I'm SICK Of The Media And Political INSANITY And Double Standards, ENOUGH
I'm Sick Of The Media And Political INSANITY And Double Standards, ENOUGH. Everyday the same story Trump trump scandal scandal impeachment impeachment impeachment.It's like we live our lives stuck in an endless loop of the same insane stories being repeated over and over again.Ukraine is Russia 2.0, all the same tropes, all the same lies, the same story. The media and politicians are so desperate for something to say or sell that they just repeat the same thing everyday.A new poll shows impeachment is bad, yup we got it.A new story implicates Trump, oh wait 24 hours later corrected.I've had enough. We cannot go on like this day after day with the same story said in a different way.It seems that the media narrative only knows one thing "Orange Man Bad" so even when Politico publishes news about joe Biden the media has no choice but to claim Trump is lying when he repeats the same story.But enough, I'm over it. It's time to call out the absurdity and desperation from these people.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Here I was, looking at this survey that found most people in Republican-targeted districts and Republican battlegrounds don't think impeachment is a good idea, basically.
And I thought to myself, wow.
I've done this story so many times, it's just a rerun of a rerun of a rerun.
Do we really need to hear what we already know for the one billionth time?
One of the most annoying things about everything going on in politics is that All of these pundits, all of these personalities, and even to an extent myself included, are sitting here just taking this, like, chisel and just chipping away at the bottom of a bear which has nothing left.
Absolutely nothing left.
There's a bunch of big stories coming out today.
Apparently, you know, Trump said Ukraine and China should investigate Biden.
He's corrupt.
And the media got all outraged and they're like, oh, Trump is breaking the law in plain sight.
He should be impeached.
And then they completely ignore the fact that it was a story from Politico.
Back in August, and Trump is referencing something in the media, and I just think every single time some story comes out, it is the same thing over and over again.
Ukrainegate is Russiagate 2.0.
The writers of this horrifying reality need to get over themselves.
But I do have a bunch of things I want to point at to just talk about the complete absurdity and insanity that is politics today and do a video where, you know, I was sitting here thinking, which subject do I want to talk about?
Do I want to talk about impeachment being a bad idea?
I've talked about that like 800 times because the data shows it over and over and over and over again that in this they say The Democrats are not focusing on the policy issues they want to hear about.
This is specifically talking about districts that are targeted by Republicans.
And then all of a sudden you get some stupid counterpoint which decontextualizes and misses the issue.
And it's funny, you know.
I look at this in politics, and one of the things I've been looking at for my second channel is more cultural issues, and again, it's the exact same thing.
Check this out.
Here's a story from The Intercept.
A third of voters who oppose impeachment are worried about backlash for Democrats, new poll suggests.
Surprise, surprise, how did we not see this coming?
It's not just about the fact that I've talked about it over and over again, but it's like, we're living every day on repeat.
I think whatever this Trump bump outrage cycle is, has gone completely dry and there's nothing left.
And here we go, impeachment again, scandal again, because the media is hungry and the media is desperate.
I think back to, you know, a decade or two ago, how much media could really be produced during an election cycle.
Now it's, you know, I imagine all these politicians are counter-punching and counter-punching so much that they're both just completely exhausted and collapsing in the ring.
And so when I'm reading the news, I'm like, dude, you covered this story three weeks ago!
Or the media conveniently forgets that they reported this.
And again, the media, not a monolith, but a story will come out in Politico.
It'll be big breaking story.
Everyone will question and say, will this hurt Joe Biden?
So then Trump jumps on board and all of a sudden now we got a new scandal.
And it's just, check this out.
Here's a story from Bloomberg.
All of these were stories that I was like, which should be the lead?
What should we break down?
And I thought about it and said to myself, no, no, no.
We're going to break down everyone being insane.
Everything being nuts.
And I want to show you some of these stories.
Here's a story from Bloomberg that says Trump's impeachment saga stems from a political hit job gone bad.
This takes conspiracy to a whole new level in claiming that Trump was trying to do a hit against Biden and it backfired with an impeachment.
Well, we've heard the complete opposite from the right, that this was Trump trying to investigate CrowdStrike to go up against the Democrats, and now it's backfiring on Joe Biden.
So who, you know?
Okay, technically they're right, right?
So here's what I really want to highlight.
This is what truly inspired me to say, you know what, screw it, everyone's nuts.
It's someone on Reddit, just a random Redditor on the Politics subreddit, giving us a breakdown of what's been going on.
And as I read this, I couldn't help but think, we've been here before.
And that's when I realized, we're literally living a world in repeat.
Just change the proper nouns, and the same trash is being cycled all around us.
Now, maybe, That what we're seeing with Ukrainegate and the absurdity, the rerun that is Russiagate, is actually due to a reciprocal tactic, essentially, that Trump and the Republicans have said, you played this game, we're going to do the exact same thing.
And here we can see truly the shine, we can truly see the example of the media double standard and how all of this functions, and the inability of human beings to understand that they're doing the same thing as each other.
Right?
But I guess I can only really state I've seen the comments from the Trump supporters, right?
That Democrats accused Trump of doing something.
Turns out that it was the Democrats who did it.
And the cycle repeats.
So I want to read this.
I want to read this breakdown for you.
Before we jump into this, go to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
Because as you know, I'm a glutton for punishment.
And I sit here reading all these political stories every day.
And I finally got to the point where I said, Everyone's crazy.
Now, I've known everyone's crazy, but I think what we're really seeing is this desperate bid.
You know, everyone is flowing in a certain direction, and they're desperate to maintain their own personal status quo of their own tribe, and that means we're going to see the MSNBC's MSNBC.
They're going to say, oh, this, that, and this.
We're going to see the Fox News's, we're going to see the CNN's, and no matter what happens, no matter what comes out, they must frame it their way.
So if you like me doing this for some reason, go to TimCast.com and support my work.
Or just share this video.
But look, I will try and stay on top of the news going into 2020, but there needed to be a point where I just said, listen.
The media around Trump is a desperate recycling of the same thing over and over again because these business models they have rely on endless growth.
You look at these companies that are operating off venture capital.
These media outlets.
And at a certain point, when they stop gaining new viewership, they risk their evaluation.
They want to get more funds, okay?
Because admittedly, it's too expensive to run a lot of these companies, and they're hurting.
So they say, what can we do to bring in more clicks?
There won't be infinite clicks.
There won't be an endless growth period for your media empire, because you only have so many customers.
You can try offering up different products, So one customer can become a customer to two different industries, but in the end, all they can really do is say, let's just regurgitate an op-ed from last month today.
Or, better yet, we know Trump is kind of right about these questions he's asking, but we must frame it, we must invert the framing, because it always must be that Trump is bad.
You can never change your opinion.
You can never offer up a counterpoint.
Case in point, this comment.
Okay, so to piece it all together, since there's a lot coming out right now, this person writes, Giuliani has been communicating with Manafort via a lawyer to communicate the communications and plan regarding Ukraine.
That's insane.
Oh man!
I remember hearing something during Russiagate about a British spy and coordination with, you know, Democrats and Ukraine.
Remember when Politico reported that the Ukraine was talking with Trump?
Yeah, that's insane too.
How about this one?
Giuliani put together a packet of disinformation that was given to the State Department for the purpose of smearing people, like the Bidens.
The packet has been described as propaganda and debunked as conspiracy theories.
Remember this one from BuzzFeed?
Man, we sure are living in an insane, political, nightmarish dystopia.
This is what's so frustrating.
How is it that all of this is playing out again?
These reports allege Trump has deep ties to Russia.
A dossier compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump.
The allegations are unverified and the report contains errors.
How about the story about the dossier which contained a bunch of insane conspiracy nonsense about a pee tape that BuzzFeed published that contains errors and was unverified?
Sure.
And here we are today, reliving this exact moment.
And you know, I guess I can say I can throw some shade toward these left-wing individuals who don't realize the double standard.
They don't realize that when you entertain an insane conspiracy theory for three years on MSNBC, people get tired of it.
And then all of a sudden we get Giuliani coming out talking about Ukraine, and what do they say?
They say it is a conspiracy packet.
Yeah, that's what the journalists are saying.
Josh Rogin of the Washington Post tweets, Rudy admits to CNN that he passed the packet of Ukraine
conspiracy theories and attacks on US Ambassador to Pompeo.
They, the State Department, told me they would investigate it.
Conspiracy theories.
I love that word.
How about this conspiracy theory?
Remember this one?
How about this conspiracy theory?
This is one of my favorite conspiracy theories.
It is a really, really long article from August about Joe Biden and potential corruption called Biden Inc.
Over his decade in office, middle-class Joe's family fortunes have closely tracked his political career.
That's so weird.
It's so weird that Politico published a story August 2, 2019, and now Trump is repeating these claims.
And he is.
Trump publicly urges China-Ukraine to investigate Biden's amid impeachment inquiry.
Trump has repeatedly accused Hunter Biden of using a 2013 trip on Air Force Two with his father to procure $1.5 billion from China for a fund he started.
Well, gee, where could Trump get that idea?
Politico?
And then we hear about these Ukraine conspiracy theories, and that's what the media says.
I wonder where they could have gotten these ideas.
Ken Vogel of Politico.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
I feel like there is no real honest play in helping anyone truly understand what's happening in this world.
All that we really have are people who know what their line needs to be, and that's the line they will repeat.
So, I don't know, maybe I'm just as bad as everybody else.
I don't care.
We're all nuts, aren't we?
Every single one of us, who can't understand what's actually happening, who refuses to... I'm sorry, who falls into the trap of media framing and plays to that base.
Well, let's read.
Let's read.
The packet was photoshopped to appear to be from the White House.
Giuliani admitted he made it.
So Trump's personal lawyer is forging documents that contain 4chan-level nonsense to appear
to be official White House docs, and it was aimed at smearing the Bidens and others.
4chan-level nonsense?
Kind of like the video I talked about earlier where a guy did a circle game and got fired
from his job because of 4chan nonsense.
Or how about the accusations that the p-tape accusation which made it into the dossier originated on 4chan.
I don't know if that's true.
All I know is that's the same thing we heard last time.
Man, I really don't want to go through another Russiagate.
I entertained it, we sat through this, and it proved bunk.
And they're playing it again?
What is wrong with these people?
Pompeo directed his staff not to answer any questions about this to Congress.
