Obama SLAMS Woke Cancel Culture, Far left Media Collapses, The Beginning Of The END Woke Far Left
Obama SLAMS Woke Cancel Culture, Far left Media Collapses, The Beginning Of The END Woke Far Left. At The Obama foundation summit in Chicago the former president slammed woke cancel culture saying "thats not activism."Surprisingly it seems most people on the left are in agreement. We recently saw comedians like Dave Chappelle stand up to woke outrage and defend free speech. I believe this along with the collapse of woke far left media spells the end of whatever this woke outrage really is about.With someone as charismatic and popular as Obama telling the left to stop I think its the beginning of the end.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I believe we just heard the death knell for woke cancel culture.
Recently at the Obama Foundation Summit, the former president, Barack Obama, called out woke cancel culture saying, this is not activism.
He had some choice words for people who sit on Twitter calling people out and saying, look how woke I am.
It's not activism, he says.
Well, naturally, there are many people on the far left still pushing back.
But I think we are seeing a major turn in the culture war.
It started with the decay of this woke media.
There was less woke, cancel-culture content popping up.
Then we saw comedians finally say, enough!
We're going to joke about what we want to joke about.
Notably, Dave Chappelle making some pretty offensive jokes.
But everybody really likes Dave Chappelle.
Interestingly, this comment from Barack Obama comes just after Dave Chappelle made another very funny comment about cancel culture, which I want to read for you because it was incredible.
I called Dave Chappelle a hero over this.
But it's no surprise then.
Feeling Safe, one of the most popular figures for the left, the real left in this country, has said, that's not activism.
Barack Obama probably feels, you know what, I can say this now because I've got all these celebrities on my side, but here's the thing.
While Dave Chappelle can come out and say whatever he wants, he was still challenged by many in media.
They criticized his special saying it wasn't funny, it was boring.
But now you have a real political leader saying, that's not activism.
Now Obama's called this out sort of before, referring to a circular firing squad, saying the left is going after each other.
But this is a step up.
This is Obama saying, that's not activism.
Now you're going to have a bunch of regular old Democrats who want to fit in, looking to Obama, looking to the comedians and saying, I think it was bad too.
And guess what?
We are seeing that.
While there are people on the far left who are trying to resist, for the most part, ain't going to happen.
So I got a bunch of stories to go through here today.
First, starting with what Barack Obama said.
I want to show you some of the responses from his critics.
However, it looks like there are many people, even on the left, saying, you know what?
Obama's right about this.
And then we'll look at some more of the funny, you know, Dave Chappelle.
And then also, More bad news for woke media, which, in my opinion, I have to include, because it's not just Obama as a thought leader signaling, hey, don't do this, but the media that supports the culture is also decaying, and there's some big controversies brewing over the former Gawker properties.
So let's get started with the story.
I purposefully chose the Huffington Post for this, you may have noticed.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical, address you can send things to, but of course share this
video.
I compete with all these big players and we recently learned due to this big expose, a
data leak essentially, that yes, my channel is throttled.
I do have some benefits, but they're throttling my content, other political content.
If you think I do a good job, the only way that I can continue doing this is if people
choose to share the content.
If the content isn't good enough, don't share it, then I don't deserve it, and then eventually
I'll stop and go live in the wilderness I suppose.
But if you think I do a good job, you want me to keep going, please consider sharing.
Let's read.
Huffington Post reports, Former President Barack Obama says compromise shouldn't be
frowned upon and described Twitter outrage as not activism.
Speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago on Tuesday, the former president called on Americans to abandon ideological purity tests in politics.
Let me just say, I am a firm proponent of diversity, As well as true social justice.
And I think it's fair to say, someone told me this, listen, social justice is just justice.
And I said, that's a good point.
Let's talk about equality for all, protecting civil rights for all, but equality of opportunity.
Not some idealistic, ideologue dogmatic religious belief in things that can't manifest.
Let's truly protect and respect each individual.
That's what we should be striving for.
Not purity tests based on some kind of dogma.
Quote, this idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically woke and all that stuff.
You should get over that quickly.
The world is messy.
There are ambiguities.
People who do really good stuff have flaws.
Bravo, Obama.
Obama also called out what he perceived as a danger among younger people.
There is this sense sometimes of, the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people and that's enough.
He said, he then offered an example.
Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right or use the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because, quote, man, you see how woke I was?
I called you out.
I'm gonna get on TV, watch my show, watch Grown-ish, you know, that's not activism.
That's not bringing about change.
If all you're doing is casting stones, you're probably not going to get that far.
I got a standing ovation for you, former President Obama.
I have been very critical of a lot of things Obama has done, especially foreign policy, but we need this right now.
