All Episodes
Sept. 13, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:17:23
Bill Maher On MSNBC SLAMS Far Left As "Cancer," Poll Shows Voters MORE Like Trump Than Democrats

Bill Maher On MSNBC SLAMS Far Left As "Cancer," Poll Shows Voters MORE Like Trump Than Democrats.  In an interview with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Bill Maher criticized democrats for pushing too far left and called the far left a "cancer" on progressivism.While the comments may be bombastic they certainly resonate with many people who are tired of the Democrats ignoring the needs of the people in favor of media driven and marketing driven social justice politics.A Poll from USC backs up many of these claims in a way, showing that the average voter is closer to Trump on Policy than they are to ANY Democrats.If the Democrats want to push far left they will certainly keep losing support and as Bill maher suggests many people will vote Trump simply because he appears to be strong. Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:16:55
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Recently, in an interview with Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, Bill Maher said the 2020 race is the race for Democrats to lose.
Joe Scarborough asked him about the maddening behavior of the Democrats pushing far left, and Bill Maher said something bombastic.
He said the far-left push is a cancer on progressivism.
I agree with Bill Maher.
I wouldn't ever say something as bombastic as him, and I gotta admit, YouTube's probably gonna punish me because of that comment, but it came from Bill Maher.
So you have to understand, this is mainstream, left-leaning commentary pointing out the problems.
I am not an outlier.
And I have data to prove it.
Something that's going to be very refreshing to all of you.
Now this all ties together.
Bill Maher calls out the left saying they're getting crazier.
They're going to take away all your guns and all this other nonsense.
They're going to tax you to death.
All these things.
And the big problem is the media.
They won't call it out.
In fact, they hire many of these people, chase the algorithm, and the Democratic candidates chase after marketing, after demographics, after woke Twitter.
And Bill Maher says no, and so do I. I want to talk about this.
What Bill Maher said, break it down, there's an amazing comment from a fan on the Bill Maher subreddit that really, really speaks to me.
But I want to show you this.
Take a look at this poll.
The Daily Caller reports voters identify closer to Donald Trump than any Democrat, including Joe Biden.
It's very important information, somewhat tied to the comments about 2020 coming off the Democratic debates the other night.
But here's the important point.
Why is the Daily Caller framing this in such a way when the initial reporting makes it seem like Joe Biden is actually what voters identify with?
When I saw this story, I went over to the poll.
This is from USC Dornsif, and I read this, and they say, look, undecided voters are closer to Joe Biden than Trump.
I was very confused.
I was like, no, it sounds like the average person is to the left of Biden.
Not true.
The average person is to the right of Biden and closer to Donald Trump's policies.
And that was confusing.
I had to dig into this to find this out.
Why, then, does the LA Times not say this?
Why do they frame the story only talking about Democrats?
It could just be they only care about Democrats.
It was an unintended consequence of reporting on Democrats that they don't tell the American people that, according to the poll, most people are closer to Donald Trump than any other candidate.
On average, I should say.
So I believe, yes, on average, most people are closer to Trump.
So I wonder, why will the left end up losing this one?
And I think it comes down to the fact that the media won't call it out.
They hire these people, and you've got very few left, people like Bill Maher.
So here's what we're going to do.
I want to start with Bill Maher's comments, where he calls the far left a cancer of the Democratic Party, and then move through this and get to the polls.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate in order to support my work if you like it.
There is a PayPal option, a crypto option, excuse me.
And a physical address.
The best thing you can do, however, is share this video.
I have to say, Bill Maher calling the far left cancer, it's gonna get me in trouble.
That's actually explicitly stated in the rules.
Now, that's not my comment, but I don't think YouTube will care.
They will derank me for talking about Bill Maher.
And I'd be willing to bet this post from MSNBC, it was on MSNBC, that will be fine on YouTube.
That's how the game is played.
MSNBC gets propped up, I get knocked down for talking about the exact same thing.
So we'll see.
But at the very least, you can share this video to help.
So let's just dive right into it.
From Newsbusters, they say, Appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Thursday, liberal comedian Bill Maher actually hammered the Democratic Party for moving too far left and warned that 2020 candidates were jeopardizing their chances of defeating President Trump.
He also declared that America has been choking on political correctness.
We know it.
Dave Chappelle and Bill Burr came out and said it.
Joe Rogan's been saying it for a while.
We know.
It's time for people to be brave and start pushing back against cancel culture outrage.
During the taped interview, Joe Scarborough fretted, How maddening is that to you?
debate screaming at the television set, as one Democratic candidate after another suggested
that Barack Obama was too conservative on health care and immigration.
How maddening is that to you?
That they're having this race to the far left?
Marr sounded the alarm.
It's not good.
It's kind of a cancer on progressivism.
He demanded that Democrats reject far-left activists on social media.
I have been saying this for years, that first of all, you have to stand up to Twitter.
Twitter isn't us.
Twitter isn't the rank-and-file Democrat.
It's not even most liberals.
But they don't do it.
That's right.
According to a poll from USC, the average American is center-right.
I kid you not!
That's gonna shock a lot of people.
The poll could be wrong.
It's only one poll.
Keep that in mind.
I just have one poll that shows the average person on a scale of 0 to 100, 0 being liberal, 100 being conservative, is a 54.
And that's what they show.
Donald Trump is a 59.
Trump is a populist.
He's playing to America's desires.
And he's playing Twitter and the media.
Bill Maher can see through this.
As have I. So look.
I don't need Bill Maher to justify my opinions, but this is the important point.
For one, there are still people on the mainstream left saying enough.
But it also shows you how social media impacts conversation.
That I can get restricted for saying the same thing Bill Maher does.
And that's how the far left grows.
Mainstream media and social media have become safe spaces to protect far left ideology.
Let's read on.
They say.
The HBO Realtime host ripped some of the extreme policies being pitched by 2020 contenders in the debates, saying, but yes, if you run on taking away people's healthcare and taxing them too much and taking away all of their guns and trans women get abortion rights, I think that came up in the first debate, I don't think you're going to win this election.
He further fretted, And he said it before.
the only way the Democrat loses is to convince a lot of people that they are actually scarier
or crazier than Trump, which is not easy to do, but I think they can.
And he said it before.
So look, Bill Maher deserves to be criticized for his elitist comments about recessions,
but he deserves to be praised for calling this out.
Most people in this country are moderate centrists and unaffiliated, at least according to this study.
It's over 5,000 people, so it's a big sample size.
We will read a little bit more.
Later in the discussion, while explaining Trump's political success in 2016, Maher observed, The Trump voter, if you talk to them, what they always say, what they like about him, is he's not politically correct.
I think we underestimate how much America has been choking on political correctness for 25 years.
Scarborough agreed.
This is MSNBC!
MSNBC, Bill Maher liberal host, we have seen a mainstream push against this nonsense, and the Democrats better wake up.
Scarborough agreed, recalling how he has lectured officials on politically correct college campuses about the problem.
I've talked to presidents of universities. I've talked to educators saying you do understand that you are pushing a
lot of your young students toward Donald Trump Marr argued that when many voters don't really follow
policy that closely they do react negatively to the PC culture that dominates the left
They just know that when they read these little stories on and on and on it
Always seems to be the left that is defending some sort of something
That's so ridiculous that they say to themselves. I can't let these people take over the country
Yeah, I don't think Trump is good, but I can't let people this weak take over this fragile.
Fragility is not a selling point when you're running for leader of the free world.
Standing ovation, Bill Maher.
That is it.
That is hitting the nail on the head with the hammer.
People I know, lifelong Democrats, two-time Obama supporters, people who even voted for Hillary Clinton, telling me enough they would rather Trump wins to send a message about the insanity that is plaguing the left.
But let's talk about that election.
In my research on this story, I came across the Bill Maher subreddit.
The Democrats have shown us that they're not really after Trump.
They're just interested in taking his seat by saying whatever it takes, but their message is convoluted and uninspiring.
I think I shouldn't say excellent work, but it's important insight.
Check this out.
He said, oh, I'm assuming it's a he, they.
The Democrats have shown us that they're not really after Trump.
They're just interested in taking his seat by saying whatever it takes.
But their message is convoluted and uninspiring.
Absolutely.
None of them talked about the fallout of Trump's trade war and what and how they would do it
They also didn't give a solid rebuke of his tax cuts and how they aren't what they were cooked up to be.
Instead, they're stuck on media-driven and marketing-demographic-inspired pathologies about race relations and gutting millennials' college debt because they deserve it.
