very privately with certain individuals and he would say something like this.
Can we nuke hurricanes?
That's a really great idea.
I think we should do it.
And someone hears that, and they run away.
He then sits down with another person and says, What if we nuked Mars and the ice caps?
That would be a great idea, right?
That would work.
Let's just do it.
They run away with the information.
But, after Trump gives out these weird, ridiculous scenarios that someone couldn't help but leak, the story pops up in the press.
Can we nuke a hurricane?
And Trump chuckles to himself.
And there it is.
Person A. We sent them, you know, we put the blue dye in the water, and sure enough the blue dyes popped up in Axios.
And now they'll know who leaked Trump's schedule, or at least have a good idea of who may be leaking Trump's schedule.
Now here's the issue.
When you're talking about coloring the water, you have to be careful.
Because let's go back to the cup scenario.
Let's say you put blue in one, and you put yellow in the other, and you put green in one, and the water on the bottom is green.
It may be two different leakers.
You just don't know.
So you've got to be really careful and really specific.
The other issue is that you might see two or three colors.
Trump may have leaked this story, if that's the case.
I honestly don't think Trump's doing that.
I think sources might be lying or exaggerating, but that's a whole other issue.
I'll give you my most likely after this.
The issue is there could be multiple leakers, and you've got to figure out how to source, you know, find out who they are, and I don't know.
But I'll make this point.
Actually, actually, no, no, no.
I do try to keep these segments short, so I will leave it there because the last one ran long.
But I will just say, my last point on this, it's likely that somebody is just being hyperbolic.
Trump maybe made a joke where he was like, meh, let's just drop a nuke on these things, huh?
Not serious.
And then somebody runs and then claims it was.
You know what I mean?
I think that's a simple scenario.
But I'll leave it there because I do try to keep these short.
Look, I really do love the idea of coloring the water.
It's a cool thing you can visualize and it makes so much sense.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Comedians appear to have begun snapping.
They've reached their limit in the culture war, and their outrage— I'm sorry, the outrage culture is just too much.
It's too much.
So here I am.
You know, I just did a video earlier about Dave Chappelle, and I will say this right now, you seriously need to watch the Dave Chappelle Netflix special.
That man is a LEGEND.
But I also want to throw it to Joe Rogan, Ricky Gervais, and other comedians that are refusing to bend the knee to the woke outrage culture.
You do you.
Much respect.
These people can't get us down.
Well, as I talked about this, and then sure enough, I'm browsing the news like I do and I come across this story.
Pete Davidson berates University of Central Florida audience, you should effing grow up.
And I started laughing.
Yes, they need to grow up.
It's a college audience, and apparently Pete Davidson just started wailing on these people.
Not necessarily about woke outrage, but he did call them the R-word, the ablest R-word, which I can't say on YouTube.
Yep, that's right, I can't say it, it's so ridiculous.
But he called him effing R, you know what I mean, for being dumb, and it was epic.
Now, in this circumstance, Pete Davidson isn't necessarily talking about woke culture or any of this outrage, but he is talking about how these young people are just whiny babies, and they boo him and they're upset, and he's like, oh please, grow up, and I'm like, yes.
So I want to highlight this, but I also want to talk about Ricky Gervais doing the same thing, right?
Just a couple weeks ago, saying, don't apologize, and then I want to talk, I want to go back to a little bit about the Dave Chappelle thing, because the overarching theme we have here is it seems comedians are going to be the cavalry riding into the culture war saying, enough!
We're gonna make jokes, and you can't stop us.
I think, uh, I can't remember who this, I think it was Matt, Matt and Trey from South Park, or, they said if you could, you can either joke about everything, or you can't joke about anything.
And they're right.
If you make a joke and one person gets offended so you apologize, well then why not apologize to everyone?
And that's the point.
So Dave Chappelle, man, did he go nuts!
I mean that in like a good way, like, he just was like, dropping nukes!
Some of the most offensive comedy I've ever heard, seriously.
Yeah, but let's read this story about Pete Davidson.
So they say, the university is not pleased with how the comedian handled himself.