Pompeo's lawyer very intelligently did not follow that direction and confirmed details about the packet.
I don't care about your packet, dude.
I really don't.
I'm so over this.
You know, I really was sitting here thinking, you know what?
After going through all of this news, right?
Because we start with this story.
This is the first story I'm looking at.
I do this every day.
I'm like, what's the most important thing?
And I said, hey, here's some confirmation bias.
The NRCC did a poll of their target districts and found People don't like impeachment because it doesn't focus on core issues.
And I said, hey, I've talked about that a million times.
I don't think I should, I can't do another video about it.
There's also a video about Adam Schiff.
Adam Schiff now apparently had information from the whistleblower.
I'm not going to get into the grander context, but the point is, Schiff communicated with the whistleblower beforehand, all of a sudden this news breaks, and I'm like, oh, maybe I can talk about how the media puts out information without fact-checking it, and then almost immediately has to retract a bunk story.
How many times have I talked about that in the past week?
Yeah, we're stuck on a loop.
We're stuck on a loop of political partisanship and media absurdity.
The media has to play the line that they know will play to their audience.
I think about it in the sense that, look, media is a business.
I will make this point, too, because I made it in a second channel video a couple times.
I don't care about the Republicans or the Democrats.
I'm not here to see either of them succeed or fail.
I care about the media, and I can't stand the lies.
Now, when it comes to the Democrats, the far-left push and the media lies are intertwined.
As we can see here, BuzzFeed can publish this conspiracy dossier and argue the merits of its newsworthiness, and there's a debate in the media about whether or not these allegations are true.
And they entertain them, and they investigate them.
They don't call them outright conspiracy theories.
In fact, on MSNBC, Jonathan Chait, I believe of New York Mag or something, He says that Donald Trump may have been an asset, a Russian asset, since the 80s.
Seriously.
And I'll give a shout-out to Crystal Ball for pointing that, I believe she pointed that out on Bill Maher, saying like, that's crazy!
Thank you.
That is crazy.
I like The Hill.
I think they're okay.
But how do we get to- how do we solve this problem, okay?
That we're- we literally now have Giuliani with his Ukraine packet, and we had the Russian dossier, and they're both claim- like both sides claim that they were conspiracy nonsense, And I gotta say, in the end, it turned out the dossier against Trump was pretty much conspiracy nonsense, and they even said they contained errors and were unverified, but why was it entertained at all?
Why is it that something can come out in the press, and they'll all say it's true, but as soon as Trump says it, it's fake?
Why is it that Politico can report about Ukraine's efforts to sabotage Trump working with Hillary Clinton to boost her and the DNC in 2017 and we didn't get an investigation here?
They call it a conspiracy theory.
A packet of conspiracy theories.
How is the Politico mag can do- How many words is this?
Documenting how Joe Biden has these meetings and all of a sudden his son gets these lucrative positions?
It is not Trump making this up.
Giuliani did not make this up.
And so now we have the latest story.
Donald Trump walks out with all these reporters and they ask about Biden and he says Biden is crooked and he should be investigated by Ukraine and perhaps even China too.
And all of a sudden now they're claiming Trump is demanding the targeting of his political rival.
I get it, media.
I get it.
You've adopted the Trump bump as a business strategy that puts you in line with progressive activists who use the same narrative as a strategy for political reasons.
I don't care if the media is doing it to make money.
They're in line with activists.
Look, so you got the Young Turks, right?
Cenk Uygur's coming out and saying Trump just committed an impeachable offense of crime and it doesn't matter.
Something to that effect.
And I'm like, dude, what are we supposed to do?
What are we supposed to do when this never stops?
It just never stops, okay?
Russiagate, Ukrainegate.
So, what are we supposed to do following this story?
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
I seriously, seriously would appreciate an answer.
I would like to know what happened.
Russiagate proved to be false.
Okay, let's move on.
Now we have this story lingering that was never fully investigated.
Can we investigate it?
No, we can't, because they say it's a conspiracy theory.
Well, why are you and the Democrats both saying it's a conspiracy theory?
I don't care.
Look, I entertained your Russia stuff.
I said, fine, let's see what the investigation, you know, shows us.
And there are some people who have gained hundreds of thousands of followers off of Russiagate and to this day still have them and still made money.
Because when it comes to the media, let me make one thing absolutely clear.
They can publish fake news and conspiracies, and everyone will click it, and they will sell those ads, and a day later when they retract, say, see, we did the right thing, but they still made the money.
Now here we are.
I ask you, are we going to get an investigation into potential Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump as Politico reported?
The answer is, of course not.
Because when Trump brings it up, they say, how dare you target a political rival?
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that Joe Biden was immune from prosecution or scrutiny at all, simply because he decided to run for office.
If that's the case, where was the complaint that Hillary Clinton's accusations against Trump about working with Russia were political interference?
You see why I'm so sick of everything?
In the 2016 election, they started making allegations that Trump was working with the Russians and the Russians were trying to interfere.
And nobody said it was conspiracy nonsense in the media.
They said, oh, we should look into this.
We should figure out what's going on.
We should launch a probe.
And Robert Mueller, all because of a packet.
Here we are.
Living life on repeat.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
You know, I kind of feel like Trump is doing this because it's kind of comeuppance, it's kind of revenge, kind of feels good.
They investigated him, he wants to investigate them, so they call it a conspiracy, and then Joe Biden is immune.
But I ask you, please tell me, what should I do?
What am I supposed to do here?
You wrote this story, Politico.
Politico is not some fringe, far-right, nonsense conservative site.
Politico is certified green across the board by a third-party fact-checking agency.
Donald Trump should investigate this strange circumstances, which I believe were documented over and over again, and talk about how weird it is that Biden's son benefits.
Okay.
Trump calls for an investigation.
I'm sorry, that's grounds for impeachment.
So let me replay where we're at.
You actually have just the double standards, the lies, the insanity, and I read it every day.
So there's a couple things that I want to just point out with today's video.
Look, I was going through all of these stories.
I saw this one from Politico, maggots being shared around, and I said, maybe we should talk about Joe Biden.
But dude, I did this!
We talked about Joe Biden.
We talked about this story.
We talked about Trump, Ukraine, and all this stuff.
It just never ends, man.
You know, I see all these stories about Republicans, impeachment, failure, what's going to happen
and stuff.
And then I just read this and it feels like a rerun.
Seriously.
Like, 2016 never stopped.
In 2016, they made these claims.
You know, so the joke I made on Twitter is that whoever is writing for this simulation,
please, please, you know, get some better source material.
Start looking to other areas for inspiration.
Because I just, I seriously am on the verge of saying, you know what?
If we keep seeing rerun news, I'm not gonna cover it anymore.
You know, I was really close to doing a video about Joker for the main channel, and I've tried to keep this one, my main channel, really centered on the big news of the day, the really important stories.
And I thought this was it.
The controversy surrounding Trump, China, Ukraine, and all that.
And then I just thought to myself, why am I going to do another story where I say the exact same thing but a new story came out?
You know what I mean?
So this story comes out, they say Trump called for an investigation or whatever.
So let me give you a better example.
The Ukraine scandal.
They say, Trump pressured Ukraine into investigating his political rival.
And I see the story and I'm like, oh please stop.
Okay?
I don't want to relive this.
The next day we get Trump pressured Australia.
The next day we get Trump pressured Boris Johnson.
Then we finally get Trump seeks US allies.
I'm like, enough already, man!
Enough!
Okay, how many times are you gonna say the same thing over and over again?
And the same goes to me.
And that's why I'm saying this now.
I'm sick of it.
It's on repeat.
You know what?
I'm gonna wrap this up with repeating that same old beautiful point.
Because that's what's happening, isn't it?
That's where we are.
The Democrats are so focused on scandals that they're not talking about core issues.
They're so focused on impeaching Trump.
They're not focused on core issues.
Meanwhile, Trump is behind the scenes enacting policies, putting judges on the bench, record number of judges.
He's getting these judges approved and appointed and all that.
And the Democrats are playing the scandal game.
So you know what?
Do I make another video where for the 800th time I say impeachment is unpopular, it's
going to hurt the Democrats in the long run, and that they're not focusing on policy issues?
I could, but I'm kind of over it.
Do I make a third video where it's like Trump pressured so and so, oops, information came
out discrediting it.
I did a video last, you know, a couple weeks ago or a week and a half ago where I opened
by saying that every time one of these big bombshells come out a day later it's debunked.
And so the Australia story comes out, a day later it's debunked.
Ukraine story comes out, a day later it's debunked.
And I'm like, do I do this every time it happens now?
It's just a trend.
I think, to summarize all of this, What we really have is the media has an expectation.
They're looking for content.
They know the kind of content they want to make.
They know what they want to say.
And they never stop.
They never stop.
They never have a self-reflective moment.
They never say to themselves, I'm not going to do this again.
We need something else.
We can't.
It's just the same thing over and over again.
So what happens is, the day comes up, the editors, they have an editorial meeting, and they say, what stories do you have today?
And they say, uh, Trump talked to Australia about Biden.
Ooh, that's a big, juicy scoop.
I mean, we talked about this already.
Well, do it anyway.
Okay.
We have a new poll.
The new poll says the same thing every other poll says, that impeachment is unpopular.
Are we going to do a story about it?
You betcha.
And then that's the point.
Because there are very few people who are working in media right now who are, I don't know, looking at, say, Hong Kong.
They're there.
The journalists are there.
But the media isn't interested.
There's a journalist that I know who tweeted something about how he was going to take all of his Trump pitches and throw them in the garbage because the media only wants pitches about Donald Trump.
And that's the big point.
That's the through line.
So here's what I try and do on my main channel.
On this channel I try and talk about the biggest stories that have the biggest impact, and that tends to be right now the big political race.
Why Andrew Yang was just seen skateboarding, and that's getting a lot of attention.
But it's not that important, he's skateboarding.
And then we have all these stories about impeachment and everything, and I'm like, this is important to the fabric of our country, and especially moving into the election, so that's what we should be talking about.
But at a certain point, all these news companies, all these different media outlets, They don't.
They say the same things, like on cue.
And I wonder if it's because they've decided not to accept pitches in other areas.
I don't know.