I'm a Gen Xer who paid out of pocket for my bachelor's and master's degrees.
It took 18 years in total to get to the finish line.
But I got there nonetheless.
None of these candidates spoke to me, but rather the entitled younger ones who probably won't even register and vote next year, LOL.
I want to give this person a standing ovation, too.
That is what we're seeing.
You want to understand my perspective?
You want to understand the kind of comments, the kind of videos I make?
These people in the media on Twitter, they look at my content and they say, ooh, Tim, look at that, it's a conservative channel.
I don't care.
You know why?
Because I listened to Bill Maher when he said, stand up to Twitter.
Well, admittedly, I've probably been here before Bill Maher was.
In a certain context, like the culture war.
But Bill Maher had a show called Politically Incorrect.
He did.
So I don't care about what the media says.
I don't care if they want to say, oh Tim, you talk too much about the Democrats.
No.
We're right.
I have the data to show it.
This is a good little segue from Bill Maher into what's happening with the Democrats.
I saw this story, and I thought it was fake news.
Yeah.
The Daily Caller.
Verified, green checkmark, conservative outlet.
But I'm reading through this and it says, the average voter's ideologies are closer to President Donald Trump than any Democratic candidate, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Southern California and LA Times from August 12th to September 8th.
And I said, okay, show me the poll.
Prove it.
So sure enough, I jumped over to the poll and I couldn't find it.
Scrolling down and looking through this, we can see that average ratings among all Dem primary voters puts them at a 40.
Whereas 100 is most conservative, they're center-left.
And I said, okay, well that's Democratic primary voters.
Scrolling down, and I don't see any of this, but then I see undecided voters.
And what do they say?
Undecided voters rate themselves as a 46, just slightly to the left of center.
Biden is a 49, which means to undecided voters, they're closer to Joe Biden than the next Democratic candidate, Elizabeth Warren, which sounds like they'll vote for Biden before Trump.
So how is this true?
Well, I read through this story, and I found nothing backing up what the Daily Caller said.
So I got kind of frustrated.
Where are you showing this?
This just shows me that, for the most part, people like the Democrats and don't like Donald Trump.
So I go to the LA Times actual story, and sure enough, it's the same thing.
They don't actually have anything in here that mentions anything about Trump.
They say Biden leads the field.
They say the race remains fluid.
About one in four say they are undecided.
The ideological position of those undecided voters is closer to how voters perceive Biden than to any of his major rivals.
Because they've cut out the part about Donald Trump.
They've cut out the fact that when you actually go into the polls, what do you learn?
You learn that people are closer to Trump, on average, than any of the Democrats.
And let me just show you.
Here's the actual poll.
So I said, forget the reporting, let's look at the actual data.
It turns out the daily caller was correct.
On a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 is the most liberal and 100 is the most conservative, what number would you give to yourself?
All eligible voters. 54.
All eligible voters, 54.
All eligible voters give Donald Trump a 66.
All Democratic primary voters give Donald Trump a 66.
That means the average person is about 12 points away from Donald Trump.
However, Joe Biden, the next closest candidate to the average person, is a 40, 14 points away.
That means I'll put it this way.
It provides evidence that what I've said in the past several weeks and months and years is true.
That moderate people in this country view the left as too far left and so there are more people in the middle who think the left is going too far left than there are people in the middle who think the right is going too far right.
Well, there are certainly people who are Democrats who think Trump is ridiculously conservative.
He's not.
Let me show you one.
The most is Elizabeth Warren supporters rated Trump a 79 and a Biden a 39.
So there are a lot of people who think Trump is super far right.
But he's just not.
And there's data to show it.
I've shown this graph time and time again.
The Republican Party from 2016 moved slightly to the left of where it was in 2012.
Trump is not far right.
I'm sorry, you're incorrect.
The problem, in my opinion, is the media framing.
So Bill Maher is a very important person in this debate.
Him and Joe Scarborough and MSNBC coming out and saying all this?
Finally.
MSNBC airing this.
Finally.
Now, Bill Maher's been saying it for a while.
Good.
And his viewership is typically over a million, like 1.5.
Good.
But we need more.
We need more people in media saying, enough.
Because when the LA Times comes out with this poll and makes it seem like undecided voters are more likely to support Biden, they're not.
The average voter Is closer to Donald Trump.
So when you don't address this issue, you get a Donald Trump presidency.
Like that comment said on the subreddit, bravo.
They're not talking about what Trump is doing.
They're not talking about the negatives of Trump's policies.
They're pandering to marketing demographic inspired pathologies about race relations.
Hear, hear!
Like, one of the things I've said over and over again is that we are not getting a conversation about Trump's policies and why they're bad.
Have the Democrats come out and said Trump's wall doesn't work for X reason?
unidentified
No!
tim pool
Some of them have.
I'm not trying to be hyperbolic.
But for the most part, what do we hear?
The wall is immoral.
The wall is racist.
You didn't answer the question.
So I'm sitting here.
You know, I have a conversation with Steven Crowder.
And he says, Tim, how do you feel about this issue?
And I say, X. And he says, Y. And I say, that's actually a really good point I hadn't considered.
Where's the Democrat argument?
Non-existent.
Because on Twitter and in the media, they push race relations and social justice.
And that's not an argument.
Saying Trump's wall is racist and immoral isn't an argument as to why we can't afford it, why we shouldn't build it.
So in the end, the only thing we have is, well, Trump says there's too many people, he wants to reinforce the wall to stop illegal immigration, and you haven't argued any facts.
You've tried to appeal to emotion based on marketing nonsense.
So here's the problem.
Here's the problem, Bill Maher.
I'm sorry.
I think Bill and I would probably get along and laugh a whole lot sitting down and talking about a lot of this stuff.
Bill even had Milo Yiannopoulos on his show.
This is a study from October of 2017, so admittedly it's a bit out of date.
This may have changed, but it does play into what we already know.
I've shown this graph before, but check it out.
This says how much of the news you read or watch comes from news organizations that are generally blank in their point of view.
Liberals tend to only get their news from liberal outlets, but moderates and conservatives have a healthier mix.
I'm a moderate.
I read many left-leaning sources.
The New York Times, Washington Post.
But I do balance my views and say the Daily Caller.
And that's what you can see.
Check this out.
If liberals only read one side, what do you think happens?
If conservatives read both, what do you think happens?
I'll show you.
The LA Times reports that undecided voters want Biden.
That's true for Democrats.
And then the conservative outlet fact checks and finds most people are closer to Trump than they are to Biden.
Does it mean they'll vote for him?
I don't know.
Will they overcome the fake news and the smears?
I'm not sure.
Trump does have bad behavior and bad character.
That could put him off.
Even if people like Trump's policies, some people won't want to vote for him because of his character.
But it's not my experience.
Most of the moderates I've met are saying what we've heard from Bill Maher.
Look at this.
He says, we can't have these fragile people.
He says, I can't let these people take over the country.
I don't think Trump is good, but I can't let people this week take over.
Fragility is not a selling point.
Bill Maher nailed it.
That's what I'm hearing.
There are people who say, I don't like Trump, but at least he's strong.
And so when the media plays this game, When this is what's served up, don't be surprised.
When this is how everything is... It's how things trend.
The Democratic candidates trend towards what they see from marketing and demographics that are wrong.
Stand up to Twitter like Bill Maher says.
I'll show you a couple more things that I think are important, just really quickly.
Andrew Sullivan wrote a story called, The New York Times Has Abandoned Liberalism for Activism, where they say... They were talking about the 1619 Project, I believe.
This is the big thing about slavery in the New York Times.
He says the New York Times, by its executive director's own admission, is increasingly engaged in a project of reporting everything through the prism of white supremacy and critical race theory in order to quote, teach its readers to think in these crudely reductionist and racial terms.
That's why this issue wasn't called, say, special issue, but a project.
It's as much activism as journalism.
And that's the reason I'm dwelling on this a few weeks later.
I'm constantly told that critical race theory is secluded on college campuses and has no impact outside of them.
And yet the newspaper of record, in a dizzyingly short space of time, is now captive to it.
Its magazine covers the legacy of slavery not with a variety of scholars or a diversity of views, but with critical race theory espoused almost exclusively by black writers as its sole interpretive mechanism.
And in the end, you get this, Bill Maher.
A media that won't call this out.
So it will persist.
Democratic candidates then parroting these statements.
Parroting them.
Instead of reaching out to actual Americans and seeing what they believe.
Because they would find most Americans are closer to Donald Trump.
And you know what?