We need a charismatic personality to tell them to stop this.
We can debate politics.
We can debate foreign policy.
And look, you've got Tulsi Gabbard, Dan Crenshaw, they're both, you know, veterans.
Tulsi's still an active major, and they have different views on the Middle East, and they've both been there.
And I respect that.
I respect Dan, even though I disagree with him.
And I really, really do not like American foreign policy.
But I'm willing to sit down and say, we must vote, we must discuss this, it must get sorted out, because this vote-cancel culture is making things worse.
Obama's right.
What they're doing is not activism.
They're not making things better.
They're actually harming real social justice.
According to one survey I covered the other day, it is believed among Americans that racial tensions are worse now.
And I made the point that if you're doing all of this activism, maybe you're making things worse.
If you're engaging in this behavior and Americans think everything's worse off, you're not helping.
And Barack Obama finally calling it out To me, you could have all of these different signifiers, the collapsing media, the comedians, but when you get the former president, only a few years ago he was president, and very popular with Democrats and the left, saying this, people are going to listen.
Now listen, there will be pockets of stragglers, there will be insurgent far leftists saying, no I refuse, and I have them, and I'll show you them.
But I think Barack Obama is the leadership we need right now to finally put an end to this outrage.
Let's do this.
Let me show you some of the responses.
People are going to be really mad.
Actually, you know what I'm going to do?
Yeah, people are going to get really mad that I'm showing these Twitter accounts, but they're public tweets.
Please be respectful.
Please do not, you know, tweet at people.
I do not want to be responsible for highlighting important criticism and then having a bunch of people descend with awful comments.
So I hereby disavow anybody who wants to go to these people I'm highlighting on Twitter.
If you go there, I disavow that.
That is not what I'm doing.
I'm trying to show you that we have principled individuals on the left calling this out, saying it's not activism and there are some people resisting this and it's important to highlight because they are in the minority.
Okay, so now I'm going to show some people.
Please be respectful.
This individual, who I have blocked, said 2008 Obama, hope and change.
2019 Obama, how dare you hope or think you can change anything you child you effing baby.
Well, that's not really what he said, but you can see a bunch of people then are kind of agreeing with this tweet.
We then have this individual.
This is a guy who writes for a... I'm not gonna name the website.
You know, if you can see what it is, you can see what it is.
He says, Obama says people today are too judgmental and not willing to accept other people's flaws.
But the President of the U.S.
is a man who has been credibly accused by dozens of women, so maybe we are not judgmental enough and too willing to overlook flaws.
If you agree with me on this point, I support your right to do so, but also encourage you not to be judgmental about it.
Now, I can respect his criticism of Obama.
I do.
You're allowed to say this, and he even said, I disagree with you, but I support your right to do so.
That's respectful.
I just want to show that there are people saying no to Obama.
Here's the thing.
I believe this is a huge moment.
However, there are still many more progressive leftists, Bernie supporters for instance, who are saying basically F you to Obama.
Here we have one individual.
I've gone from being disappointed in Obama in 2010, to becoming distrustful in 2012 when he offered to cut social security and entered more wars, to now sincerely disliking him for painting anyone who wants real change as using purity tests and wanting a pony I'm done.
So here's the thing.
I did not use random Twitter accounts.
These are two verified accounts, and this individual has a substantial amount of followers.
I do not want to highlight every tiny 10-follower account who's criticizing the president.
I want to show you these criticisms, and then I want to point out It was actually not particularly easy to find these criticisms because, to my surprise, when the Huffington Post talked about it, when MSNBC talked about it, the responses from many on the left were saying, here, here, you go, Obama, in agreement.
And that's when I realized this isn't an issue of the far left coming after Obama.
This is an issue of many regular leftists finally pushing back on the outrage culture that has plagued us for so long.
This is good, good news.
Maybe with Obama's statement we can start getting back to having real political debates and real conversations.
Now I get it, it's always been contentious and it probably always will be, but hey, at least we got something going on here.
Now I have to point out, it's not perfect.
Check this story out.
Paul Feig totally disagrees with Joker director's claim that woke culture is ruining comedy.
We're not out of the woods yet.
However, in this instance, what Paul Feige is talking about is that we can tell jokes and be funny without targeting minorities and marginalized people.
And to a certain extent, I agree, okay?
But there's a difference between shrieking at somebody over an offensive joke, storming out while crying.
This recently happened.
There was this guy at a comedy club in Texas.
And he made a joke about Helen Keller.
And the woman was like, in tears, screaming, saying, I worked with these disadvantaged kids.
And he was like, I don't care, get out.
Listen.
Comedians are going to tell offensive jokes.
And the best way to change their minds is to be like, hey, you know, you might not have realized this, but here is my friend, and they felt purposefully targeted.