Well, I am very pleased.
Props to you, Pete.
Pete Davidson on Monday night berated an audience at the University of Central Florida after some people in the crowd took out their phones.
Davidson was captured on video lambasting the crowd for more than a minute saying he would leave if they did not act accordingly.
I don't have to be here, said the Saturday Night Live cast member at the tour stop.
I can just give them their money back because I don't give an F.
Yeah, there it is.
I can't say it.
I mean, you can see it on the screen.
I'll get in trouble anyway.
Davidson called the crowd privileged little a-holes before making the
situation even more uncomfortable. That's why the world is going to end in 25
years because you're all effing are yeah there it is I can't say it I mean you
can see on screen I'll get in trouble anyway he said you should effing grow up
there were some laughs as Davidson ranted but it turned into a smattering
of booze and random heckling Here we go, this is the best.
Oh my god.
After about 90 seconds of insults, Davidson announced he would continue the show.
I just wanted to scare you, but grow up.
Seriously, he said.
UCF officials confirmed to The Hollywood Reporter Davidson did continue the show, which lasted around an hour.
Still?
The university was not pleased.
Mr. Davidson's abusive language, particularly his use of a derogatory slur, is contrary to the University of Central Florida's values of inclusion and respect for all.
Mark Schlub, UCF spokesman told The Hollywood Reporter, It's disappointing that his rant spoiled an event that was
meant to welcome students back for the semester.
I don't think so. In fact, I think that was incredible.
Now, it's not necessarily about, uh, wokeness.
But it is about him going after the privileged sensibilities of these college students who, oh no!
Oh no, you're offended!
Too bad!
I would have loved to be sitting there.
I'd love to go to a show where someone just ragged on the audience.
I'd be laughing the whole way and clapping.
Yes!
As I mentioned in the past segment, we all deserve a pie in the face every so often.
No one is above scrutiny.
And this is epic.
But let's do this.
Let's jump to the next story.
Because I didn't talk too much about this.
I did a little bit.
But here's the thing.
Pete Davidson telling them to grow up.
That's exactly what they need to hear.
You were adults in college.
Chill.
Poor babies, huh?
Well, Ricky Gervais is also taking on what they call verbal terrorism.
Yup.
Ricky Gervais is the man.
Joe Rogan, Pete Davidson, Dave Chappelle, you guys are epic.
And you are carrying on the legacy of people like George Carlin.
Much love, much respect.
So let's read about this.
The National Review says, The left should listen to comedians more.
Yeah, well they're doing a really bad job of being funny, I gotta admit.
This is why the left can't meme.
Because they're just unfunny and they're overly sensitive and scared.
Ricky Gervais calls himself a lefty liberal champagne socialist.
But when he says, I don't agree that feelings are more important than facts, he echoes Ben Shapiro.
Yes!
The point of intersection.
Both men support speaking freely.
This quality makes them somewhat courageous, though it shouldn't.
How did free speech become a right-wing issue?
If you go to AllSides.com, they show you how they define left and right.
And I kid you not, a website is defined as being right-wing if they promote free speech.
And it's not AllSides' bias.
It's a fact, and we all know it.
The left in media has abandoned the cause of free speech to the right.
And that is insane.
Because it is the left that has used free speech to challenge oppression from the get-go.
And now what do we see?
That story earlier today about an Antifa professor losing his job?
Well, that's your ideology and that's what happens.
I disagree with it, but that's what you champion.
So sure enough, yes, there are still good people who exist, and it's gonna be the comedians.
Because comedians push boundaries.
Let's read a little bit more.
Another commonality is that both tend to elicit a lot of shock and dismay.
Or at least feign shock and dismay.
Gervais dismisses adverse comments on social media as the scribbles on every public toilet wall in the world.
Bravo!
Bravo.
In an important two-hour conversation that recently appeared on the podcast Making Sense with Sam Harris, Harris is a vigorous defender of the culture of free speech, and his interviews are always penetrating.
This is one of the best.
Gervais giggles with disbelief when he says, Right on.