Combine that fact with the fact that people hate political correctness, and even Bill Maher's fans are going to be stepping out.
Let's go back to the Reddit thread.
You see how there are regular people who watch MSNBC and Real Time with Bill Maher who are saying the same things as me.
So it's fascinating.
They accuse my channel of being right-wing.
They accuse me of being right-wing.
Sounds like my opinions are closer to what most Americans think.
It sounds like what I think makes sense to a lot of Americans.
Especially when we bring it right back to the poll.
Is it strange that my opinion of the president is tepid?
Not a big fan of the guy.
Disagree with a lot of his policies.
But, you know, I don't have Trump derangement syndrome.
Because I think most people feel that way.
Now, I shouldn't say most people don't like the president.
I say most people aren't shocked or concerned.
They're bothered by the constant orange man bad press.
They don't care.
Now, certainly there are a lot of people who make up a big tribe, and there are a lot of journalists on Twitter, and they make people believe this is real life when it isn't.
I think the people who watch my channel are regular people, and I think we're tired of cancel culture.
Bill Maher says it.
Dave Chappelle says it.
Bill Burr says it.
Joe Rogan says it.
We have all of our comedians stepping up.
I wish we still had Jon Stewart.
I wish Jon Stewart would step up and make a statement as well.
But at least we have this so far.
So you know what?
Good on Bill Maher for calling this out.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different channel.
That'll be at 6 p.m.
I will see you all there.
So the other day, I did a video talking about PewDiePie retracting, rescinding his offer to donate $50,000 to the Anti-Defamation League.
You'd think that was the end of it, wouldn't you?
Well, no, you probably would realize there's literally nothing you can do.
There is nothing you can say.
You jumped into the fray on your own, PewDiePie.
You decided to use the ADL as a shield, PewDiePie, and now you cannot escape.
Based on the title of this video—actually, I don't know what the title's gonna be, but something to the effect of the Iron Cross on his collar while he announces he won't donate to the ADL because he didn't know enough about them.
Now, here's the thing.
That is not an Iron Cross, nor is it wrong to wear an Iron Cross.
However, as you can probably imagine, Incoming, insane, far left.
PewDiePie is a Nazi.
He wore an Iron Cross.
There's so much criticism going around right now.
First, they say...
There are people on the left arguing that PewDiePie planned the whole thing.
Because the question is, if the Anti-Defamation League was trying to smear PewDiePie and get his show cancelled, get his, you know, whatever, why would he offer to donate money to them?
Unless he was trying to use them as a shield when he did a big sponsorship.
So, for those that are missing the context, PewDiePie reached 100 million subscribers, mostly due- maybe not necessarily mostly because, you know, 60 million or so came on his own, but about 40 or so million came after people were doing this meme subscribed to PewDiePie.
All of these big YouTubers were telling everyone to do it.
So he reaches 100 million subscribers, makes a video, Honey is the company that sponsors him.
After the ad for Honey, he announces a $50,000 donation to the Anti-Defamation League.
I, as well as many other people, believe the donation was a shield for Honey.
That they didn't want to be accused of sponsoring someone who's had so much controversy.
PewDiePie has said offensive things and done offensive jokes.
For which he's apologized, and I think, you know, the fact that people care is silly.
So he does this donation.
He announces it.
Here's the thing.
The Anti-Defamation League didn't even know about it.
They said, The ADL learned about the potential donation from Felix Schellberg
when everyone else did.
When he made the announcement on his channel earlier this week,
we have not received any communication from him beyond his public posts.
Interesting.
He announced he was going to do it and didn't reach out to them first.
Why?
In my opinion, it was a shield.
But this is what happens.
PewDiePie absolutely knows who the ADL is.
Of course he does.
Okay, that's my opinion.
But he put out a statement saying it's not my fight anymore and I wanted to show that I was the bigger person.
Oh, please, dude.
It was a shield.
It was a, they can't attack me if I donate to the ADL, right?
See, here's the thing.
The Anti-Defamation League has caused collateral damage to many different YouTube channels.
They've done some pretty screwed up things.
I do, however, think the ADL operates in good faith.
Because they've criticized Ilhan Omar and stuff, I just completely disagree with their tactics and, you know, their principles.
On the surface, antisemitism, bigotry, racism, all the things, we agree.
I think those are horrible things, and I do think we need to fight to stop them.
But I disagree on the methods they use.
The ADL wants censorship.
I think they're going to create more of the problem.
So don't trust them.
That's fine.
I think they've done very mafioso-like things in the past, especially with this Iceland thing I talked about yesterday.
But I digress.
They've caused collateral damage to me and many other YouTubers.
So when PewDiePie donates to them, it was a slap in the face to everybody who said subscribe to PewDiePie, like he didn't really care.
Well, then he backtracks.
Now here's where things start lighting up.
I didn't even notice this because... Look, I skateboard.
Do I have an image?
I do.
Look.
I skateboard.
This is the independent truck's logo.
It's not necessarily an Iron Cross.
But images like this, very similar ones, are all over the skating world and punk rock and whatever.
So I didn't think twice when I saw PewDiePie wearing what is actually a Georgian cross.
However, people don't care for history or nuance, so there we go, he's wearing an Iron Cross!
Well, here's what Zach Roberts said.
Got this wrong myself.
PewDiePie is not wearing an Iron Cross.
He is, for some reason, wearing a Georgian Bolnesi Cross.
This shirt is by the Georgian designer Demna Vasalia.
Why he decided to wear this in a video talking about retracting a donation to the ADL is your own guess.
It's a good point!
Listen, man.
I understand the context of the Iron Cross.
I've done videos about this.
First of all, the Iron Cross is still being used today by the German... Maybe not today, but here's a photo from Wikipedia, 2015.
Germany still uses the Iron Cross.
My understanding is that the original German Iron Cross had the swastika in it, and they ruled you can still use it as a medal so long as they remove that symbol.
Because it existed before.
I think it was like the Prussia and other things like that.
So the Iron Cross has uses outside of, you know, World War II era Germany.
They still, apparently, still were using it in 2015.
So even if he was wearing the Iron Cross, who cares?
Who cares?
Well, here's the thing.
I'm gonna show you this.
This one's funny.
He is literally wearing a Nazi Iron Cross.
He's not, but that's all that matters is people are gonna start doing this.
Let's take a look at some of the comments from people, though.
Let's take a look.
It's a reasonable doubt for the Dog Whistle, obviously.
Just so happens to look very, very close to the Iron Cross, but isn't.
But come on!
Everything's a conspiracy!
Stop!
It's not a conspiracy.
PewDiePie—listen.
PewDiePie doesn't understand a lot about what's going on.
However, PewDiePie has talked about Jordan Peterson's book.
And he made a donation, he was gonna make a donation to the ADL, he's retracting.
I think he knows a little bit.
I think when the smears and the hits and the calls for censorship come in, he knows a bit about what's going on.
Probably not as much as you or I, and that's fair.
But here's what I want to say, man.
It'll never end.
First, no matter what you do, you cannot escape.
You cannot stop it.
Period.
He's wearing a Georgian cross as a common symbol.
Even the Anti-Defamation League says the iron cross in a non-racist context has greatly proliferated in the United States to a point that an iron cross in isolation cannot be determined to be a hate symbol.
Care must therefore be used to correctly interpret this symbol and yada yada yada.
The point is, Even the Anti-Defamation League is saying just having a cross doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't matter.
I blame PewDiePie, though.
He decided to jump into the fray.
Listen, man.
He was controversial for some stupid, edgy jokes that I think everyone blew out of proportion, and I think it's BS.
Leave the guy alone.
But he decided to make a shield with the ADL.
He decided that.
Now, he said someone advised him.
Sure.
He knew what was gonna happen.
I shouldn't say he knew it was going to happen, because if he did, he wouldn't have done it.
But he knew what the implication was.
I think he just didn't realize there would be a massive fan backlash.
Now, of course, Forbes is saying the toxic fringe of his fanbase.
Oh, please, dude.
The toxic fringe.
I just can't stand the lies and the deceit.
No, it's PewDiePie fans.
Many of them defend him, saying he can donate to whoever he wants.
Many of them said he shouldn't be donating to them.
But no, it's not the fringe.
It was a huge conversation among people outside of his fanbase as well.
And the backlash was so big, not necessarily because PewDieP- like...
Listen, there were two big reasons for the backlash.
Doing a sponsor spot on his 100 million subscriber video offended a lot of people.
It's like, hey man, it's a milestone we helped get you to, and you're selling ads?
Sure.
Like, I think you should be allowed to do it.