Guess what?
If you're respectful of what they're trying to do, and you point out how you feel, they might actually say, Yeah, you know what, maybe I could change.
Because let's be honest, there are a lot of things in our culture that have changed that we don't do anymore because they were disrespectful or offensive.
And I think that's fine.
There are a lot of people with political ideologies we don't like and don't want around.
It's true.
Far left, far right, whatever.
But what we're seeing isn't an attempt at real discourse, isn't an attempt at debate.
It's bullying.
It's, it's, it's, I'm outraged, therefore you must bend your knee.
That is not real political discourse.
That is not real social justice.
And that's what was very offensive to me about the whole call-out culture, cancel culture nonsense.
For one, it ruins the idea that we can actually come together.
So, I've been playing The Outer Worlds recently, it's a new video game, and some people, there have been some murmurs about overly wokeness in the video game, but I actually think you can do social justice right.
The problem is, when you defend the cancel culture people, you are empowering bullies who ruin everything for everybody.
I got a surprise for most of these far leftists.
You would actually be able to find the overwhelming majority of, you know, gamers and conservatives also don't like racism.
Especially when you realize, this is fascinating, I was talking to an Antifa person in Berkeley a couple years ago, and I said, you realize that these Trump supporters, most of them are staunch individualists.
Like, they are offended at the idea that you would collectivize a group of people in that way.
Now, don't get me wrong, racists are real, and there's a lot of them, okay?
But most of these people who are conservative are like, you let me do my thing.
Live and let live.
So this idea that the right is a collective that holds these views is...
It's actually incorrect.
It's the left that tends to be collectivist.
That's why I think it's so important that Obama spoke up.
There are a lot of people who are Democrats, who are left-leaning, I know them, who are scared to speak up, who have told me, I will be destroyed if I call this out.
Well, Obama doesn't have to worry about any of that.
But admittedly, I think one of the only reasons Obama did speak up is because of this incredible moment from Dave Chappelle.
You guys, you've got to hear the original audio because I will not do it justice.
Dave Chappelle has now moved up into one of the highest tiers of inspirations for me.
And that's saying a lot.
I've got to admit, there are very few people that I actually take inspiration from.
George Carlin is one of them.
And now I will add Dave Chappelle to that list.
Check this out.
Dave Chappelle defends freedom of speech from cancel culture.
First Amendment is first for a reason.
And then he says the second is just there in case the first doesn't work out.
Dave Chappelle is incredible.
He's not a conservative guy.
He's standing up for common sense and freedom.
This is amazing.
I've got to read you this quote.
You are going to love it.
He says, Fox News reports, the 46-year-old stand-up comedian received the accolade at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in D.C.
He went off the cuff while accepting the award on stage, saying, I don't get mad at him.
Don't hate on him, he said, while discussing comedians he knows to be racist.
Man, it's not that serious.
The First Amendment is first for a reason.
Second Amendment is just in case the first one doesn't work out.
I love this man.
So somebody asked him about it.
They said, the former Chappelle Show star has been talking about freedom of speech and cancel culture a lot since his recent Netflix stand-up special Sticks and Stones received backlash for defending Louis C.K.
and Kevin Hart.
Quote, political correctness has its place, Chappelle told reporters on the red carpet.
We all want to live in a polite society.
We just kind of have to work on the levels of coming to an agreement of what that actually looks like.
I personally am not afraid of other people's freedom of expression.
I don't use it as a weapon.
It just makes me feel better, and I'm sorry if I hurt anybody.
The comedian ended, yada yada, everything I'm supposed to say.
Now hold on.
It's actually way better than that.
You've gotta go, after watching this video, look up the actual audio.
He says, he says, it just makes me feel better and I'm sorry if I hurt anybody, yadda yadda, everything I'm supposed to say.
He makes a fart noise!
I love it.
I called him here on Twitter, making the fart noise.
Yadda yadda, everything I'm supposed to say.
He doesn't care.
You can't do anything, Dave Chappelle.
He's not a bad guy.
He's a good person.
He's standing up for individual freedoms.
Common sense.
And then he's making a mockery of those who are outraged over it.
Bravo!
Bravo!
So here's the thing.
We had the Netflix special come out.
We see Louis C.K.' 's coming back.
That's a whole other issue, I know, because it has to do with Me Too.
But we're seeing all of these comedians finally saying, I don't care!
Don't care.
And you know what?
I gotta admit, I don't either.
When Dave Chappelle did the Chinese stereotype, I know I'm not Chinese, I'm part Korean, I didn't care about that.
Now, I can't speak on behalf of Chinese people, but as somebody with Asian family who have experienced that kind of racism, I didn't care that Dave Chappelle did that.