All I know is that the end result is that mainstream media can put out a story, and then as soon as Trump mentions it, because they have to, because the news has to fit their narrative, Trump is wrong, Trump is a crook, Trump is a liar, they now say that their own stories are fake news.
I don't get it.
What am I supposed to say as a regular person?
Are we going to investigate Clinton and the DNC in Kiev?
Apparently we're not going to do that.
Are we going to investigate Joe Biden?
No, apparently that's a crime and Trump should be impeached for suggesting it.
So what about the average person and what am I supposed to ask for?
I just don't know anymore.
I don't know what you want from me or anybody else.
Why Politico is going to put out these stories and vet them and claim they're true, but then as soon as Trump says it, it has to be fake?
I just don't know.
I just don't know.
And so I guess that's it, right?
I can't believe I ranted this long about it, but anyway.
That's what I felt like doing.
I felt like it was time for a good tearing apart of all politics and just being whatever, man.
I don't understand how you guys deal with it.
I don't even understand how I deal with it, right?
Like I mentioned, I'm a glutton for punishment, I suppose.
Because I read this stuff all day every day and it's like the world is on repeat.
The same stories day after day.
And what do you do?
I don't know.
The drama for the sake of drama, I guess.
Eventually, something needs to change.
So I'll tell you this.
Go to youtube.com slash subverse videos if you made it this far.
Because that's kind of my goal and one of the big projects that we're all working on here.
We're getting an office, we're getting set up, a lot of people invested.
If you go to subverse, you'll find we don't follow this trend, okay?
I have nothing to do with the day-to-day editorial stuff.
You'll see that the people who are producing content might talk about artificial intelligence and, you know, Hong Kong, for instance.
We have a reporter on the ground in Hong Kong.
Because the goal is not to fall into the trap of this.
And if that means we're not going to be as lucrative as many of these companies, well, then so be it.
So be it, because this is poison.
Everything we're seeing here, this is poison.
It's a conspiracy theory.
It's political.
It's a political game.
It's all poison for everything and everyone.
And I'll take responsibility for my own role in playing the same game.
But you know, I guess to my own credit, I don't wanna, I don't wanna, like, I'll defend myself, I guess.
I know that I produce content similarly too, and that's why I'm making a video like this.
I'm like, am I really gonna do another video about this?
There needs to be a point where we reflect on the media and the politics and talk about the insanity.
And I do like to believe that one of the big things that I do and why I do it is pushing back on the media games and the lies and the misconstruing of data.
And that's what this is.
This is finally me saying enough to all of it.
The media is sick.
Everyone's insane.
Okay?
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
And I will see you all then.
I think at this point we're all familiar with the difference between the OK gesture used as a troll symbol to freak people out and cause situations like this to occur, and the circle game.
The circle game where you hold the OK sign, make a circle with your thumb and index finger below the waist, and if someone sees it, you can punch them.
We have this story, family outraged after a universal character made okay symbol on a six-year-old's shoulder.
Now what's particularly funny about this story, hold on, it's funny period that we're at a point where simply making the okay sign is now a terrifying symbol of hate.
Sure, now in the ADL's list of hate symbols, whatever.
But what's funny here is that the woman, okay, so the mother is taking, she's filming her daughter with the guy from Despicable Me, and he does the circle game.
That's the circle game, not the okay hand gesture, by the way.
And she says, all of a sudden, I noticed the universal symbol of hate.
I kid you not.
Wow, that was impressive.
Universal symbol of hate?
Yes, the grand old circle game.
You may be familiar with Malcolm in the Middle that did a great episode full of white supremacist hand gestures.
No.
Let me just make something clear to all of you, as if it matters at this point anyway.
In context, what this hand sign right here is, is the circle game.
The circle game is when you hold your hand down and make a circle with your index finger and your thumb.
Nobody knows the difference anymore, so my advice to you, never make this symbol again.
Scuba divers, just stop!
You're all white supremacists.
The okay hand gesture isn't even a white supremacy hand gesture.
It's a troll gesture, and the more the media does this, the more the troll works.
The intent of the troll, as everyone knows, was to convince people it meant white power, and the more they say it does, the more anyone can do it to trigger the media.
Of course, this here is the circle game, but fine, whatever.
I want to stress, you know, this dude who's dressed up as whatever the Despicable Me guy is, I don't know what his name was, Gru?
I've never seen that movie.
I bet this guy doesn't go on Twitter, I bet he has no idea what's happening, and I bet he has no idea why he was fired.
Congratulations 4chan, wow!
That's amazing.
Let's read a little bit.
USA Today reports.
Tiffany Zinger said it was painful telling her daughter she couldn't use a family vacation photo for her second grade class project.
The image was marred by what appeared to be a symbol of hate.
Hold on.
There's video of this guy.
Like, so I'm gonna have to ask you a question.
There's video of him.
What photo was she talking about?
It was like a professional photo, I guess, and she filmed them doing it?
Because she has video of this.
The photo shows the six-year-old girl, who is biracial and has autism, posing with an actor dressed as the movie character Gru from Despicable Me, during a Universal Orlando breakfast event attended by the Zinger family in March.
The character formed an upside-down OK symbol with his fingers, recognized by some as a hate symbol.
Let me just clarify.
The word some Let's unpack that word.
Some, yeah that's crazy people, who have lost their minds sitting on Twitter for too long, terrified that Donald Trump makes the okay hand gesture, and therefore now they believe it's true.
Why?
Because a troll was started, and then crazy bad people guy flashed the sign, and now all of a sudden they're like, that proves it!
Thank you, ADL, for making sure no one can play the circle game ever again.
Notice they say it was an upside down.
No, he didn't make an OK hand sign.
Because the OK hand sign is with your three fingers, like, fanned out, OK?
This is the circle game.
He was making a joke.
It's below the waist, pointed down.
And the joke was, people will see that and go, ah, you got to get punched now, because it's circle game.
Sorry, Gru.
Gru from Despicable Me is a white supremacist.
So, a Universal Orlando Resorts spokesman said Tuesday in response to USA Today inquiries about the episode that the actor had been fired.
The spokesman, Tom Schroeder, initially declined to further comment but then issued a statement.
We never want our guests to experience what this family did.
This is not acceptable and we are sorry.
And we are taking steps to make sure nothing like this happens again.
We can't discuss specifics about this incident, but we can confirm that the actor no longer works here.
We remain in contact with the family and will work with them privately to make this right.
The Zingers were at Universal Orlando for the day to attend the character breakfast at the Lowe's Royal Pacific Resort at Universal Hotel.
I don't care about that.
We just wanted to take, uh, we just wanted to take them to see the Minions.
Oof, boy, you know, if there's anything on this Earth that I truly despise, like, if, uh, if I had one wish, if I was the Supreme Chancellor of the Earth, and I had a giant scepter and a velvet robe, frilly with a big crown, and I would slam it on the ground and say, Minions, Totally banned!
And cilantro.
Minions are gone.
I find minions to be so incredibly annoying.
It's the sound they make.
It's like nails on a chalkboard, you know?
But I'm kidding, right?
If you like minions, you go ahead and like minions.
Go buy a little minion merchandise and keep it away from me.
The Zingers say they did not initially notice what happened with the actor, but while going through vacation photos in mid-August, they noticed the controversial symbol, the circle game!
This confirms my worst fears.
That we're doomed.
deeper into their smartphone photos and videos to find more evidence of what they were seeing.
Finally, they landed on a video taken at the same time of the picture that confirmed their
worst fears.
This confirms my worst fears.
We're doomed.
You know, there's a lot of talk about teachers and indoctrination, and I think we're doomed.
No, it's not because this insanity is taking over.
It's because we're falling apart.
So let me tell you a quick story, right?
I went out to... I told the story like once before.
I went out to breakfast with my mom, my sister, and my niece.
And I was explaining the problem of this equity preaching and how they trick people into following equity, right?
So there's this photo of three people outside a baseball game at a fence, and it says
equality, and each person gets one crate to stand on.
But there's one tall person, one medium person, and a short person.
And because they all get one crate, only the tall person can see or something, or the short person can't.
Equity is when they give two crates to the small person, one crate to the medium person, and the tall person doesn't get a crate.
And that's what they're telling people, right?
So I was showing this photo and explaining how this is a trick.
You look at that and you say, oh, I get it.
The problem is you can't actually quantify.
What is a crate in real life?
Like in an image of someone standing up against a fence, we look at that crate and say, I get it.
Give them something to stand on.
That makes sense to us.
But how does that work with race?
People have different opinions.
There are black conservatives and black liberals who disagree with this.
The craziest thing, then, was my niece saying, they show us that in school.
And she was like, what, like seven years old at the time?
That's a few years ago.
It's like seven years old.
And I'm like, wait, what?
They're showing you this in school?
And she's like, yeah, they had lessons on it.
And I'm like, that's what's worrying me.
I don't think it's an issue of like, the next generation are going to be a bunch of mindless communists, you know, whatever, zombies, who believe weird and crazy things.
I think it's going to be a fracturing of people who believe weird and insane things, like this.
Is that symbol actually a white supremacist hand gesture?
The answer is a resounding no.
No, no.
Just because a couple people who are extremists used it does not change the meaning of what that is.
You can have hundreds of millions of people knowing what the circle game is, and all of a sudden the media just decides, well one guy held up the okay sign, therefore So here's the thing.
Scuba divers?
Come on.
You can't change the definition.
They do go on to say in this that context is important.
Well, if context was important, you wouldn't be calling it a hate sign or even saying some people.
You would correctly inform your readers that when the circle is formed below the waist, it is the circle game.
Clearly, context is irrelevant.
And there lies the big problem.
I think everything's falling apart.
The internet is seeing disparate tribes.
It's not left or right.
I mean, there are people on the right who agree on some things and disagree on others.
You know, people try and lump everything into these categories, but it doesn't work.
Because the core issues I talk about do line up with conservatives and not liberals.
However, at my core, I'm more aligned with issues that are center-left Democrat.
This is the problem.
The Democrats are fracturing.
The Republicans, the conservatives, are actually fractured as well, but unified behind Donald Trump.
And that's like one of the most important factors with any political party.
Well, I should say that is the most important factor.
Democrats have no charismatic leader and no one to follow.
So all of these ideas are spreading out and getting crazier and crazier, whereas conservatives are focusing on core issues very similar to the things that I'm talking about.