I can understand why people are upset, though.
It was supposed to be a fan moment.
Fine.
But donating to the ADL was him jumping into the fray.
It was PewDiePie deciding to enter the culture war on the side opposed to independent creators on YouTube.
So naturally, people are angry.
And I criticized him for it.
No, it's not the toxic fringe of his fanbase.
It was... Yeah, there was toxic fringe people on all sides.
I'm fighting off a sneeze.
Forgive me.
But it was regular people.
Now, what's crazy to me is you can have someone like Zack Roberts correctly pointing out, saying, no, this is a Georgian cross.
Why he decided to wear it, well, it's your own guess.
I think that's fair.
I think if PewDiePie was gonna be a bit more tactful, he would recognize this is an opportunity for attack.
But I do think it's... PewDiePie doesn't know as much as you or I may about the culture war.
That's fine.
So he made a mistake.
And it's... Let me go to the other point.
The point is...
It'll never end.
PewDiePie can make every apology in the book.
He can make every donation.
It won't matter.
He was gonna do a donation to the ADL.
Congratulations.
You made it worse!
Don't you get it?
You make it worse.
Chill.
Stop.
Ignore it.
Don't talk politics.
You could have just done your 100 million subscriber brofist with an ad.
You didn't have to donate to an anti-hate group.
And he didn't do any research on it.
So you know what, man?
He's worn, I believe he's worn this shirt before.
It's a designer shirt or something like that.
It is not an Iron Cross, but it doesn't matter.
People are arguing.
Here's someone else says, it's the game of plausible deniability.
Technicality word games that they play, like the white power okay symbol.
It's such a shell game, the what symbol.
He's been wearing that shirt for at least two years in his videos.
People only care about PewDiePie when he Fs up.
Let's not mention the countless amounts of money he donated to different charities.
And that's true.
But everyone's saying it's a dog whistle.
It's a dog whistle.
The point is, it's not.
PewDiePie wears that shirt, my understanding is, all the time.
But you enter the fray, and you cannot escape.
And unfortunately for PewDiePie, they dragged him into this.
Now, let's, let's, let's, uh, I'm gonna, I'm gonna go for it.
Let's, let's just go for it.
Here's GamerGazi on, uh, on Reddit.
Here's, I wanna read you some of the comments they're saying about what happened.
First of all, they said, truly incredible.
Also of note, turns out the money was a sponsorship from Honey.
So, this actually is a little bit fair.
The idea is that he wasn't even gonna donate the money himself.
That's the idea.
I'm not saying it's true or not.
It was literally part of the sponsor spot that part of the money would go to the ADL.
So it's not even like he decided to do it.
It was a shield.
Someone said, so Honey was trying to salvage his image so they could keep advertising through him?
Or am I way too conspiratorial at this point?
That's actually what people believe, absolutely.
Maybe, but man, does it more than ever feel like an empty gesture for him to have been donating to the ADL with someone else's money?
Yes!
You jump in the fray.
Man, you know what?
You need a better advisor.
This person said, I mean if he doesn't want to donate to the ADL that's his choice but what the F is the moron thinking announcing he'll support a charity and then backpedaling because a bunch of chuds told him it's actually bad.
I can't tell if this guy is actively anti-semitic or just an absolute idiot at this point.
He's either a flailing child with far too much clout and money or an actual fascist and I honestly can't tell which.
Look man, never attribute malice Never attribute to malice that which can be explained more easily by incompetence.
PewDiePie just doesn't know.
Okay?
He's wearing a t-shirt.
He doesn't pay attention.
I gotta say this, man.
It is kind of screwed up that we're at this point in our culture and society.
I mean, I believe he lives in the UK, where PewDiePie has to do things like this.
At all.
I guess...
I would personally put the fault on Honey.
Well, kind of on him.
unidentified
I don't know.
tim pool
It's complicated.
It's just how crazy things have gotten.
I really do believe the most likely scenario is that Honey said, because of the controversial past, you've got to make a charitable donation to an anti-hate group, and PewDiePie was like, let's do it.
The money from Honey must have been really, really sweet.
Haha, playing word games.
But he's not a fascist.
That's ridiculous.
He's not dog whistling.
He's just a bumbling YouTube Minecraft guy who got big because of the algorithm and because he makes enjoyable content that has improved over the years.
PewDiePie is one of these creators that caught an early algorithmic wave.
And I'm not saying he's not good at what he does.
I'm saying is that you have a combination of things.
You make good content, you get the right keywords in the right places, and your channel will
grow.
So PewDiePie was good at what he was doing.
He was a great personality.
And he hit the algorithm properly.
And he got a massive wave up to a ton of subscribers very, very quickly.
He then continued to improve his content, change, and stay relevant.
Controversies emerged because he was an edgy boy, so he tried to get away from it.
He doesn't seem like, you know, he's not a big tech CEO.
He's not a media mogul.
He doesn't seem like a savvy business person or someone who's culturally active.
He seems like a dude who just plays Minecraft.
But he has talked about Jordan Peterson, so he's not Well, look at this.
Someone said, um, between his actual behavior and his wearing an iron cross in his little video about withdrawing the donation, I think we know the answer.
What the actual F when the dogs turn on you and you need a whistle?
I'm done.
I'm gonna get away from here.
Man, here's, so, so, so look.
He's not wearing an Iron Cross, but it doesn't matter.
PewDiePie, you will never escape.
Welcome to the fray.
And there it is.
I'm gonna wrap it up.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
I think one of the big secrets about Sean King that most people might not realize is that his support base is, like, white progressives and not—well, I don't want to say there's no black supporters of Sean King, because there probably are many, many, but the high-profile people who prop him up tend to be, at least what I see, white people, as exemplified by this story here, where DeRay McKesson, Black Lives Matter activist, is once again calling out Sean King.
This is really interesting.
Sean King's been accused of theft, fraud, a bunch of other stuff, and I think there's obviously animosity.
I don't think... I think when you have these kind of fights between two different groups, the truth is closer to the middle.
I think it's fair to point out Sean King is an opportunist.
That's my opinion.
I do think some of his counterpoints are fair, however.
One of the things he says is failure is not fraud.
Just because he raises money and then is really bad at what he does doesn't mean he's tricking people.
He's just not good at things.
That's fair.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence, right?
Well, here's the story.
Black Lives Matter supporter DeRay McKesson blasts Sean King.
And I want to get into some of the other criticisms, because boy, is Sean King getting torn up.
Jason Whitlock saying that Sean King's entire public existence has been built on the obvious fraud that he's black.
We'll come back to that.
But I will stress this point.
I believe even by Sean King's own story about his life, he is whiter than I am.
Let's read him.
On the Daily Wire, they say on Thursday, civil rights activist and Black Lives Matter supporter DeRay McKesson accused Black Lives Matter supporter Sean King of a lack of integrity, saying that King is like the power dynamic of the system McKesson opposes, which willingly sacrifices the vulnerable to protect itself and replaces truth with convenient lies.
Writing in Medium, McKesson delineates how he feels King has not been completely honest, saying, A movement is only as strong as its integrity.
Part of our collective work is to protect this integrity even when, or especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or hard.
It is in this spirit that I write to address a lapse of integrity within the activism community so glaring that to be silent is to be complicit.
Now look, conservatives have long called out Sean King.
They're not on his side, so of course they'll call him out, and they'll try and find as many holes as they can.
One of the big exposés was that Sean King was white.
In response, Sean King came out and said, actually, his mom cheated on his dad, or something to that effect.
I don't want to get it wrong, but that's basically it.
Based on that story, and him being only partially black, that story, he's basically whiter than I am, because I'm 25% not.
But let's read on.
McKesson notes that King has deleted all of his tweets and told people that he would no longer be involved in organizing or fundraising, but that claim did not come true.
McKesson writes sardonically, It is important to note that Sean's journalism has done
some good by bringing attention to stories that may have gone underreported or overlooked.
But the person who paints your house before he steals your car has still committed theft.
So, uh, we'll just read on.
McKesson opines that King deflects from the issues raised against him,
and often bullies and intimidates those who ask questions at all,
turning his ire especially at black women, attempting to scare inquirers into silence.
Mckesson writes, The love for our people must be greater than the love of any one person.
Sean has continued to thrive because many people cannot believe they have been duped, used, or taken advantage of.
His choices are so sweeping and brazen in their manipulation that they compromise others, compromise the collective work, and compromise a shared sense of integrity.
So here's the thing.
Like I said, the right will attack Sean King, but the left gives him a pass.