It's the context that matters.
It matters.
It's the person behind the joke.
That's what George Carlin said.
Don't worry about the words.
It's the guy behind the words you've got to worry about.
What are they going to do?
What actions will they take?
That's what you pay attention to.
So good.
Let the person speak up so we know what kind of person they are.
I'm not concerned about what they're going to say.
I'm concerned about what they're going to do after that.
And I'm not concerned about Dave Chappelle doing anything after that.
It's a joke.
And there are a lot of other people who have now come out and said, it is a joke.
But I do want to, I have a few minutes where I need to talk about some controversies revolving around media.
So, you know, we're seeing what's happening with Obama.
It's coming after all of these other celebrities, these comedians have come out and sort of paved this way to allow people on the left to feel safe enough to challenge this authoritarian nonsense.
But I have to stress, There is a collapse of this woke media.
Now, I don't have the story pulled up, but there's an exposé, I believe it's from Outline, called Mic Drop, and they talk about how Mic.com, which was a progressive, woke, far-left, cancel-culture website, they created a formula for woke outrage to generate traffic.
They were exploiting social justice for money.
I'll say this to the left, man.
You want to come and join in this?
All you got to do is point out most of this social justice cancel culture stuff was fueled by capitalistic enterprise.
Big venture capitalists saw the numbers, put money into these systems.
The companies run by these individuals who just want to turn a buck said, go woke because that's what makes money.
But in fact, get woke, go broke.
It was a short-term gain and they all lost out.
They were exploiting social justice, pushing cancel culture, harming the left because they thought it was a fast path towards money.
So there you go.
There's the out for those on the left who want to join the ranks of Dave Chappelle and Barack Obama in calling this out, pointing out that most of these websites We're driven by financial incentives.
And now they're failing.
The latest news.
Former Gawker properties.
Farmers Insurance pulls million-dollar ad campaign after editorial staff raises hell.
Because you know what happens?
Let me tell you what happens.
Early on, in the early days of social media, there were keywords and algorithms that were promoting content.
What these companies found out was that rage generates more shares.
It wasn't necessarily on purpose at first.
But if you create two news outlets, one that does straight news reporting and one that does woke outrage, guess which one gets more shares?
The investors, the venture capitalists, then say, you got a million views, you got a hundred thousand, and they give their money to the million views irrespective of the content they produce.
Turns out that was woke outrage.
These companies then had to hire woke cancel culture type writers who were snooty bullies who want to smear and defame and lie to get someone canceled to earn their internet points.
What do you think happens when you hire those people?
Well, now these properties, formerly of Gawker, that hired all of these people, are feeling the brunt of this.
The company that bought the Gawker properties wants one of them deadspin.
They just lost a million-dollar ad campaign because the staffers were angry about it.
Now, it's complicated, I'll admit.
But here's the thing.
New York Times writes, Deadspin editor fired amid pushback over stick-to-sports memo.
Yes.
The Woke Outrage writers, not all of them, they're not all bad, okay, I'm not trying to be purposefully disrespectful, I'm just saying, these outlets grew off of Woke Outrage.
For instance, Deadspin was on the wrong side of the Covington reporting, and they didn't care.
So the new owners say, look, Deadspin is a sports website.
Talk about football, NBA, wrestling, MMA, etc.
The writers said no, and on the front page put a bunch of random nonsense.
So think about it.
If you own a bunch of media properties, you don't need 50 political websites.
You need one, maybe two political websites.
But your sports site should do sports.
These writers were brought on at a time where woke clickbait was making all this money.
And so they're woke clickbait people.
They don't want to change.
So now we're seeing Deadspin fire their, I believe it was their acting editor-in-chief.
I don't know exact job.
They lost their editor-in-chief.
They tried bringing out someone.
They issue a memo saying no more politics.
Essentially said no more politics.
You now have media companies, the investors who bought these properties, trying to get rid of the woke outrage.
So let me wrap all this up for you as to why I think we've just watched the death knell for woke cancel culture.
First of all, come on, I think you can agree with me when Barack Obama, I believe he is the most popular figure for the Democrats.
And I say that because I'm trying to make sure I separate the progressive left from what the actual Democrats are.
Very popular.
He said enough.
It's not necessarily the first time, but it's the biggest escalation.
All these celebrities.
And more importantly, when the media companies that pushed this stuff are collapsing, laying people off, their investments are drying up, and now the next biggest strike to these companies.
The new owners are saying, enough with the politics.
Stick to sports.
I gotta say, it's the end of an era.
That's what it feels like to me.
Who can you look up to on the Democrat side?
Any of these candidates that are running?
Maybe Bernie.