This fracturing decay in society, the rise of authoritarianism, the racism from the far left and the far right.
I see these things from moderate conservatives and centrists.
You know, a centrist includes people who are slightly to the left and to the right.
On the left, they're just falling apart.
And the media, whether anyone wants to accept it or not, USA Today, these people live in their media bubbles, typically in New York or in big cities, and they regurgitate this insanity.
I'm curious, you know, did anyone decide to actually Google search the circle game?
They don't know.
They don't know.
They don't do any research.
Remember when journalists used to have, they would acquire three sources to make a claim?
That used to be standard ethics.
Now, they just report, some people, some people say it's a symbol of hate.
Some people.
Well, look, it's recognized by some.
Okay, not some people, by some.
That's not reporting, right?
What you should be doing is—and maybe we're all guilty of this.
I mean, maybe it's just the breakdown in how media is produced.
Maybe we should say the OK symbol is not a symbol of hate.
We could not find three sources to confirm this.
However, what ends up happening is USA Today will cite the New York Times, who will cite, you know, Politico, who will cite Vox, who will cite BuzzFeed, who will cite USA Today.
It is a circle game of telephone.
Take a ring of people and have them all whisper the same thing to each other, you know, and over time they're telling each other God knows what.
So the ADL has classified the OK symbol as a hate symbol.
Great, we got one source.
What else we got?
Well, that's it.
The ADL.
You will find numerous sources that it's actually the circle game.
I mean, take a look at Malcolm in the Middle, famous episode about the circle game, and that's a symbol that was made.
Why aren't the journalists doing their jobs anymore?
You know what?
I can't tell you why.
All I know is that this is just another sign of social breakdown.
I'd be willing to bet.
I'd like to find out who this guy is.
I'd be willing to bet this Despicable Me guy didn't know anything about the OK symbol.
And this was back in, like, March.
So here's another big problem.
Back in March was the controversy as crazy as it is today.
It was March, right?
Let me just double check.
Yeah, back in March.
Check this out.
This guy did this back in March.
Now we have to go back to March to try and figure out the context of what was happening around with the OK hand gesture.
The OK hand gesture for, I believe, as of 2017.
The controversy has been going on.
Maybe it was 2018, I don't know.
But the point is...
You can take a picture today.
Scuba diving.
OK, hand symbol.
And two years later, they'll say, why did you make that gesture?
And it won't matter.
It won't matter.
So take a look at this guy.
He might have said, like, dude, it was in March.
Like, the news didn't even happen.
Like, none of this stuff was, like, happening.
And now, all of a sudden, they're claiming I did this thing.
But back then, it didn't mean that.
So, welcome to... This is what I mean.
This is what I mean.
Everything's falling apart.
Let's say today you made the peace sign.
You took a photo giving the peace sign with a little kid.
And there's been a push from some trolls on the internet to make the peace sign mean two genders.
They've been pushing it for a while.
It hasn't really caught on, but let's just say it does.
All of a sudden now, they go back to you, six months before the troll trend happened, and say, whoa, why did you flash that Nazi symbol?
And the guy's gonna be like, it just means peace!
No, it doesn't.
We know what it really means.
You're fired.
That's what's insane.
This guy did this thing in March, and apparently he's getting fired now.
This story's from yesterday.
Isn't that crazy?
So, you know what?
To me, this is a sign that... A lot of people disagree with me when I say civil war, because I don't think they understand what I mean, and that's what I try to clarify all the time.
I just think things are going to break down to the point where you can't reconcile anything.
Like, how do you actually talk to this guy and figure out what he was doing?
What if that symbol in Eastern Europe means, you know, peace among peoples?
Context is irrelevant.
Culture is irrelevant.
All that matters is that the media says something is true, someone complains, and these businesses are pathetic and weak.
You know what, man?
These big corporations are so terrified of the Twitter mob and outrage.
You need to grow up.
I'm just... I'm over it.
I just don't care.
I really, really don't.
You know, I made a video about, like, 30-year-old women struggling to find good men to date, and all these feminists got mad, and I'm like, I'll make three more!
I don't care about your controversy.
If I think something's important, I'll talk about it.
But this to me just shows that whatever it is that held us together, we have no shared truth, we have no common reality, and the truth doesn't matter.
All that matters is that if one person gets mad, shut it down!
You can have tens of millions of people playing the circle game today.
I kid you not.
I guarantee you.
Because, you know, 80 some odd percent of people are not even on Twitter.
Most people would see that and say, oh, Circle Game.
If you were to ask somebody, what does it mean when you do that?
They're either going to say, I have no idea, or they're going to say, Circle Game, if they do.
A smaller percentage, most people will say, I have no idea.
Some people will say it's Circle Game, and a very, very tiny fraction of insane psychopaths are going to be like, Nazis!
Yeah, OK.
But that just means when the media pushes this, when the media tells people now this is the case, think about all of the kids who have played this game.
Think about every photo you've ever taken during the circle game.
And here's what's going to happen.
What were you, 17 years old?
This was a good 10, 15 years ago.
And there's a photo of you playing the circle game and they're going to say, There's proof.
And they're going to pop it up, and it's going to be just like the blackface scandal with Trudeau and Northam.
I understand that's substantially worse.
I'm saying they're going to pull it up and say, during so-and-so's college years, they were seen flashing white power hand gestures.
It's like those cops when I was on the Joe Rogan show, and they all were doing the sign below the waist.
And Jamie, uh, you know, Joe Rogan's producer, was like, no, that's what it means, you know, you know, white supremacy or whatever.
And I'm like, no, they're playing the circle game.
And like, we pulled it up and like, yeah, that's circle game.
And I think, I couldn't remember, Joe wasn't even aware what the circle game was.
And I'm like, dude.
The context has become completely irrelevant.
And the media doesn't fact-check anything anymore.
So, we're really getting to this dang— You know what?
We're on the precipice.
We are on the precipice.
When the media was supposed to tell us what is and what isn't, and they aren't doing it anymore.
All they're doing now is saying, Outrage!
The OK hand symbol, some say is a hate symbol.
And the woman called it a universal symbol of hate.
Did she bother asking?
Did she ask anybody?
Nope.
Nope.
So what do you think happens now?
Do you think this guy who got fired is going to say, I'm so sorry.
I will never flash that symbol again.
Or is he going to get angry and say, this was stupid, but it was a joke.
It doesn't mean that.
How dare you.
Well, it could go either way.
I'd be willing to bet that some people will become angry and resentful, and they'll seek out others who are angry and resentful.
Some will bend the knee and apologize and weep and beg for forgiveness.
It really just depends.
It depends on the type of person.
Because I'm the type of person who would say, screw off.
I would rather see everything I own, everything I have, burnt to the ground, than bend the knee.
If you want me to bend my knee to you, and you want to take away my career, take everything over, something offensive, you're gonna have to put me down first.
You know what I mean?
I gotta be careful on how I phrase that, but I'm being metaphorical.
Give me liberty or give me death.
I will not bend to the insanity or these lunatics who refuse to understand context.
And the scary thing is that the mob doesn't have a focus.
It is a subconscious.
It is a swarm.
Let me give you another example.
In Hamburg, Germany, Luc Radkowski of We Are Change, reporter on the ground, he was just at Area 51.
He was walking down the street.
American journalist, he's Polish, from Poland, moved here when he was a kid, and speaks Polish.
You understand Poland's aversion to the Germans, right?
Get the point?
And all of a sudden someone yelled, I think it's like Nazi schweinhund, which means like a Nazi pig, I guess.
Random people got up and started punching him and his friend.
They didn't know why, they didn't care, there was no facts, they just started punching him and scuffed him up.
Because someone said a word.
I've been in these crowds and I've seen them.
I was at, uh, Mike Cernovich did a speech and I was outside by the protests filming.
The protesters went into the lobby and I started filming that too.
Somebody recognized me and then yelled that I was like alt-right or something.
But nobody knew who I was, which is funny.
So they pointed to some random press photographer who looked like he was in his 50s, and some guy started yelling, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, and the guy was confused, like, what?
And then the other guy who pointed me out was like, no, no, it's him, it's him, and everyone's looking around, and you know what I did?
I looked around too, like, oh, I wonder who he's looking at.
And then someone finally figured it out.
And then what happened was this young blonde woman started just making up crazy things.
She went to the administrators and said that I secretly worked with white supremacists to dox them and to spread their faces so that they could receive death threats and all this other fake stuff.
And I stood by the administrators and at first they were like, we don't know.
We don't care.
He's not doing anything wrong.
I don't care what you think.
And then I showed my ABC employer, my former ABC card and my press cards.
I was like, ma'am, I don't know this woman.
I have no idea what she's talking about.
I used to work for ABC News, and this was like shortly after.
And she was like, I'm sorry sir, it's fine.
But this is what they do.
The mob points you out, they make a fake claim, and the rest of the mob joins in lying.
It is pitchforks and torches with no thought.
And that's what I mean when I say it is breaking apart.
They will point you out, they will scream, And everyone would say, hey, why not?
And that's what this is.
That's exactly what this is.
Did anyone ever stop to think?
Slow down.
What's happening and why?
What is he doing?
Nope, nope, nope, nope.
Knee-jerk reactions.
Everything must be knee-jerk without thought, without fact.
And when our press starts doing it, well, that's when we're doomed.
Our media system is jump the gun, bad faith, out of context, uninformed, And what do you get?
Well, when Yozit Today fails to fact-check and provide adequate context, you'll then end up with a bunch of people believing the same nonsense and raising their pitchforks.
So that's what I mean.
Prepare to see the mobs.
You know what I mean?
Well, we are.
On Twitter.
So here's the thing.
For the time being, these businesses, the worst thing is that they just cancel people.
Well, stop.
If you just don't care what the Twitter mob says, you'll be fine.
But, They do, and it's really weird that an instance of Tucker Carlson getting his ads removed, one mob says ban, the other mob says we'll boycott you, and so for some reason the brands just say, okay, we're going to side with them.
It's the most confusing thing to me.
If I had a company, and a bunch of leftists are threatening me saying, how dare you advertise on this program, and I had no idea what they're talking about, I'd be like, I don't care if you boycott me, screw off.
And then you'd see the other side supporting you.
And you know what?
If my business had no intention of entering the culture war and someone came at me, yeah, you better believe I'm going to plant myself like a tree and say, no, you move.