Typically.
Because he's on their side.
And that's what we see all the time in tribal politics.
People don't want to hold their own to account.
I've seen it with police brutality instances and activists.
You know, one of the funniest things about Occupy Wall Street is they would constantly, these activists would tell me,
that the police refuse to cross the thin blue line, meaning if one cop does something
wrong, no cop's gonna rat him out, and that's how corruption is bred in the police departments.
They would actually bring that up.
And then they would say, snitches get stitches. And I'd scratch my head because I'm like,
you realize that's the exact same thing. Activists say, if you rat on one of us,
snitches get stitches.
But the cops are corrupt because they won't speak out about the other officers doing bad things.
Great.
Welcome to the club.
Nobody wants to hold their own accountable.
And I want nothing part of this stuff.
This is why I hate tribalism.
I don't care.
Good on DeRay for calling out Sean King.
And he's done it in the past.
My understanding, at least, is it's not the first time he's done this.
So good for him.
That's integrity.
Check this out.
Here's the other issue.
They won't even challenge whether or not Sean King is white or black.
And you can see other people have no problem doing it.
I don't know to what, you know, this is Jason Whitlock.
I don't know how he aligns.
I don't want to say he's left or right.
I'm just seeing a tweet that I saw posted in response.
He said, Sean King's entire public existence has been built on the obvious fraud that he's black, tricked Oprah into paying for him to go to college, and once a year, like clockwork, someone writes a piece detailing his financial fraud.
Sean King's life epitomizes cultural appropriation.
So I've seen now multiple instances where black activists, like people who are actually fighting against racism and highlighting the challenges in their community, have called out Sean King as being a manipulator, as being a fraud.
But what do I end up seeing?
White progressives defending him.
It's the most mind-blowing thing, because it's like, you'd think you would take the side of someone like DeRay, who is telling you this is a problem in our community.
They don't.
They prop him up.
And again, I'm not saying it's only white people, but it's like, you know, at the very least, these, like, and the reason I'm highlighting the white progressives is because they're the ones who are preaching about racism, how everyone else is racist.
You'd think, based on their own ideology, they'd back away and say, leave us out of it.
Instead, they empower this guy.
Sean King has called for overt acts of terror.
I kid you not, he had to delete the tweet thread praising acts of terror.
Let's read a little bit more, and then I wanna, actually, I'll do this now.
I'll do this now.
We live in a world where Shaun King can come from a white family, be accused of being white by other black activists, and then use a story about his mom cheating on him to say he's actually part biracial.
But look, come on, man.
I'm not going to call him a liar.
I believe it's probable he's mixed to a certain degree.
But seriously.
You take a look at his picture.
I've shown his photo to people.
They don't view him as a black man.
And that's not my opinion.
I'm not trying to besmirch the racial identity because people say similar things to me like, oh, you're just a white guy.
You don't understand.
I'm sure the dude's experienced stuff.
Same as me.
But I'm going to point to the other black activists who want to call him out.
So we live in a world where Sean King can be called out for, accused of fraud and enriching
himself over and over again, be accused of not even being black in the first place and
championing Black Lives Matter, and at the same time, Darryl Davis, who is a black man,
can be called a white supremacist by the far left.
Darryl Davis went to, spoke at an event I sponsored, and he talked about deradicalizing
white supremacists.
Before that, the guy who's actually a renowned, famous hero in terms of racial politics and
deradicalization was called a white supremacist.
Meanwhile, Shaun King gets a pass all day and night.
How is it that someone who's actually an activist like DeRay McKesson or someone who actually has experience in these issues, other black activists, can call him out saying he's the fraud?
What does he say?
It's built on the obvious fraud that he's black, meaning he's not.
How is it that he can get a pass and raise money and continue to do this over and over and over again?
We will read a little bit more ending this story and see.
Here's some of the direct accusations.
McKesson notes that King claimed Justice Together raised a $10,000 donation from a board member and a $17,500 grant, but he later said he returned 100% of the donations raised, but those two donations stopped appearing in records.
McKesson adds, to date, it is not clear that Sean filed the appropriate taxes for Justice Together, as there is no 990 form available for public review from the IRS website.
McKesson claims King took credit for other people's work, noting King saying he raised $34.5 million since 2014.
McKesson adds, he takes credit for 100% of all funds raised for any fundraiser whose link he has ever posted online.
In an email blast or retweeted, he knew this logic was misleading at best.
McKesson delineates other actions by King that he feels demonstrate a lack of integrity including matters involving Real Justice PAC, the North Star, Flip the Senate, and Red Records among others.
Basically, Sean King is a Twitter account.
That's what he does.
He'll post a link, and when money comes in, he'll add it to his numbers.
It's a very savvy business person thing to do, but not something you would ascribe to integrity.
You would not claim he is being an honest activist when he's doing this.
He is making a career.
He is building up followers, and he's inserting his name.
At least the allegations state.
All I can really say is, the dude has lied.
I've called him out for lies, overt lies.
At the very least, he's just putting out misinformation.
Let's, let's, I'll break this down this way.
He has gone on stream, he has tweeted things out that are factually not true, and have caused dangerous circumstances.
Very, very dangerous things.
He has falsely accused people of crimes they didn't commit, and he's gotten a lot of flack for it.
It's like he's, you know, I hate to use this word, but if ever there was someone I could say I probably would believe to be a grifter, it's going to be Shaun King, not because of what I see him do.
I can absolutely say he's just bad at everything.
But when you have DeRay McKesson himself saying, enough, every year, like clockwork, this seems to be happening, at least that's what Jason Whitlock says.
So I'm just rather frustrated.
It's frustrating to see someone like Sean King get a free pass from many people.
Not the higher profile activists, it's good on them.
But someone like Daryl Davis gets attacked by the far left.
Integrity isn't among these people.
Within these people.
There are people who support Sean King and they don't care.
They just want to win.
So you'll have people come out and actually say he's hurting us and they'll say, so what?
We're winning.
And I've heard it before.
I kid you not, I've heard it before.
They say it is better that we have the power.
Regardless of what Sean King does.
No, it isn't.
You're bad people.
The ends don't justify the means because you will never meet the end.
Stick around.
I got one.
The next segment will be coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel and I will see you all there.
Oh boy, do I love it.
People love to care about the environment, or actually, they love to claim they care about the environment, but what do you think happens when you ask them to put their money where their mouth is?
I love this story so much because I used to do this for a living.
That's right.
Walking around asking people, would you like to give me money to help fight on your behalf?
For those that don't know, I worked for Greenpeace and an organization called Environment America, sort of.
There's like state-level ones.
So I worked for a couple different state-level organizations, and I walked around telling people, if you give me your hard-earned cash, I will, on your behalf, advocate for climate protections, the environment, etc.
And I learned very early on that many people just don't care.
As much as they like to sit and talk and claim they do, when it comes to how much they're willing to spend to actually protect the environment, the number is actually really small.
And then we have this story from BuzzFeed News.
Americans would pay a little to save the planet, a poll shows.
Data for Progress, a progressive think tank, commissioned neutral polling from YouGov that found Americans are willing to pay to stop carbon emissions.
Comma, as long as it's not too expensive.
And I know this full well.
This is from Ben Smith, the actual editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed.
He said, this is an excerpt from The Stakes 2020, BuzzFeed News' newsletter about what really matters in the 2020 campaign.
We've reached the part of the presidential campaign where Democrats start to get nervous that some of the progressive policies they've promised will be unpopular or unpopularly expensive.
Abolishing private health care and decriminalizing border crossing top that list.
But what about the truly biggest policy item?
Remaking the American economy to stop carbon emissions.
Data for Progress, a progressive think tank, commissioned neutral polling on that topic from YouGov and came up with an answer that may not satisfy anyone.
American consumers will pay to save the planet as long as it's not too expensive.
And they're actually going to say it's essentially the cost of a Spotify subscription, and I know that.
Before we read into the details and look at the polls, head over to TimCast.com slash donate in order 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.
Let's break some echo chambers.
Normally, the algorithm suggests this video to people who are likely to, you know, like the subject matter.
What about people who don't pay attention?
That's where you come in.
Share the video if you think my work is good.
It would be greatly appreciated and help me continue doing what I do.
Let's read on.
Buzzfeed writes in the survey, shared exclusively with The Stakes 2020, YouGov asked people if they'd back new restrictions on fossil fuel infrastructure like pipelines and tightening rules around drilling.
The answer to both questions?
Yes, but only for the price of a Spotify subscription.