And Bernie's made some mistakes with wokeness, for sure.
But Bernie's not the biggest.
Obama really is.
And it's why Biden has so much pull.
Now, people like to claim Bernie's doing really, really well.
And I mean no disrespect to Bernie supporters over this.
But Joe Biden still is dominating the polls.
He is still around 30%.
Because people like Obama.
Biden's barely campaigning.
For Obama to come out and say this, So I don't have them pulled up.
MSNBC's tweet and Huffington Post's tweet, I was looking at the responses from people who follow it, and they were cheering.
They were saying, good for you Obama, finally, thank you.
Here's what I think we're seeing.
Regular people on the left were pressured and bullied by those because they were the squeaky wheel getting the grease.
All of these media companies created a space where the average person on the left, the Democrat, felt like they had to, they had to agree with this.
Because if they didn't, they would get cancelled too.
Well, the media company started collapsing.
Their narrative started cracking and drying up.
We're now seeing Nate Silver the other day saying, can't you give Trump one good day, basically.
And then the celebrity deleted her tweet.
That's right.
Because the narrative has cracked.
And with the media losing power, all of a sudden now there's less influence and the celebrities can walk up and say, I can do whatever I want.
Yada yada, whatever I'm supposed to say.
And after that, political leaders feel like it's safe to come out as well.
And that's when we see Obama.
I think this is good news across the board.
I believe it's good news for social justice, real social justice.
I believe we might start seeing actual calmer rhetoric, respectful rhetoric around how we actually solve these problems.
And Obama just did it!
Now I get it.
There are people who don't like him, but we'll see what happens.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Let me know what you think.
I don't think we're out of the woods yet.
I think we're just, we just, it peaked.
And now we're coming down the back end of this hill where we're going to ride back into regular politics once again.
Could you imagine if we got to a point where we had a left-wing candidate like Tulsi Gabbard?
And someone like Trump.
And the worst political disagreements were me sitting here going like, you guys don't understand your tax policy!
That's wrong!
That's all we talked about.
And I wasn't slinging mud and accusing you of being a Russian or something like that.
I'd love to get back to that point.
And maybe this is how it happens.
Let me know what you think.
I will see you all in the next segment at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you there.
Breaking news!
Famed pathologist Michael Baden says Epstein's autopsy is more consistent with homicide and not suicide, saying strangulation.
Now, we've heard this before.
Okay, it's been insinuated that was the case because of broken bones in the neck.
Some people tried to refute it.
Strangely, a bunch of journalists were like, well, hold on everybody.
It's quite possible this is really just a false start.
At this point, okay, the simple solution is that Epstein was killed.
Now, I'm not saying definitively he was.
I'm not saying I know what happened.
And no, I am not going to push the idea that he was.
I am just going to read you a story from Fox News.
But we all know how this turns out for me, right?
Here's the point.
Do we know what happened?
No.
Do I want to encourage you to believe one way or the other?
No.
But I will point out the irregular security guards, the broken cameras, the lax security, all of the problems around this, followed by now a second statement referring to this as a homicide.
Listen, man, okay?
If you think this was all a coincidence, you're a conspiracy theorist.
It just so happens that all of these strange things happened, right?
But I'm not going to tell you definitively, because I require proof.
Now, it's interesting that Dr. Michael Baden is saying this, but again, it's his opinion as a doctor.
It's possible that when you hang yourself, you break necks.
I'm sorry, you break bones in your neck.
He's saying, no, it looks like strangulation.
That, sure, who am I to argue?
And so right now it is not confirmed, but we should read through the story.
I do want to give you one important bit of information, though, before we move on.
Did you know That for all of his fame, Elvis Presley, this rock star who's heralded as this great icon, only ever won three Emmys, and Epstein didn't kill himself?
Okay, that's the joke, and I did that specifically to bring up the meme that's been going around, and why this story is particularly significant right now.
Not that long ago, on the front page of all, on Reddit, okay, so r slash all, like every subreddit, There was a, um, I forgot what subreddit it was, it was,
what is it called, there was an attempt.
And it's a, it's a, it's basically a forum, for those that aren't familiar, that tries to highlight
people failing at something, trying to do something and not getting away with it. And it said, there
was an attempt, and then the image just says, to cover up Epstein's murder as a suicide to protect
rich pedophiles. That was, it's, it's, it's a half joke, right?
Like, no one definitively knows what happens, but people are like, shouldn't we, you know, dig into this?
Everybody on Twitter, left and right, are going like, uh, I don't, like, okay, here's the thing about Epstein, right?
And why this meme is so funny.
The meme transcends politics.
It's like regular people sharing it.
Because nobody believes he killed himself.
But here's the thing.
He was on suicide watch.