And if people want to rally behind that, fine.
If they don't, then I have no problem watching it all come down because your sick, twisted system doesn't deserve to exist in the first place.
And I have no problem going and sitting in the woods, putting up my feet, going fishing, and saying, y'all have lost your minds.
So I'll tell you what, all of these businesses, Universal, I think you are pathetic.
Anheuser-Busch, severing ties with Carson King, you're pathetic.
If I drank beer, I would say I'd stop, but I don't.
Didn't you guys buy Goose Island?
That, to me, is offensive.
That's Chicago brand.
Whatever.
This is a long video for no reason.
I'm done.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m., and I will see you all there.
The media produces consistent, self-fulfilling prophecies.
It's why whenever there's one of these mass tragic events, I'll be careful about how I describe it, they say don't say the person's name, don't report information about this person, they're going to And this brings me to the point about how weird the media has been lately.
Pertaining to the Joker, specifically.
things and they create the idea and the psychology behind these ideas.
Something really fascinating is happening with the joke or Joker.
It's not the Joker, it's just Joker.
It's coming out today.
Got my tickets already.
Gonna go see it.
I'm excited.
I have really, really great things.
And this brings me to the point about how weird the media has been lately, pertaining
to the Joker specifically.
I mean, the media is weird as a whole.
But they were calling this a masterpiece.
And now we're hearing select Joker screenings to be policed with NYPD undercover tactics
for opening weekend.
I'm not gonna go see this movie in New York.
That freaks me out.
That is weird, okay?
I can't say I would, you know...
I'm glad police want to keep these theaters safe.
But, dude, this whole narrative has been fake the whole time.
I mean, I get it.
There have been some theaters.
There have been threats.
But it started with the press.
So, listen.
Something happened.
The military warned there's potential threats.
They're vague, indirect.
Then some theater got a threat.
Before any of this, the media started the narrative.
So, if you want to ask me my personal opinion, It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that there is any talk whatsoever about Joker.
He's not the first time he's appeared in a movie.
I get it.
We had that one event, that one time, where a lunatic did a bunch of crazy things, and it's disgusting and detestable, but we have to recognize that things like this can happen, okay?
Sometimes there are crazy people who sometimes do crazy things.
And this particular instance was particularly egregious and disgusting and vile, and we all know it.
But to then think that any movie containing the Joker at any point forever is going to be a hotbed for this activity is pulling a pattern out of nothing.
It was a guy who was crazy.
We know this.
So here's what ends up happening.
The first reviews come out.
Joker is a masterpiece, they say.
And I was really... I was intrigued and impressed.
Because the movie doesn't really look like it's about the Joker.
Okay?
You look at Dark Knight, and you can see that the Joker in Dark Knight has henchmen and an army.
Like, however he does it, when he lights money on fire, they still follow him, and he takes over Gotham, basically.
He takes over the crime syndicates.
It's really, really interesting.
That's a supervillain.
When you look at Joker, I was really skeptical at first, kind of just like, eh, it just seems to be about a crazy guy dancing in the street.
You know, the first trailers came out and everyone was praising it, and I'm like, for what though?
It's like, it's him putting on makeup and then like running through the street.
I don't even know what's going on.
Apparently the movie's pretty gruesome.
At least that's what I've heard, but maybe not.
So all of a sudden these reviews started coming out calling it a masterpiece.
And that's really interesting to me because critics are typically politically correct, right?
You know, you see the Dave Chappelle thing, you see Rambo, you see Death Wish.
These movies come out and the critics slam it for the political message.
But when the Joker reviews came out, they were praising it, just, what, a month ago, as a masterpiece.
And I said, that's interesting.
But then all of a sudden the story started changing.
All of a sudden they started saying it's an incels wet dream.
It is the champion hero to incels.
And they started talking about the potential danger of incels coming with weapons and threatening theaters.
And then all of a sudden it happened.
And I'm thinking to myself, but weren't, wasn't, weren't, I understand the media's not a monolith.
Not every critic is the same person.
But how did these trends emerge?
That it's overwhelmingly praised, but then all of a sudden, overwhelmingly criticized, and you're seeing people say that, oh, the director, and the production company, and the studio, Warner Brothers, they need to come out and condemn gun violence, and it becomes a political issue.
And I'm like, weren't y'all just praising this?
And there it is.
The media says over and over again, incels wet dream, threats will happen, there's a big risk, and then someone gets the idea.
There's a funny story.
In Chicago, there was a thing called superheroin.
This was, I believe, this was fentanyl.
I could be wrong.
This was a while ago.
Something really, really funny happened.
You see, a sad story.
The funny circumstances come after the tragedy.
I'm not trying to downplay the tragedy that people lost their lives, but several people lost their lives in the south side of Chicago from taking what people were calling superheroin.
And it was like four deaths.
I'm paraphrasing because you have to look this one up, but the story makes, you'll see the point.
So I remember seeing on the news this story.
They said four people had died on the South Side due to overdoses from super heroin.
And I was like, whoa, that's crazy.
What do you think happened the next day?
I'm sorry, hold on, let me stop.
No, no, no, we'll keep going.
What do you think happened the next day?
The next day the news reported, uh, maybe not the next day, but like a week later, 16 deaths from Superhero, and I was like, it's getting worse!
Whoa!
But there's one important factor in what made it get worse.
You see, the thing is, those 16 people who died, died in the same place as the 4 people who died.
Huh.
They must be selling more.
Nope.
It was that the news reported the location of where the people overdosed, and other people were like, whoa, I wanna go check out that, that sounds great, and then overdosed too.
This story may be apocryphal, it may be an urban legend, because it's something I vaguely remember, so definitely fact check me, but you get the point.
I've read stories about the crack epidemic, about how when the media kept pushing it and saying it was here, it was available, here's what it did, all of a sudden people started going and looking for it because you didn't inform them.
So there's an interesting conundrum here in the concept of pushing an idea through the press.
And so I can absolutely sympathize with some of the people who are concerned about hate speech and racism on these social media platforms.
But I want to stress the difference in someone's legitimate political protected opinion and the media fear-mongering you and driving a narrative that results in people going and seeking out certain behaviors.
It's one thing, and I understand they'll try and argue the same thing, but hold on.
It's one thing if someone says, here's how I feel about, you know, this political issue.
It's another thing if someone just starts drumming up fear for clicks and rage bait, and that includes anybody on any side of the spectrum.
If you have a racist guy who's just lying and making outrageous content for the sake of it, and riling up his base, it's a really, really bad thing.
Ultimately, the point I guess I'm trying to make.
Look, they're absolutely allowed to talk about their fears, but this is a media phenomenon that I find particularly worrying because, no, we don't need NYPD showing up and policing our theaters because the media got this idea that incels would go and target themselves?
Like, that's the big point, right?
That the Joker is a hero for incels, and they're all gonna go see it, so then incels will show up and kill each other?
I'm really confused by the narrative they're trying to push here with this claim.
They say that, essentially, the Joker is this hero for incels and they all want to see it, so then why would they show up to kill each other?
You see the point I'm trying to make?
I don't know, I should probably read the story, I guess?
They say...
The New York City Police Department will be increasing its presence both in and out of uniform by deploying undercover officers to Joker screenings in select locations for the DC film's opening weekend.
In addition to visibly policing theaters that are scheduled to show the R-rated film, Deadline reports that undercover tactics will be rolled out for the screenings in Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island as an extra security measure for cinema-goers.
This is 360 degree policing approach to ensure safety for ticket buyers in their seats, as well as on the streets, a law enforcement official said.
If something happens inside one of the screenings, we intend to be able to pacify the situation quickly and conclusively.
An NYPD spokesperson confirmed to the outlet that there was no specific or credible threats at the time in regards to the opening of the Joker.
So this is the great point.
Often what we see in how media reacts to these stories is a knee-jerk reaction that polices nothing and changes nothing.
There is no threat to these theaters, but the NYPD is going to come out anyway.
Why?
Why should we spend money on something that's not an issue?
It's just a movie.
It's not the first time the Joker has existed or anyone else.
But when the media puts out these big trends and stories, and again, I'm not trying to point the finger at an individual here, I'm saying it's like, all of these outlets want to then talk about the same thing, and they're all freaking out about something that never really happened.
You know what I mean?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to.
Not at all.
And I think, again, it is absolutely fair to criticize anyone, be it alternative media or otherwise, for highlighting issues that result in fear-mongering or trends that serve no purpose.
So I guess, in the end, what it really comes down to is, we're all a part of this big machine, where no matter what you talk about, you're giving credence to a certain idea.
So I guess the best thing I can say is, I'm biased towards myself, you know?
Like, the way I view it is telling people not to freak out, the problems aren't that bad, and the media needs to chill.
So of course, I guess I think I'm doing good.
But in the end, this is what we get.
We get police showing up to our theaters.
We get this weird turnaround where the media, all of these different outlets were praising the film, but now they're scared that incels are going to show up.
And now police actually arrive when nothing happened.
Nothing.
I'm going to go see the movie.
I'm sure it's going to be fine.
I'm curious as to whether or not it's going to be good or bad, considering the way the critics tend to approach films.
This one's getting rave reviews, but now they've turned on it.
And interestingly, we can see that Todd Phillips, the director, made a statement saying that it was inspired by woke outrage, to some degree.
So maybe, but I would be curious, you know, when you look at what happened with Dark Knight and that crazy guy, this was a guy showing up to a mainstream film full of, you know, regular mainstream audiences, and he was nuts.
If this movie is depicting this guy, the main character, and these crazy people are supposed to like it, wouldn't they show up and cheer for it?
Why would they go show up to a movie that's supposed to be, like, good for them?
They say following Joker's triumphant debut at the Venice Film Festival, the Todd Phillips-directed film has faced pockets of controversy.
Some critics have questioned whether or not Joker is a dangerous movie, including the families from the Aurora incident.
Speaking to Vanity Fair, Phoenix addressed some of the pushback, saying that he didn't imagine that it would be smooth sailing, as it is a difficult film, though he believes, in some ways, it's good that people are having strong reaction to it.
No, you know what, man?
We can't have nice things.
Like, everything just seems to be breaking down, falling apart.
You know, the political world is so insane and frustrating.
And I'm reading this really interesting report about new political groups that are forming and breaking away from the mainstream, and I just kind of feel like everything's falling apart.