These data suggest that, in fact, climate policies remain relatively popular even with an explicit cost frame.
Good job.
I really like how they try to at least spin something positive out of this.
But what we actually find is that when you ask people if they want to help support the environment or restrict fossil fuels, they all say yes.
Well, not all.
We get just around 55% leaning towards supporting that.
But what do you think happens then when you ask that same person?
That's great!
Now I need you to give me 50 bucks a month.
They're gonna say, yeah, no way.
I have no problem claiming I care about the environment, but am I going to actually put money down?
No.
So here's what we find.
Support level for preventing new fossil fuel infrastructure construction at no cost.
42% strongly support, 13% somewhat support, and we only have 27% in opposition.
But how about we throw in a bill?
10 bucks a month.
Strongly support drops from 42 by 8 points to 34.
Somewhat support actually goes up to 18%.
So what we see then is that some of these people who move over aren't moving to opposition.
They're actually just kind of like, well, I guess.
10 bucks a month?
unidentified
Oof.
tim pool
But Strongly Opposed goes up one point, which shows someone probably from the Somewhat Support probably moved to the Opposed, and, you know, it moves down.
But let's jack that price up to 50 bucks a month!
Now Strongly Support drops from 42 to 23%, nearly 20 points down!
23% nearly 20 points down strongly opposed goes up to 23%
That says well there are many people who are willing to spend money if it means doing the right thing and I've met
them I've fundraised.
People handed me cash.
They handed me their credit cards.
I used to do this.
There are a lot of people that want to act like they actually care about the environment, and they don't.
It's just something to say because you think it's popular.
That's one of the big problems in politics.
How many people are voting for policy they don't care about because it makes them feel good?
That, to me, is most of it.
It's a combination of trying to fit in and supporting your tribe.
But when you actually tell people, we're going to take money out of your pocket, that's when things start to turn around and they say, nah, I don't know about that.
Now, I'll give you some inside information.
Ten years ago, the average amount someone was willing to give to an environmental non-profit was about, I believe it was $17.
That was the average.
Some people give a lot, some people give, you know, the bare minimum, but the average was $17 a month.
So this data actually makes sense to me, that at $10 a month a lot of people are still like, okay, that $50 is too much.
Well, let's move on.
I got a couple updates I want to talk about as we're on the subject of the environment.
AOC is breaking up the Green New Deal.
Good, because I think it was a really, really bad idea, the way they structured everything.
At least now, the weird racial, you know, critical race theory stuff they've got in this bill will be removed, for the most part.
And she's going to tackle, like, housing and electric vehicles.
Listen, man, you want to propose legislation to incentivize electric vehicles?
There's a couple things we got to do.
When you charge that vehicle, the electricity is produced typically by coal, okay?
A lot of people don't understand how electricity is generated, but we use steam to spin turbines.
Steam pressure spins turbines.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you get it.
Rotating magnetical field.
Read it.
Just Google search it.
I'm not going to give you a breakdown on how to generate electricity.
Or how to generate electrical current.
I'm sorry.
So, electric vehicles can make sense, so long as the amount of carbon produced to charge that vehicle is less than the amount of the production of the gasoline.
Keeping in mind that while the coal still produces carbon, it may be less in the long run, I don't have the data pulled up, that's what you need to research, because producing the gasoline requires refining, shipping, and all that stuff, and it requires gasoline and diesel to produce fuel, so, you know, it's like a lot more there.
So yeah, great, great, great.
But I'm going to do something a bit self-critical.
See, I've often talked about how much I support Tulsi.
And I figured if I'm going to be critical of these environmentalists, I need to call out myself a little bit.
Now, it's a bit unfair.
I'm not actually doing anything very self-critical.
I'm just going to highlight some of Tulsi Gabbard's stances that I disagree with.
To point out, nobody's perfect.
And there's no politician I think you'll find that's going to be perfect.
There's some good things about what Tulsi said and some bad things.
And one of the reasons I like Tulsi is principle.
When the Green New Deal came out, she backed away.
Bravo!
I felt the same way.
When AOC was talking about a Green New Deal, I was like, yes, I made a video praising it.
I said, this will be great.
Invest in new technology that can be better for everybody, right?
Then the Green New Deal drops and I'm like, what is that mess?
That is not environmentalism.
So here's what happened.
It's a website called Inside Climate News.
I don't know what it is.
I think it's like an advocacy group, but they get a breakdown of Tulsi, they say.
Gabbard expressed early support for the Green New Deal, but when the resolution was released, she opted not to be a co-sponsor, citing concerns over vagueness of the language.
I absolutely agree with that.
It was like... nothing.
There was a lot of weird social justice stuff in it, and it was extremely vague.
On her website, Gabbard said she supports the Green New Deal's zero emissions goals, but... I do not support leaving the door open to nuclear power unless and until there is a permanent solution to the problem of nuclear waste.
And that's where I gotta stop and say...
I disagree.
While I can certainly agree with the sentiment of dealing with nuclear waste, for sure, I think that's an issue of technological development, and the door absolutely should be open to nuclear energy, which is zero emission, and all you have to do is say the Green New Deal should allow for investment into dealing with nuclear waste.
And I think they actually have a lot of developments in that space already.
I'm not one of these engineers or scientists who works on this stuff, but Leaving the door, like being mad the door is left open because of nuclear energy is the wrong mentality.
The mentality should be nuclear is an excellent path towards reducing emissions and getting a really high return on energy investment.
So what we should do is use the Green New Deal investments to figure out a solution to the nuclear waste problem.
Problem solved.
She also supports a ban on fracking and ending fossil fuel and nuclear energy subsidies.
I disagree with this.
I don't think you can just outright ban fracking.
I am more on her side in this capacity.
I don't think we should protect the economy at the expense of our environment, but I also recognize foreign influence and economic interests, and it is really, really complicated.
So I don't think you ban it outright.
I'm more of a moderate on this issue.
And I also think ending nuclear energy subsidies is a terrible idea and the complete opposite of what I just said.
No.
We need to subsidize nuclear energy in the direction of solving the waste problem.
Again, I'm not going to act like I'm the expert on the issue.
But the solution isn't just shut it down.
Nuclear is an excellent path forward, a step we can take in lowering carbon emissions.
We need to have that conversation.
Yeah, I'm going to leave it there, because I don't want to turn this into a, you know, I don't know, just me being self-critical, but there's a lot of interesting things about the Green New Deal that I think ended up, I'm sorry, the idea of the Green New Deal, that ended up being just fake.
Fake, complete trash.
And I think at the end of the day, everything you hear about the Green New Deal is, I'm going to say it, Virtue signaling!
So, you know, I do try to keep these segments short, so I'm just gonna cut it off now.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all there.
Man, I love how cancel culture is just in full swing, no matter what seems to happen.
You can have Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr, Joe Rogan, Bill Maher.
Everybody comes out, all these big comedians.
Even Bill Maher, who's a political pundit-comedian type guy.
And cancel culture just keeps on trucking along, spelling the doom and demise for the left in politics.
Because people associate this insanity with the Democrats.
That's exactly what Bill Maher just did.
In my main video, I talked about how Bill Maher slammed the far left as a cancer.
And he said it's hurting the Democrats.
It is.
The Democrats are chasing after this insanity.
Just stop.
Here's the story.
Shane Gillis, a new SNL cast member, used racial slur in podcasts.
And he also did, like, a crude impersonation of Asian people.
And I'm just gonna go ahead and say it.
Now, here's what's gonna happen.
Tim Poole's gonna point out that he's mixed-race.
He's then gonna point out that he's also mostly white.
And then I'm gonna... Okay, let me just stop.
Let me just stop here.
Here's the thing.
I am not a completely Asian person, nor am I Chinese.
I am not offended by people doing impersonations, like stereotypical impersonations of Asian people.
Granted, now I'm going to have people who are Chinese saying, you're not Chinese, you don't get it.
And admittedly, people in East Asia are extremely racist.
I think, however, most actual Chinese people in China don't care.
They don't!
They're racist too.
So here's the thing.
If you were going to make fun of me for being Asian or call me a racial slur, I really, really, really just wouldn't care.
It doesn't mean anything.
I don't care.
And now the woke brigade is going to be like, that's because you passed him and you don't understand what it's like to be oppressed.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I don't want to hear it.
Okay?
I have family members.
I don't like it when people disparage My dad for being white, nor do I like it when people disparage my mom for being Korean.
The point is, I'm not gonna get bent out of shape.
I'm just gonna be like, yeah, people, you know, people are mean sometimes.