He had tried to kill himself before.
You know, we don't know what happened, that's why I do air quotes.
And then he does, and there's a fake, like an irregular security guard, the cameras aren't working, camera broken, there's no videotapes.
It's all so coincidental.
You'd have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe this, okay?
But let's read the story from Fox News, and then I've actually got another thing I want to show you.
The madman, Luke Rogowski, who, with reckless abandon, actually went to Epstein's private island.
You've probably seen the video.
It's got hundreds of thousands of views.
Luke Rydkowski, if we are changed, went to Epstein's private island.
I think he's nuts.
Like, this crazy?
But he did.
It's... I don't want to say, like, they uncovered any great evidence, but you get to see, like, this weird statues and, like... It's weird.
So let's read about what's going on and why they think this was homicide.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
I really gotta do these promos, guys.
I'm sorry.
I was trying to not do them, but...
We just saw evidence the other day.
It was this big, huge hubbub on YouTube where data was leaked proving they are throttling content.
So I know for a fact they're throttling my content and there's like multiple vectors of how they're doing it.
The only way I can continue doing this is if you guys think my content is good and share it because YouTube is doing the inverse.
But you know what?
Maybe at a certain point this ceases to exist and there's no more videos from me anymore and I'll go make van videos.
I don't know.
Well, that's coming too, by the way, but let's read.
Fox News says the body of disgraced money man and, uh, and... I'll just say it.
I'm gonna get in trouble on YouTube.
Sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his Manhattan federal prison cell in August, bore telltale signs of homicide, despite an official ruling that he killed himself.
A pioneering forensic pathologist revealed to Fox & Friends in an exclusive interview Wednesday, the bombshell claim by Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City medical examiner who has worked on high-profile cases during a five-decade medical career, is certain to reignite suspicions that surfaced immediately after Epstein, who was awaiting trial, was discovered dead in a cell on August 10th.
Baden, who was hired by Epstein's brother and observed the autopsy, told Fox News its findings are more consistent with homicidal strangulation than suicidal hanging.
He noted that 66-year-old Epstein had two fractures on his left and right sides of his larynx, specifically the thyroid cartilage, or Adam's apple, as well as one fracture on the left hyoid bone, above the Adam's apple.
Those three fractures are extremely unusual in suicidal hangings and could occur much more commonly in homicidal strangulation.
While there's not enough information to be conclusive yet, the three fractures were rare, said Baden, whose probed cases involve O.J.
Simpson, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King.
This dude, this is a famed, respected guy, man.
He says, I've not seen in 50 years where that occurred in a suicidal hanging case, the 85-year-old medical legend told Fox News.
I'm going to have to say, it sounds like he's being conservative on his assessment and that he really wants to blurt out, it was murder, but he can't.
Because they'll go after him, they'll smear him, and there's powerful people at play.
Which again, why I think Luke from We Are Changed is nuts for going on Epstein's Island, but I'm surprised that video wasn't deleted immediately.
But we'll get to that in a second.
Let's read this.
Baden, who's examined more than 20,000 bodies and hosted HBO's Autopsy, explained that if a person weighed 120 pounds and their head weighed 10 pounds, there would be 110 pounds of pressure on the neck, at the jaw, during a hanging.
But if someone put a hand around a person's neck and squeezed, that could double or even triple the pressure on the neck.
There were also hemorrhages in Epstein's eyes that were common in homicidal strangulation and uncommon, though not unheard of, in suicidal hangings, he said.
The prominent hemorrhage in the soft tissues of the neck next to the fracture is evidence of a fresh neck compression that could have caused the death.
Baden stressed his independent study was not complete.
The investigation is not completed until all the information has come in.
Epstein was found in a cell.
We get that.
We know about Epstein, yada yada yada.
He said it was unknown to him and the Epstein family what work the feds may have done and
what results they may have.
Listen man.
Actually, let me read this for a second.
The ligature, or item used to tie something tightly, allegedly was made from a sheet that had been twisted and put around Epstein's neck, Baden said.
Evidence on the cloth material could help prove whether or not someone else was involved.
Whoever it is would have their DNA all over the ligature.
We don't have those results yet.
Saying the results should be reported quickly to give an idea and lessen the speculation.
Yeah, that'll never happen.
Alright, so we get the gist of it.
It's not the first time we've heard this.
It's a very similar thing we heard recently after.
I believe maybe even Ben Baden.
But now we have more evidence, more broken bones.
And a lot of special interests that don't want his information to get out.
Now, let's stop here.
I don't know what dirt Epstein may or may not have had.
We don't know anything.
Is it possible?
Yeah.
There are a lot of high-profile individuals, including the president, who have, you know, met with Epstein or whatever.