And this is evidence of it.
Like, it's just a movie, you know?
But now everything, everything is about politics.
The making of this film apparently was inspired because comedians couldn't make, you know, offensive jokes, so he said, fine, we'll make the joke, or we'll say F comedy.
Then you get all of these, you know, leftist, you know, woke outlets talking about the rise of incels and incel violence, and it's like, you know what, man?
I don't know what to tell you.
I don't want to go to a movie where there's going to be a bunch of undercover cops.
That just seems weird to me.
I understand.
But that's not the world I ever wanted to be living in, where there's cops on every corner, where there's police with AR-15s standing outside of train stations, and that's where we are.
Now we can't even go to a movie without police hiding among us.
This is not the kind of, you know, country that I wanted to be in.
Again, I'm not, I don't think in the end, I think people will go see the movie and they'll be fine.
But we've got to think about what the end result is.
Hidden cops everywhere?
I'm not okay with that, man.
Whatever.
It's stuff so depressing.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, youtube.com slash Timcast.
I'll see you there.
An interesting discussion from several videos I've done about working women, their opinions, who should date who, sparked a bunch of controversy and all of these woke feminists on Twitter are mad at me and whatever.
But we're not going to be talking about relationships.
We're going to move on from that and segue into a more interesting subject and how I think it relates to what happened with this controversy.
Very quickly, for those that aren't familiar, I made a video talking about this article Where women who are in their 30s and have careers only seem to find guys to date who don't make money and have no ambition.
And the general argument I made is that a man who is both physically, personality-wise, and economically attractive, meaning they make money, they look good, they're charismatic, are likely going to choose younger women.
That's the data we've seen published by OkCupid, it was written about by Jezebel.
But so, the backlash was interesting.
I really don't care.
I actually find it quite hilarious.
I've laughed quite a bit, so it's enjoyable.
But a bunch of these woke feminists on Twitter were really, really angry.
And it made me start to think about, you know, why is that?
Why is it that this particular opinion was so offensive to them?
And I think it has to do with a couple things I've covered.
So in one of the videos, I talked about how The other day, I did this video.
I showed a survey.
When individuals were asked, what do you think society views as successful?
The number one answer was fame.
That makes sense.
But when they asked the individual, what do you think would make you successful?
They said, having kids.
That's a really, really interesting finding.
But they also found that women were 20% more likely to view being famous and having a large social media following as signs of success in society.
And so that made me wonder, is there some kind of correlation between gender and politics in this particular area?
Well, the answer is obviously yes.
We've seen a ton of different things.
But I have this, this is a study report from Beau Weingart and Corey J. Clark, and there's some interesting findings having to do with the current political landscape.
Notably, women are more likely to support censorship, and women are overwhelmingly more likely to be Democrat, at least millennial women.
Wow, women.
So I think that actually correlates perfectly with what I ended up finding, my experience, right?
I put out this video where I said, you know, as a guy who's got a successful career, several successful companies, and is expanding rapidly with staff, like, we're doing really, really well, right?
I would consider that to be economic success.
And that was a direct reference to the article saying, why can't these women find men who aren't broke?
I think the reason there was such a big backlash from these 30-year-old career women on Twitter is because the likelihood of a woman to be on Twitter, right?
We have to realize Twitter, for one, it's, you know, 80 some odd percent, like 85 or so percent of the country doesn't use Twitter.
So the only people who are going to be on it are people who likely think there is value in Having a large social media following and being famous.
Having your opinion heard, right?
Twitter is a wonderful place for narcissists and egotists who think that their opinion deserves to be heard.
It's actually a really interesting phenomenon.
The reason why so many famous people are narcissists is because you take one person who's more humble about their opinion, another person who thinks they have the best opinion in the world, and that person who thinks they have the best opinion wants to make sure everybody hears it.
So, naturally, they go on Twitter, you'll end up with a bunch of woke feminists who think they're right, everyone else is dumb, and they ended up attacking me and my appearance and things like that.
I really don't care.
Like, you know, things are going really, really well.
We're expanding, we're looking at setting up a new office and properties and stuff, so, you know, feel free to say whatever you want.
But we find something interesting.
So I kind of want to talk about that.
Why that backlash and what do we see?
So the first thing I'll just show you very quickly.
This is a story from Vox a year ago.
A year and a half ago.
Well, or so.
Republicans have a millennial women problem.
Nearly 70% of young women say they are leaning toward Democratic candidates in the midterms.
And I think this makes sense when you think about policies.
According to AllSides.com, free speech is a right-wing issue.
Now think about this.
All sides is trying to quantify what makes something left and what makes something right.
And they tend to find that conservatives and the right will support free speech and the left is much less likely to.
We then see that women are much more supportive of censorship.
This is from Corey Clark's research.
And then I think you'll likely see that there is a huge divide between men and women as it pertains to the issue of speech and fame and other issues.
So we'll now segue away from the dating stuff and get into the political issue.
Democrats likely embrace censorship because—it's either because of or in response to the fact that there are so many women aligned with the party who also agree with censorship.
This is either—one of two things may happen.
The Democratic Party begins to endorse censorship because there are more men entering or more women are entering because they endorse censorship.
I can't tell you which one precipitates the other, but there's a correlation there.
So here's what I want to do.
Let me read this.
This is The Ideology of Censorship.
Beau Weingart, Cory J. Clark, as I mentioned.
They write, Recent work has suggested that liberals have sacred values about protecting low-status groups, and thus are particularly prone to bias against any information that portrays those groups unfavorably.
In a pre-registered study, we tested whether liberals would support more censorship of information that portrays low-status groups unfavorably than similar information that portrays high-status groups unfavorably.
The results very clearly supported predictions.
Liberals consistently displayed double standards in their censorship preferences, such that they desired to censor information that portrays low-status groups unfavorably more than information that portrays high-status groups unfavorably.
Moderates and conservatives supported more similar levels of censorship regardless of whether the information was favorable toward relatively high or low-status groups.
But conservatives did display a small preference for censoring Christian violence over Islamic violence.
Exploratory analysis also revealed that Millennials might be slightly more in support of censorship than Generation X in general, but Baby Boomer censorship support generally fell between that of Gen X and Millennials.
I don't know if Cory and Beau have gone into the wider context and analysis, but I think I can shed some light on some of these things here and expand upon this.
So in a conversation, someone asked about women and censorship.
Cory tweeted.
Across multiple topics and conditions, women were consistently more supportive of censorship than men.
The one exception was for text that argued that women evolved to be better leaders than men.
For this passage, women were equally as non-supportive of censorship of men.
To clarify, someone asks, she says, women are against censorship of text that argues that women make better leaders than men.
So basically, let me just pull up the next tweet here so I can show you.
In a conversation that this was brought up, Corey said, just checked for interactions and actually, women are more supportive of censorship for every topic and every condition except for the, quote, women evolve to be better leaders than men condition for the leadership topic.
Thanks for these analyses suggestion.
Very interesting.
Basically.
When it comes to moderates and conservatives, they're pretty even-handed on what should or shouldn't be censored.
Liberals tend to be much more in support of censorship and hold a double standard.
That's what her study found.
But she also found the same phenomenon for men and women.
That the only thing women didn't want censored was the argument that they evolved to be better leaders than men.
Once again, we see there is essentially a double standard.
When the information was very favorable, They enjoyed this.
But interestingly, every condition, so negative information, period, it would seem, triggered women more likely to be in support of censoring.
Now here's where it gets interesting then.
If we're going to talk about liberals and conservatives, I think we need to start breaking down what these groups actually are.
And according to Vox, they're actually looking at Pew data, 70% of young women say they are leaning toward Democratic candidates in the midterms.
Slightly more, I believe, you know, with women being around 51% of the population, that means among Millennials, you have 70% of half of the population, and then you also have around half of the male population, giving a majority of individuals leaning Democrat.
So, when it comes to women in the Democratic Party, I'll just put it this way.
It may be the reason we find people who identify as liberal being in support of censorship is because people who are liberal, or millennials at least, are more likely to be female.
But I do think they did correct for that.
So, let me see.
I don't know if she made a statement about it specifically.
Okay, I don't know.
She said, I quickly analyzed my support for censorship data by gender, and indeed, women consistently are more supportive of censorship than men.
The questions topics these data correspond to are described in the paper.
So let me wrap all this up together, right?
The point I'm trying to make.
I'm not surprised that if I make a video saying, hey, if you're a woman in your early 30s and you have a career and you're only finding, you tend to find guys who are broke, this may be why, and my personal preference explains anecdotally why I feel that way, I say that and they naturally get offended.
Look, if I said people who played golf You know, are unfortunately going to be older and overweight for these reasons.
I wouldn't be surprised if golfers got angry.
But I think it's fair to point out that people who play golf are typically, you know, shown on TV as being older and retirees.
Not everybody.
I get it.
That's the point.
But the issue is, you think about the sport itself.
Are they going to play basketball?
Of course not!
When you're old, you're going to play a sport like golf where you get a lot of walking in.
It's healthy, and it does take physical abilities, but there is a stark difference between competing in golf and competing in basketball.
Which is much more physically exhaustive and more intense, right?
So, if I were to point that out, I think the reason why we see so many people playing golf being old is because of these reasons.
I wouldn't be surprised if younger golfers or even older golfers got angry that I said that.
I get that.
But I also think the issue is summed up in politics, the desire for censorship, and we start to see an interesting insight in here.
So yes, a lot of the outrage was Twitter.
But of course, those who are on Twitter make up a small fraction of the country, and they tend to be journalists.
The biggest faction of individuals on Twitter are journalists.
I believe around 25% of all verified accounts are journalists.
And so then you take early 30s women, they're journalists, they're personally offended by this, they don't care about the data suggests, so they personally attack me.
But these are the same people who also are likely to believe in censorship, and yes, one of the women has advocated for the termination of my and other channels.
So it's no surprise.
So yes, I'm not going to mention who they are specifically because, you know, fine, I try not to engage, but you can criticize me all you want.
So this one particular individual has called for my, and many others, termination from YouTube for, like, the betterment of society or whatever.
Interesting.
It all kind of comes together now.
We look at the outrage over, you know, my preference in dating and why men choose younger women or whatever, and we then see that women are more likely to support censorship and women are more likely—millennial women are more likely to be Democrats.