But in this context, more importantly, I don't care when Dave Chappelle does white jokes.
I laugh.
It's funny.
And I don't care when he does Chinese jokes.
I laugh.
It's funny.
Oh no.
Edgy boy.
I'm gonna get in trouble now because everyone's gonna say, how dare you, Tim.
Let's read the story and figure out exactly what's going on.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
Let's break some echo chamber bubbles.
I hate the algorithms.
I hate how YouTube does it.
I hate how Facebook does it.
So you know what?
I don't care who they want to promote.
I ask you to share this content if it means somebody who might not agree might hear it.
And I'd love for them to argue back.
Because that's what it's all about, man.
Let's have a conversation.
But YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, all these platforms want to do is give you more of what you already like.
Nah.
Not okay with that.
Let's read on.
They say, the comedian's remarks about Chinese people surfaced the same day Saturday Night Live announced the casting of its first Chinese-American actor.
They say, a comedian named on Thursday as one of the newest Saturday SNL cast members made racist remarks mocking Chinese people and used a racial slur in a podcast episode last year.
It was in the context of comedy.
It wasn't in the context of him being seriously angry with Asian people.
He was making a joke.
It was... Like, jokes can be offensive, and that's just something we gotta grow up.
Remember when comedians, like, make fun of people in the audience and point out, like, character flaws and defects and, like, body shame them?
Yeah, grow up.
We poke fun at each other.
We rib on each other.
You know guys actually will punch their friend?
Not because they want to hurt them, because it's meant to be a joke.
They cause you pain.
They'll like, you know, roll up a towel and whip you with a towel.
They, look, it's just... I don't know what the issue is, but sometimes things hurt and it's not meant to cause damage.
It's just meant to be playful.
The comments were uncovered.
Uncovered?
It was a public podcast.
Anybody could have listened to it.
No one uncovered this.
They just started tweeting out to the outrage mob.
They were uncovered by a comedy journalist.
Wow!
You know they say that comedy is the lowest form of entertainment, but let me just say this.
A comedy journalist is a whole order of magnitude beneath that.
Let's read on.
Several hours after NBC announced that the comedian Shane Gillis, 31, would be joining the cast along with two other performers, one of them the show's first Chinese-American player.
In the episode, which was recorded on video and uploaded to YouTube a year ago, good job uncovering a public YouTube video, Gillis, a stand-up comedian in New York, and his podcast partner, Matt McCusker, mimicked caricatures of Chinese accents.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Was it Chinese?
How do you know?
Are you saying that all Asian people sound Chinese like you can't tell the difference?
Maybe he was doing an impersonation of someone who wasn't Chinese.
Well, look, that one's true.
He did use a racial slur referring to Chinese people, and I can understand why people would get mad about that.
hassle to try to speak with a waiter in a Chinese restaurant and made other offensive
remarks including a slur referring to Chinese people.
Well, look, that one's true.
He did use a racial slur referring to Chinese people, and I can understand why people would
get mad about that.
It's one thing to use a word specifically highlighting offense of the word, like what
George Carlin did.
It's another thing just to call somebody a name.
But I will say, we're still in the realms of comedy, and if he was offensive, he's offensive for making a bad joke, not for being racist.
And so I'm not gonna get mad at him.
The learning moment for this is not to try and destroy the man's life on one of the happiest days of his life, it's just to be like, Whoa, dude, you missed the mark on that one.
But, you know, otherwise, you know, keep up the good work and try and do better.
That's supposed to be the response, you know?
I go to a show and someone makes a joke that's really off-color, really rude or offensive, and I don't laugh.
I'll just be like, hey man, you know, this part of the set was good.
I didn't think that one worked.
That's it.
Because it's comedy.
People are trying to figure out the boundaries of what's acceptable and what isn't, but they'll destroy your life for making a joke.
If the dude actually went out with a sign that was, like, really racist against Chinese people and was, like, advocating for policy, yeah, that's different.
This was in the context of him being crude and crass with his buddies and trying to be offensive.
Sarah Silverman, for instance, dressed up like Hitler!
Okay, we get it, man.
It's called comedy.
Grow up!
So, I don't even think this dude needs to apologize.
You apologized for nothing, Shane Gillis.
I am going to watch your comedy now because they're mad at you.
Shane Gillis put out a statement saying, I'm a comedian who pushes boundaries.
I sometimes miss.
If you go through my 10 years of comedy, most of it bad, you're going to find a lot of bad misses.
I'm happy to apologize to anyone who's actually offended by anything I've said.
My intention is never to hurt anyone, but I am trying to be the best comedian I can be, and sometimes that requires risks.
That's actually a really great statement.
I agree.
That's actually how I kind of just framed it.
You do a joke that misses, someone just be like, that was a miss.
You know, okay, we move on.
It's so different.
Let me put it this way.
Even if he's trying to directly offend somebody, grow up, dude.
I get it.
NBC shouldn't hire people who literally want to espouse literal, direct Acts of racism?
But this is an instance of someone just pushing the boundaries of comedy, which is what comedians are supposed to do.
They're supposed to give everybody a pie in the face.
Here's what I said to Dave Rubin.
Everybody deserves a pie in the face every so now and then, and that includes me.
You know, to act like we're invincible or better than anyone else for any reason is wrong.
People shouldn't do that.
So if somebody wants to come around and poke fun at me, insult me, there you go, man.
I get it.
Assuming it's in good faith.
Like, I really hate the good faith, bad faith argument because everyone just accuses everyone else of operating in bad faith, but there are people who pretend to be outraged at everything, and they're not.
So let's pull up the guy who actually started this thing.
His name is Seth Simons, comedy journalist.
He said, If your position is that it's immoral to try to get someone fired from a job because they have a history of hate speech, maybe ask around about how they treat other workers in their field and consider whether one thing might relate to the other.
Here is Shane on The Legion of Skanks last July.
These are the same guys who gave Louis C.K.
a surprise set at their festival three months ago.
This is a very real sector of contemporary comedy with a huge constituency.
One of SNL's head writers is part of it, too.
C.W.
Racism Ableism.
Oh, no.
You know what, man?
You've lost any goodwill I was willing to give you.
When people came up before and would say something like, it's just, you know, it was very offensive and racist and all that, and I would say, okay, okay, okay, right, we'll try and do better, right?
But now we're at a point where everything is racist.
Now we just don't care.
Dave Chappelle, oh man, they try to paint him as like aging and alt-right or whatever, it's like, come on dude, Dave Chappelle hit it out of the park.
And I'm glad that Shane phrased it the way he did.
It's not so much an apology, it's an explanation.
And that's fair.
He can say, look, I addressed it.
It's comedy.
You can grow up.
Or, you know what, man?
Shane, I get it.
You're gonna be on SNL, so you've gotta play the marketing angle a little bit, but stand up to Twitter, okay?
You kind of did, so I'm not directly referring to him.
If it were me, I'd be a little bit more direct.
I'd put out a statement, just like this, and I would actually write on Twitter, here is my statement concerning my past comments, and then I would have this text, and it would just say, F you.
And we're done.
I don't care.
I don't.
You know, I get it.
We're in trying times.
YouTube could ban you.
Facebook could ban you.
Twitter could ban you.
But you know what?
I just don't care.
I'm so ready to go chill in the woods and go fishing and just, you know, just hang out looking up at the trees and the stars because these people are nuts.
But for the time being, I'm glad we're seeing pushback.
I'm glad comedians are standing up and saying, hey, numbnuts, we tell jokes.
Get it?
Jokes can be offensive.
Aw, is baby crying?
I don't care, dude.
Granted, he didn't say it as harsh as I did, but I would say it that harsh.
I'm just so tired of it.
I'm so tired of it.
The dude's not intentionally trying to hurt people.
He was trying to be crass and shocking.
unidentified
That's the point.
tim pool
Should people change?
Yes.
There are a lot of jokes in our past that we don't tell anymore.
There's a lot of entertainment we don't do anymore.
And I understand why.
And we can improve.
But what these people do... The New York Times are writing about this.
Oh, come on, dude.
This guy Seth.
Dude, seriously?
You're making it harder to actually progress.
I'm done.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The Washington Post Express is done.
And their cover reads, hope you enjoy your stinkin' phones.
Well, I can certainly see the salt pouring out and piling up.
As the tears evaporate, the salt remains.
And the salt mines are... Well, the salt mine business is a-boomin'.
So first, when I saw this story, I thought, maybe they're just kind of being silly.
They're joking around.
It really doesn't feel that way.
But you know what's even more shocking about this moment?