He stresses that political correctness, I'm all for it, because he doesn't want to hurt people's feelings, but standards do change, so applying them backwards in time is a strange fixation.
They talk about Kevin Hart, which I'm not gonna rehash, you get it.
They say he apologized and deleted the tweets.
I'm gonna give away some of the jokes from Chappelle.
He said that when Kevin Hart was told to apologize, he said, F you, I quit.
And then went on every major television talk show and apologized for six weeks.
And it was amazing.
Dave Chappelle, spot on.
He did.
He did.
And at first, we were all like, you go, Kevin Hart.
You're amazing.
And then he did.
We did the apology tour, and it was disheartening.
Don't apologize to these people.
They don't care, and apology is an admission of guilt.
Listen, I used to work for nonprofits, and I will tell you what these companies will do.
Let's say you have a restaurant and you invite, like, a group of people in.
You're like, I don't know, they walk in your restaurant and they order food.
Turns out, oh, they're the Proud Boys.
Uh-oh.
You didn't know.
You didn't know.
Then all of a sudden, people start plastering, you need to ban the Proud Boys, do this and do that.
Do you know what they're looking for?
First, they do want you to ban the Proud Boys.
And when you do, and when you apologize, they will not say that the Proud Boys unwittingly entered this restaurant and the restaurant didn't know.
Of course not!
Are you nuts?
They're gonna add a line, an accolade, on their organization's chart that says something like, we successfully stopped the Proud Boys supporting restaurant from hosting their meeting.
They will not give you any ground, so don't apologize.
So that's why all this cancel stuff is absurd.
That seems like a lowball estimate as time passes people don't just let their irony detectors rust and fall into disrepair.
They seem to actively sabotage them.
them bulletproof for 10 years.
That seems like a lowball estimate, as time passes people don't just let their irony detectors
rust and fall into disrepair.
They seem to actively sabotage them.
Willfully ignoring comic intent is a growth industry.
Yeah, that's one of the funniest things about this.
It's like, in the Dave Chappelle segment, and I mentioned this, he talks about how Kevin
Hart said he wanted to hit his kid over the head with a dollhouse.
And it's obviously a joke because it makes no sense.
But they take it as though he's making a fact.
He's making a true statement about his personal opinions.
No.
It's absurd.
As Chappelle points out, he'd have to buy the dollhouse first.
It makes no sense.
Well, I don't want to prat on too much because I think you get the point.
These are awesome comedians who are stepping up and telling people to SDFU.
Take a look at this.
Simple Google search of Dave Chappelle and we can see vices, outrage, you can definitely skip Dave Chappelle's new special, hmm, harumph I say.
Then you see reason in the examiner saying, oh yeah, eviscerate this.
And then we can see there are more, you know, more straightforward like Hollywood Reporter.
Then we have The Ringer.
Dave Chappelle's provocations have turned predictable.
They say that, you know, Slate says he defends.
It's more straightforward.
Chappelle's, here we go, Chappelle's new comedy hour, our comedy special, draws heavy criticism for courting controversy.
Good for him.
Good for him.
No, look.
You know what, man?
I'm not going to read this.
They talk about Vice.
They talk about these platforms.
An early review of the special from the New York Times said Chappelle hasn't adjusted his material for the setting.
Everyone was laughing as far as I could tell, and so was I. So you know what?
You crazy, woke, religious, intersectional, whatever you want to call it, just go away.
Dave Chappelle makes the best point, and I will end with this one.
He makes a really offensive joke and then says, Hey, if you're offended by this, just know, you clicked on my face!
And I'm just like, that's right.
People get so mad at my YouTube videos and others.
You chose to watch it, dude!
You chose!
But it's not about whether or not people have a right to choose, it's about telling people they don't have a right to choose.
And that is the end goal.
Saying, I don't care if people like what you do, I will do everything to stop it.
Well, eventually people get angry and refuse to accept it.
Hopefully our Constitution protects us going forward, and hopefully more comedians step up and tell everyone to go shove it, because they're gonna make a joke, and too bad if you don't like it.