It all comes together, doesn't it?
I don't think there's any grand conclusion here other than It's interesting, and I'm not surprised that it's the woke feminists who are outraged about my personal preferences and opinions, and are misconstruing it and attacking my appearance and all that stuff, fine, but I'm also not surprised they've called for my censorship.
My opinion, my preference, must be silenced, and that's what we tend to see.
So, I guess there you go.
I think it's particularly fascinating that this was discovered.
I wonder if there's a correlation between, in this study, I think you'd find the answer is yes, but not necessarily because liberals are for this, but because those who are for this are attracted to the position being held by liberals, right?
So if the Democrats are in favor of censorship, then there could be somebody who's politically uninitiated who hears about this and is attracted to the Democratic Party.
That's my point.
Other than that, to clarify and to wrap up, I'm not surprised that one of the women who was completely outraged by my statements about wanting a wife to handle social aspects of my life, they're calling it trad wife, which is not what I said, and is not even reflective of what my opinion was, but I'm not surprised it's the same person who's called for censorship.
That's the point.
It's left-leaning democratic women and women in general.
Interesting, right?
So, final point.
The study found not only that liberals held double standards in terms of censorship, but that women were more likely to support censorship.
Surprise, surprise.
I don't know.
Get angry about it.
Whatever.
I don't care.
Be mad.
Post things.
Make fun of me.
Fine.
I'll see you guys in a few minutes in the next segment.
Adam Schiff, during a congressional hearing, did a bit.
He made some comedy routine where he read a fake quote from Donald Trump that made Trump sound really, really bad.
He said things like, you know, Trump saying, you better do this for me, Ukraine, or else don't call me back until it's done.
And it was over-the-top and absurd.
It wasn't so over-the-top that it could be unbelievable, especially when we're talking about Trump.
But in the end, Schiff apologized and said it was meant to be somewhat parody.
And my big question there was, why are you doing a bit in Congress?
You probably heard me complain about it twice now.
Well, I'll tell you why he did it.
Okay, now let me stop.
I don't wanna be super hyperbolic.
I'll just tell you that whatever he did had a positive effect for him and the Democrats.
Because now we see this.
Pelosi falsely says Adam Schiff's interpretation of Ukraine transcript was the president's own words.
I kid you not.
In this interview, George Stephanopoulos says he made it up.
She says, no, he didn't.
He goes, no, no, no, no, he really did.
She goes, no, he didn't.
And there it is.
Adam Schiff read a fake quote into the record.
And then later he says, it was just a parody.
My big question is, why is a congressman doing a bit in a congressional hearing?
This is a serious matter, but sure, fine, whatever.
And now we see where this goes.
Nancy Pelosi either believes it's real or she's lying, but I think she believes it's real.
I don't think she understands he actually made the quote up.
And in an interview on ABC News says, no, he did say that.
Guess what?
When the New York Times came out and said, you know, the whistleblower was a CIA agent, the left was furious.
The left gets equally angry with the press when they're mean to them as the right does.
So what we see here is Nancy Pelosi will have her defenders saying, I can't believe the media will be trying to defend what the president said.
Pelosi is right.
It's Trump's own words.
Because people are going to choose things based on their confirmation bias.
I don't trust the journalists.
I trust the Democrats.
That's what they'll say.
So let's read the story from the Daily Caller and we'll break it down.
They write, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi falsely claimed that Democratic Rep.
Adam Schiff's dramatic interpretation of President Donald Trump's transcript of Ukraine was the president's own words in an interview on ABC News Thursday.
Pelosi spoke to ABC news host George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America Thursday and discussed the now-released July 25 transcript of a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, which sparked a formal impeachment inquiry into the president.
Schiff received pushback after reading a fabricated version of the transcript during a House hearing last week.
I'll make this point.
A lot of people will say that Shift did it on purpose.
He knew what he was doing.
By reading that into the record, you're going to create media snippets.
You're going to create direct quotes.
The quotes will now be presented without saying who they're from.
This is one thing the media does.
They'll present a quote and then not cite anybody.
Just say it was a quote.
So then they'll be like, you know, in a statement read in Congress, which reads, quote, you're going to do this for me or else people are then going to assume that was the real quote.
I don't think we need to go that far.
By all means, if you want to believe that Schiff is doing something dirty and underhanded, I certainly don't like the guy, fine, whatever, but we don't even need to go that far.
We can criticize them for having done it, period.
There should be no circumstance in which they read fake quotes into the record.
And regardless of the intent, he did it, and he should be condemned for it.
Now Nancy Pelosi is carrying on exactly like you'd expect.
And maybe she knows it's a fake quote, fine, whatever.
But when she gets up there and says, this is what the president really said, don't be surprised when this enters mainstream understanding of the context.
I have now talked to people who have repeated similar things.
Like I heard he was strong-arming them, threatening them, and I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
He didn't even bring it up.
They brought up Giuliani and meaning and all that stuff.
And then people bring up the other fake news that, according to an advisor, Zelensky and Trump had an understanding that talking about Biden was a prerequisite, which makes no sense because he mentioned Biden, like, passively.
And then it turns out a day later, eh, not true.
Fake news.
Because that's the game we play.
It comes out, they correct later.
But they know the power of the lie.
And that's why I don't trust Schiff.
But again, we don't need to go that far.
I don't trust him when he does something like this and then says, oopsie.
I can't believe it wasn't obvious.
No, it's not going to be obvious to everyone, okay?
That's the problem.
Despite the reading being a, quote, dramatic interpretation of the actual transcript, as Stephanopoulos noted, Pelosi claimed Thursday that Schiff's reading was the same as what Trump had said to the Ukrainian president.
Quote, I want the American people to know what the phone call was about, Pelosi said.
I want them to hear it.
So yeah, it's fair.
It's sad, but he was using the president's own words.
Pelosi doubled down on the egregious claim after Stephanopoulos pushed back.
Schiff himself said the reading was parody following outrage from Republicans.
He did not make it up, Pelosi continued, and look, I want to tell you something.
When I took the oath of office to defend the Constitution, as my colleagues have done, I did not say, I will do this as long as the Republicans can understand the Constitution.
The fact they're loyal to Trump and not the Constitution is not going to slow down or impair our ability to keep the Republic.
And this is why I made the video I made today on my main channel.
I am so sick of the insanity.
You know what, man?
I've said it a million times, I'll say it a million times again.
They say the same thing about each other.
Everybody does.
The right says about the left, left says about the right.
The left says... You know, there was one article being shared.
It said, uh, Nunes, in secret recording, vows to defend Trump over the United States.
And nowhere in the quote did he say anything like that.
He said something like, we must defend Trump, otherwise this is all over.
Yeah, I think he was saying defending Trump was defending the United States.
Everything is out of context.
Everything is misinterpreted because you have nefarious actors on both sides who are trying to push a political agenda.
Now, I have no problem saying the Democrats tend to be much more misinformed and the media tends to target conservatives, okay?
But there absolutely are people on the right who play the same game, too.
I have no problem calling them out when they do that.
And therein lies the big problem.
We can look at how this plays out.
Antifa.
They beat people.
Okay?
People on the right?
Not doing that!
Not for the most part.
There was one instance where a guy with a MAGA hat attacked someone in a subway train, and I did a video about it.
There was an instance where the Proud Boys attacked Antifa guys and went to jail for it.
I did numerous videos about it.
But here's the problem.
Yes, we can call the bad actors, but what am I supposed to do when Pelosi repeats lies?
When Schiff repeats lies?
Okay?
It's one thing for Trump to be wrong.
It's one thing for him to falsely claim something may have happened and demand an investigation to it.
Fine.
But then you have Schiff doing this.
And I want to make another point.
I know Trump lies.
He does.
He also gets things wrong.
The immediate conclusion that everyone would make is that Schiff was doing it intentionally or that Pelosi knew it's not true.
I'm not even going to play that game.
Maybe Schiff really thought it would be funny to do the bit.
I don't care.
All I know is what he did was wrong.
Maybe Pelosi really did know it's not true.
I don't care.
She's incorrect.
Correct it.
I'm not going to assume she's lying.
I'll just say she's wrong.
And the same is true for the president.
But I have to stress, For some reason, you know, Ezra Klein tweeted today that the president just makes these grand public confessions.
And I'm like, you just, you all just told me he was a liar!
Why are you now gonna claim he's confessing and you believe?
So here's what happens.
Trump will say something and I'll say, haha, he confessed.
He'll say something else and I'll be like, nope, Trump's lying, he made that up.
It's like, you know what, man?
When it's something like Joe Biden is corrupt, they'll say he's lying in his conspiracy theory.
When it's something like him saying, yeah, I want an investigation into Joe Biden, they'll say, aha, he admits it.
Which one's the lie?
OK?
That's the point.
We don't need to play the games.
We can just point out something is incorrect.
And I have no problem saying Trump is incorrect often.
And I do believe he lies.
And I do believe Pelosi and Schiff lie as well.
Because you know why?
There's one key factor.
They're politicians.
Now I know you'll see a lot of Trump supporters say, Trump's not really a politician.
I can understand that.
And I can hear you.
Trump is an outsider who under the fray.
And that's fine.
It's a fine argument.
I can just, at the end of the day, say, when I look into this news, it tends to be these stories that are negative about Trump that are corrected a day later.
That's what it is.
The fake quote is read, and then later, oops, it was an accident.
Trump is accused of doing this one thing, a day later it's corrected.
That's what happens every single time.
So forgive me if I'm not going to take their word for it anymore.
I'm talking about the press.
I don't care about anyone's tribe.
I don't care for supporting or voting for somebody.
But I do care when Nancy Pelosi comes out and says a quote is not true.
And in this instance, it's particularly egregious.
It's egregious because it's causing massive divide in our country, and it's going to hurt everything.
It's no secret that I actively support, you know, a couple Democrats, Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.
But admittedly, they're the outliers.
Yang's doing really, really well.
He's let me down in a lot of ways, and I've sat on him a little bit, but I still lean towards, like, I like the guy, okay?
Tulsi, I don't support her move towards impeachment, but I still overall really like her and I think she's honest and on the level.
I'm not going to end up supporting a Republican, but I will stress, it doesn't matter who I support.
It matters when Nancy Pelosi plays right into the game that we all knew was going to happen.