The Washington Post-Express, a physical paper, is done.
Why?
People don't read it.
They put on the title, hope you enjoy your stinking phones.
The Hill reported on it and only got 66 shares.
No one seems to care, Washington Post, that your paper is over.
Well, that's it.
No one cared in the first place.
That's why you ended.
Maybe this is a joke.
I'm not trying to, you know, I don't want to make it seem like they're super salty if they're just having a having a laugh as they go down the drain.
But I looked at it.
It actually doesn't feel like a joke, so the very least I can say, they missed the mark on trying to be funny, or they're just really salty.
Media is in trouble.
Google and Facebook are taking over.
Media used to be a journalist deciding what was fit to print.
Today, the algorithm just picks things based on keywords, and then you get weird stories about every different keyword possible jammed into one, and it doesn't seem to make sense, and now everyone's swimming in weird fake news about everything.
Before we get into all that, I guess we should read this story from The Hill and figure out what happened with the Washington Post Express and their utter demise.
Now, before we even get into that, go to TimCast.com slash Donate if you would 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 is just share this video.
Let's break some echo chambers.
There are a lot of people who only get fed news because the algorithm thinks they might like it.
That means there are people who will never watch one of my videos because YouTube won't show it to them, because Facebook won't show it to them.
By you sharing this video, let's break through the echo chamber nonsense, algorithmic garbage.
And let's read this.
And there's a couple other stories I want to get to.
They say, editors of the Washington Post's now-shuttered Post Express edition fired a parting shot Thursday on the cover of the final edition of the publication.
Thursday's edition of the Post's free magazine bore an image of a KO'd newspaper box underneath the headline, Hope You Enjoy Your Stinkin' Phones, as a sub-headline declared the publication had been done in by smartphone-obsessed consumers.
Is it a joke?
That's why I don't think they're joking.
I think they're being serious.
Look at this.
It says, Add Express to the list of print publications done in by mobile technology.
Sadly, this is our final edition.
Take a look back at our 16-year run.
You know what it sounds like to me?
It sounds like they're just angry.
It's called obsolescence.
It's called you are obsolete.
There are a lot of problems with the digital news economy.
Unfortunately, one of the problems is not that poor print publications are going under and people are getting laid off.
Look, I sympathize with people who lose their jobs because of this, but, hey man, Blockbuster came and went.
From the great, you know, peak of its golden age of thousands of stores renting videos and video games, to today, when there's like one Blockbuster left, I think.
It's like in Alaska or something, because they don't have good internet up there.
I had a friend who was working out of Alaska, and I was talking to her on Facebook, and she mentions that she's gotta go to Blockbuster, and I was like, whoa.
What do you mean you gotta go to Blockbuster?
And she was like, dude, the internet up here is like 56k.
It's Alaska, like in the middle of nowhere.
So if you want movies, you have to go rent them.
And then I got really angry, like, why haven't we installed better satellite infrastructure?
And then Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and everybody said, low orbit, I digress.
We'll talk about technology another time.
Let's read about what's going on, though.
But you get the point.
They had an opportunity to change, and they didn't.
If you're somebody working in print right now, and you're not adapting your skills for video, you're going to lose your job.
Am I supposed to be upset about it?
I'm sorry, man.
I've always talked about the problem in capitalism with technological development that people, by no fault of their own, lose jobs they were experts at, sometimes abruptly.
I can't blame a person who's got 40 years of experience working in print when they lose their job because technology changed.
But to a certain degree, you still have a responsibility to, one, save.
I fully expect when Neuralink technology exists, nobody's going to watch videos anymore.
So yeah, keep adapting.
The rate of change is progressing faster and faster.
You want to get salty about it?
Yeah, too bad, dude.
You got no sympathy for me.
I bet all the coal miners out there who are told to learn to code are laughing as they sip their Coors Light or whatever.
I don't know why I said Coors Light.
I don't know what they drink.
I don't drink beer, you can tell, right?
Let's read on.
The Post announced the shuttering of its Express publication just a day earlier, ending the 16-year run of the publication handed out to riders in the DC's metro rail system.
About 20 journalists have been laid off as a result of the publication's closure.
The Washington Post Guild, which did not represent the Express's riders, slammed the decision, and in particular, the short notice given to the employees, some of whom found out from media reports.
Now look.
If you work for me, I would never do that.
That's shady.
If somebody works for you, and you know the end is nigh, you better give them a warning.
So are people gonna come out now and talk about how the Washington Post did this to 20 staff members?
How long did they know this was gonna happen?
Certainly the numbers had been dwindling.
The readership was down, the ad rates were down, and they couldn't afford it anymore.
Leaving these people high and dry?
Yeah, that's on the Washington Post, not these people.
I will stress, right?
No matter what your business is, if you run your own business, if you sell, I don't know, widgets, you've got to save money for a storm.
If you're a barista working at Starbucks, you've got to save money for a storm.
If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you're in trouble.
Now I understand the challenge.
Some people are living paycheck to paycheck and they don't make enough to actually save.
I think that's a challenge too, and it's a problem.
And that's why I tend to be kind of a lefty.
Like, we've got to figure out how to solve that problem because I don't believe it's fair to live in a society where we value jobs.
We say you can work this job, but not enough to live.
Admittedly, a lot of lower-tier, low-skill jobs are supposed to be for young people who are being partially supported by their parents.
But we're moving into an era now where a lot of people who do jobs that just don't make enough to actually pay for health care and for clothes and a basic standard of living.
I don't think the solution is what these far-left policies are like socialism and things like that, but I can't tell you.
I do know that illegal immigration isn't helping, but I don't want to turn this into a jobs thing, so let's get back to the news about the Washington Post.
The announcement came the day before operations ceased, with no advance warning.
These employees, many of them young women, performed the same jobs as other staff in our newsroom for substantially lesser pay, it continued.
In a statement, the Post pointed to Metro's expansion of Wi-Fi capability in stations and trains as a reason for the publication's closure.
It's called technological development.
And I want to make this point for everybody who worked there and got laid off.
Look, I can sympathize with you just finding out you're losing your job, but certainly you should have realized what two or three years ago when Wi-Fi was being installed in subways, they'd eventually take your job away.
Look, if the Washington Post didn't see it coming, well, then they're bad at what they do.
If you didn't see it coming, then you fell into, like, you had every opportunity to understand the nature of the business around you.
One of the things I took pride in when I started doing my work was knowing about technology.
When I come into journalism from a disruptive space, you better believe I'm going to be looking at tech that could disrupt me.
I want to be prepared for this.
Too many people don't know how to play chess.
You might be saying, that makes no sense.
No, hear me out.
If they knew how to play chess, they would think, what comes next?
They would be looking at the pieces around them.
Instead, everyone's hyper-focused.
I got a job.
I'm getting paid on Friday.
I'm gonna go spend my money on a new bike.
No, put it in the bank, don't spend it, save up for six months, because this might happen.
Express has been an integral part of the morning commute for Washingtonians, a lively, highly engaged publication that has served Washington's metro riders for years.
With the growth of Wi-Fi in Washington's metro system, the post can now serve those readers in ways that couldn't have been imagined when it launched 16 years ago, the moment the statement read.
So I guess I have a couple questions.
Couldn't they just give some of these people jobs doing digital content?
They're still going to be giving people their content just on phones.
More and more readers are consuming The Post's content digitally.
Yes.
And The Post will continue to serve those who commute via Metro with digital products, including its mobile site, apps, newsletters, and podcasts, it continued.
Well, let me just end by saying, first, nobody cares.
Nobody even shared the story.
The second thing is, if you work in print, and I'm gonna reiterate this, if you work in print, okay, pieces of paper, And you are upset you just lost your job?
You were on borrowed time, man.
Look, again, I sympathize.
I don't like, you know, I know people are gonna be stressed, they're gonna be out of work, but come on.
We know that newspapers are on the way out.
Everybody's online.
Nobody needs newspapers anymore.
Starbucks announced they're not even gonna carry papers anymore, or something like that.
If you're shocked by this, you should be surprised you even had the job in the first place.
I'm more surprised there was a print edition being handed out on the train.
I'm more surprised because it's been obvious for a long time.
I'm actually shocked they're shocked.
Shouldn't you have known by now?
The end is nigh for print, and that goes for every other newspaper.
What is it?
Adapt or die?
If you're not going to pay attention to the technology around you and adapt your skills, then don't be surprised when you fall behind the rest of us.
I'm going to leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Podcast every day at 6.30 p.m.
Seriously, thank you all.
Export Selection