Now, the left is trying to claim that it's Trump and his administration who silenced Epstein, and the right is claiming, you know, it's Podesta or Hillary or whatever, and I don't care who would have done it.
A lot of people had motive if he did have dirt.
Apparently, he had an island, women have testified as to what was going on in those islands, and there's royalty involved?
Yeah, I think it's fair to say there's a lot of people who don't want any of this to come out.
Now, one of the conspiracy theories is that, like, and I'll make sure I say, I hereby disavow and disagree with this theory.
That Epstein was secretly filming high-profile individuals to use as blackmail and that's how he made his money.
I don't know about any of that stuff, man.
I do not agree with and I disavow all of the conspiracies.
Mainly because while you may think you know the answer, until we have definitive proof where you can hold it up and say, deny it, deny it, you can't.
Right?
Hold up the proof.
You're not gonna get anywhere by jumping the gun.
Let the investigation take its course.
Don't let people forget.
And make sure we stay on top of this.
It's very important.
Now, that being said, I gotta make sure I highlight this.
Cuz, dude.
Luke.
Crazy.
First ever extensive look inside Epstein's pedophile islands.
So, it was cleared out, basically.
They say, We Are Change's Luke Rodowski and Dollar Vigilante's Jeff Berwick stormed Little St.
James Island and explained to viewers what they found in a video posted to YouTube.
While there has been drone footage of the isolated area where Epstein and other high-profile figures allegedly engaged in, yes, offensive, very, very offensive acts.
We get it.
Man, they say it a lot, don't they?
Uh, Luke went to the island.
There's some interesting things here.
Um, so one of the things he tweeted, some of the strange art that I found on Epstein's Island.
You've got this weird statue.
I don't know what that statue is supposed to be of.
The interesting thing, however, is that this temple box that people have seen photos of, Those aren't real doors.
It is painted.
Now this is crazy to me.
When I first saw this image, I thought those were doors.
But apparently it's 3D painting and they walked up and it was confusing me watching.
I'm like, wait, what's happening?
It's just straight paint.
I don't know where the door is or what that building is supposed to be.
But that's kind of creepy.
Now, for the most part, they walk around, and they just... You see the sundial, and you see a bunch of weird stuff.
It's really interesting how, like, paved and, like, built up this place is.
But for the most part, everything's been cleared out.
You gotta be crazy to do this kind of stuff, man, if you were to ask me.
But, uh... Oh, what's this?
That new action?
Is this an old story?
This might be an old story.
Well, we'll pop it open and see what happens anyway.
But basically, they went around and they didn't find much of anything, but you do get to see the weird art.
You get to see the stuff up close and personal while they describe how they, you know, essentially stormed the island.
What a lot of people apparently don't realize is there's two islands.
And apparently some of the activities are still going on on the other island called Greater St.
James.
That's why I think this is more significant.
Now, I don't know what this story is.
Yeah, this is from August, so, you know, whatever.
I'll leave it there.
Check out Luke's video.
It's got a ton of views.
His channel is WeAreChange, and he went to the island, and I think he's nuts.
I think, man, whatever's going on with Epstein, you know, whatever you want to think, I don't know.
There's so many conspiracies that are flying around like crazy.
I'll just say There's powerful individuals, be it the FBI, Epstein's associates and accomplices who kind of vanished, and they've got interests in protecting those interests.
Protecting their safety, security, and interests.
You get the point.
We got this story coming out right now.
The Epstein story is not over with.
And now with this meme that's going viral where people will write a fact and then at the end just insert Epstein didn't kill himself, which is hilarious by the way, The story's not going away.
In fact, maybe the meme is one of the most powerful things that anyone can do.
But no, think about it.
There was a meme for a while.
Whenever someone died, there would be a fake tweet that says that I have evidence that will result in the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
Because the meme was making fun of the conspiracy theory that the Clintons, you know, kill people.
Well, that made regular people post the meme about nonsensical things that were like TV shows that were cancelled or people who died of a heart attack, because it was funny.
But it actually spread around that idea.
With Epstein, once again, these are unproven conspiracies.
Conspiracy is such a dumb word, but the idea that, yeah, whatever.
The point is, I'm on Reddit, and I'm looking at, like, normal, not-political Reddits, and somebody will post a joke where they're like, did you know that in 1963 at NASA, they were developing a new kind of space pen that could write using a pressurized cartridge, and that Epstein didn't kill himself?
And so that's the joke, right?
When regular people start getting in on that joke, then it spreads the idea around, kind of like it's piggybacking off of a joke meant to be funny.
Everybody then wants to be involved in it and be like, ooh, ooh, I got an idea, I want to make one, and you hope that your meme rises to the front page.