This is why I was shocked that Adam Schiff did this.
He seems like it's a really slimy thing to do.
To come out and be like, I thought it was obvious, and so over the top.
It's like, dude, you're doing a comedy routine right now?
I just don't trust you.
And then we hear that the whistleblower met with him first or something, or his aides?
I don't trust you, man.
Okay?
I'm not gonna play any of these games.
The big thing for me is definitely not the Democrats, it's definitely not Trump, it's the media.
It's always been the media.
It's where I came from, it's the first complaints I made, and it's why we're here today.
My complaints are not to be in favor or in opposition to any of the politicians, but to call out the lies being pushed in the media.
When it happens that a Democrat pushes that lie, and then the media just plays this, they should have stopped it right there and said enough, right?
The problem is, these stories come out, they're not true, a day later they're corrected, and it always tends to flow in one direction.
So do I care if Trump wins 2020?
I really don't.
I really don't.
I'd prefer Tulsi Gabbard.
But I'm not going to cry about it.
I'm not going to scream about it.
I'm not going to play to anyone's side on purpose so I can hope they win.
No, I'm just going to talk about what's legitimate and what's not.
But for some reason, when it comes to censorship, when it comes to fake news, when it comes to these lies, it always tends to flow in one direction.
And that's the point.
So you're not going to see me cheering on a false statement from anybody, be it the President or Pelosi.
But why is it always like this?
Why can't we have an honest conversation?
Whatever, man.
I'm going to leave it there.
Stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
A teacher in Virginia was fired for refusing to use transgender students' pronouns and is launching legal action.
What's interesting about this story, because we've heard it a million times, is that in this instance it seemed to have been an accident.
Something happened, some scuffle broke out, and the teacher referred to the individual as her.
The person got angry.
He said, oh, it was a reflex.
Didn't matter.
Did not matter.
I don't know how we actually enter, like, how do we actually solve this problem?
If somebody wants to be called something, we have to adhere to that?
That's violating someone else's speech rights.
Now, you have to consider, this is a teacher.
I'm wondering if it was a public school or private school, but that would make a big difference.
But in a public school, wouldn't it be, like, wouldn't you not be allowed to do this because you have to adhere to public law?
Like, private institutions have more leeway.
They can say whatever they want, and they can act in certain ways, but it's not funded by the public.
But if you're a public school teacher, can the government really censor your speech?
It's an interesting question.
Well, let's read this, and there's actually two stories here.
The other is that a Christian doctor has lost a case, I believe this was in the UK, The doctor refused to call an individual a female pronoun, and he said that he refuses to refer to any six-foot-tall beard ma'am as madam.
And so this has sparked a bit of an outrage, resulting in Christian pushback.
British court in transgender case, Bible belief is incompatible with human dignity.
Let's read about the United States, because I'm interested in the free speech argument.
So, the Independent reports.
A Virginia high school teacher has filed a lawsuit after being fired for refusing to use a transgender student's pronouns, arguing he is being discriminated against for his faith.
Peter Vlaming, who worked as a French teacher at West Point High School, said he would use the student's chosen name, as well as a French equivalent they had picked out after his parents revealed their son's transition to the school.
I think it's important to point out this is a biological female.
However, the teacher refused to refer to the female using male pronouns while continuing to use female pronouns when talking about them to other students and members of- I gotta stop right now and say this is one of the big problems with how confusing this whole thing is.
Listen, man, if I know you, I have no problem calling you whatever you want to be called, but this is a serious problem.
Now, they want to act like it's not, but a teacher got fired.
There was an interesting quote, and I found it really fascinating.
They is doing really well?
That's the question.
If we're using they as a singular, would we use syntax in a singular fashion as well?
They is doing great.
They, them is?
It doesn't seem to make sense.
The argument then is to use the plural defaults, but then you're asking someone to use plurals.
The bigger issue is that the average individual is going to default to a knee-jerk reaction because language is built in us as we grow and they're just trying to change it overnight.
If I saw somebody that I thought was male, I would say he or him.
And if I saw someone that looked female, I'd say she or her.
And that could mean it could be a trans man I call he or him too.
You see the issue here?
The issue is that we're coming to a point where there's non-binary trans.
And you can't demand someone call you something.
It's been a trope in comedy forever that a guy refers to a woman as sir or a man as she.
It's been a common thing and it's a source of I don't know, it's silliness to an extent.
But now we're at a point where people are demanding someone use their pronouns, and this is the confusing thing for me.
Let me read.
The teacher refused to refer to him using male pronouns while continuing to use female pronouns when talking about them to other students and members of staff.
That just confused me, and that's why I stopped.
Refusing to him.
Wait, why did they say them?
Are they talking about more than one person now?
If they said him in the first place and them later, I don't understand what they're saying.
The teacher refused to refer to him while continuing to use female pronouns when talking about him.
Why did they change it to them?
That would change to a plural.
You see the problem here?
I understand that they has been singular, and I think it's silly that a lot of conservatives are confused by they in singular context.
But they in singular context is usually used when information is lacking.
In this instance, information is not lacking, and you have absolutely every chance to use a singular.
But when I see it used after a singular, I can only assume that you're talking about multiple people, and I don't understand the context.
I can try to assume, but that presents a potential pitfall for me.
I'm trying to break this down and understand it, you see.
In court filings, representatives for Mr. Vlaming said referring to the student with his preferred pronouns was a breach of his freedom of speech and against his religious beliefs, arguing that his faith prohibits him from intentionally lying.
The filing for Vlaming v. West Point School Board, which repeatedly refers to the student using female pronouns, adds, it is Mr. Vlaming's sincerely held belief that referring to a female They must repeat this on accident, as a male is untruthful and prohibited by his faith and conscience.
The flashpoint for the dismissal, according to the legal document, was a class on Halloween 2018 in which students were using virtual reality goggles.
Foreseeing a potential incident involving the student, the teacher called out to a classmate, don't let her hit the wall.
After class, he approached the teacher, saying, Mr. Vlaming, you may have your religion, but you need to respect who I am.
You will never see me bend the knee to anybody.
Look, it seems like he made the statement in passing and went on to apologize, saying, He apologized, telling the student it was an involuntary response and adding, I'm sorry, this is difficult, according to filings.
He was later reprimanded by the school principal, who told him, You know what you do to defuse a situation like that?
You say, I'm sorry, I meant to say him.
He did apologize and said it was an involuntary response, like most people.
When a biological female comes up and says, call me he, you might be like, oh, I'm sorry, it was an accident.
That's literally what he did.
It was just a knee-jerk, I just see somebody, I say it.
This guy got fired for that.
That's the incident in question.
The incident appeared to have been the final straw after several concerns were raised with the school officials relating to his treatment of the student in December.
The following day, Mr. Vlaming was suspended before being removed from his post after a five and a half hour hearing.
Now, as his legal representation claims, the government has forced Mr. Vlaming to express ideas about human nature unrelated to the school's curriculum that he believes are false, and to take sides in an ongoing public debate about gender dysphoria.
Right?
Apparently the teacher said he would just refer to the student by their name.
Basically saying, I don't want to be involved in the politics, so I'll just call your name.
Does that work for me?
Work for you?
Apparently it doesn't, because he wants you to bend the knee.
I'll tell you what.
If we're going to play a game of made-up words to the point where you're going to fire somebody, I have a really simple solution.
Can we just make up a word that is gender neutral and refers to anybody at any time, and you can just say it?
We don't need to use they, them, because it's an argument over syntax.
How about we just use, like, flurb?
It's a random word.
I'm sorry.
I'm gonna do that, right?
I made this point on Twitter and everyone said I was joking.
I'm not joking!
How do I know what your pronoun is?
How do I know if someone's gonna get mad about it?
I understand most people won't be, and I can respect that, but what about this circumstance?
Where this person lost their job because they were like, I just don't know what to do.
Because I'll tell you this, I assure you some people will be offended if you go, whichever way you go, you're gonna offend somebody.
If you refer to a female with male pronouns, you're going to find conservatives get angry.
Apparently, a bunch of students protested this.
That's what I heard.
I could be wrong, but I read a story about a walkout after it got fired, where people were holding signs saying, men are men, women are women.
And now everyone's angry.
Great.
There was literally nothing it could have done.
The culture war has become absolutely insane.
I think it comes down to one issue.
I'll give you the respect you ask for if you've earned it.
If you want me to call you whatever name, I'll call you whatever name.
But for the most part, you cannot force someone else to say something.
There are certain circumstances to call you something, I should say.
If it's your name, I think it's fair to say refer to the person by their name.
But when you're talking about something like pronouns in this public debate and what's happening, you're demanding someone change their interpretation of the world and the language they use, and I think that's incredibly dangerous and a violation of the First Amendment.
They say, the teacher is being represented by lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom,
a legal advocacy operation identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center,
which means basically nothing to me. The ADF refute the claim. The complaint adds,
defendants gave Mr. Vlaming an ultimatum, use male pronouns for this female student
or lose your job. Excuse me. Mr. Vlaming could not violate his conscience and cost him his job.
A spokesperson for West Point Schools told the Washington Post it would vigorously defend against the claim.
You know what, man?
We're a nation built upon you-can't-tell-me-what-to-do.
And to a certain extent, even some Canadians.
But Canada does have that a bit, but it was very different.
The United States was like, we declare a revolution.
We said, no, we will govern ourselves.
You will not tell us what to do.
We are people who left.
I'm talking about the founding fathers and those who came here and colonized, because I understand the United States was colonized by much more than just England.
But for the most part, the founding of the US was built upon The English colonists saying, no, you're not going to tell me what I can or can't do.
And that's why we have a Bill of Rights.
And that's why if someone comes to me and says, you must, I will say, you can't tell me what I can or can't do.
Okay?
And I'll agree with Jordan Peterson's point, you know, from several years ago, I can speak the way I want.
Peterson said, I have no problem calling you whatever pronoun you prefer.
But you can't force me by law to do it.
Taking away someone's job over this is the opposite of winning hearts and minds.
And it's only going to cause problems in the long run.
But you know what?
So be it!
This is the world we're entering and it's the world we deserve because it's the world we built.
We can blame past generations, whatever, but it's here.
So we're going to have to deal with it and figure it out.
I don't know how you solve this problem if someone's going to apologize and say it was involuntary and they fire him over this.