Well, apparently like every week on the subreddit, there was an attempt, which is frequently in the front page of all, you know, r slash all, which is every reddit.
Apparently every week it says your weekly reminder.
There was an attempt to cover up Epstein's murder to protect, you know, high-profile pedophiles.
So, I'll wrap it up there.
You get the point.
Check out Luke's video.
Yeah, that's about it.
We'll see what happens.
I mean, look, this guy can claim all these things.
You know, he says, hey, I think this was, you know, strangulation or whatever.
He's a famous guy.
He's credible.
At the end of the day, who do you trust?
I think most people are gonna trust him just because the story sounds fishy.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
I will see you all then.
NBA star Enes Kanter calls out Ilhan Omar over Turkey sanctions vote.
This is a really, really interesting story.
We were going to put sanctions on Turkey because, I believe it's because of what's happening with the Kurds, and everybody's all like, hey, Turkey, you shouldn't be bombing these people, and it's really bad.
Everybody's all mad at Trump.
So they say, how about we sanction Turkey and say, stop doing this?
And one Democrat refused, I believe voted no.
Ilhan Omar.
So Enes Kanter, who is Turkish, who's called out Turkey and Erdogan, not Turkey, but called out Erdogan a lot, actually goes beyond just slamming Ilhan Omar, actually suggesting it seems like she's on the payroll of Erdogan.
Now here's where it gets even more interesting.
This isn't the only controversy around Turkey.
See, Ilhan Omar supports BDS, Boycott, Divest, and Sanction, of Israel.
But she's refusing to sanction Turkey.
Well, it's clearly not the sanctions then, it must be the country, right?
Well, if Turkey is engaging in, you know, killing, ethnic cleansing or something like that, wouldn't you then, like, hey, they're both bad?
No, she only wants to say anti-Semitic things Questionably offensive things about Israel and sanction Israel, but then when it comes to Turkey, she's the only Democrat voting no.
I believe that's the case, right?
Yep.
Nay.
Now, 15 Republicans voted no, too.
But that's kind of different, right?
And then there were six on both sides that said not voting.
But Ilhan Omar's the only Democrat to vote no.
That's really, really weird.
But you want to know where it gets even weirder?
Ilhan Omar refused to recognize the Armenian genocide in a similar vote.
Now, this work gets crazy, okay?
This bill to recognize the Armenian Genocide had huge, broad, bipartisan support, just like the sanctions on Turkey.
If there's one thing we can agree on, what the Young Turks did in Turkey to the Armenians was bad, and we should recognize that.
Now, you might be saying, the Young Turks, Tim?
Aren't you talking about those Bernie Sanders supporting... No, I'm talking about the group of individuals who carried out the genocide called the Young Turks.
Now, I could be getting my history a little wrong, but my understanding is that the Young Turks carried this out.
Now, I'm going to do a sidestep real quick, you know, because there's a big controversy involving the Young Turks, the progressive YouTubers, and the name the Young Turks.
And I kind of think, like, dude, you know, there was a point where Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks denied the Armenian genocide.
He apologized for that.
I can respect the apology.
He's saying, OK, I get where I was wrong.
And it depends on if you're racers.
But come on, man.
You know, we're at a point now where you actually just had a broad bipartisan supported bill.
Recognizing the Armenian Genocide.
I think it's time to change your name, dude.
Like, listen.
Maybe you wanted to use that name because it also means, like, revolutionary upstarts.
But that name comes from somewhere.
You know, we look back at some of the things we've done in the past.
We don't do them anymore.
Right?
I've talked about this when it comes to comedy.
And whether or not a joke could be offensive or not offensive.
And even George Carlin did.
And it's like, listen, man.
We play with offensive jokes and figure out where that line is.
But there are many jokes and many things in culture that we don't do anymore when we're like, that's probably off limits at this point.
So it happens.
The big problem with all the social justice stuff is kind of the rampant excess of how fast it's moving.
It's like, no, no, no, you've got to slow down.
You know, I was trying to sort things out. But anyway, I don't want to get back to the Ilhan Omar stuff, but just a
thought.
Like, maybe now if the US government votes on a bill, I mean save Ilhan Omar, she didn't vote on it.
Maybe when the US government says, we're going to recognize this, we have before, and we're going to refute any denial
of it, it's going to be affirmed on the record, maybe you should
be like, shouldn't be called that.
I don't know what their attachment to it is.
It's crazy It's like dude that name is associated with Armenian genocide.
You know I mean, but anyway III digress you get the point.
I'm not trying to be a dick about it I'm just saying like I saw some protests at Politicon.
You know a couple years ago I think it was two years ago, and they were asked they were demanding you change the name.
I'm like Maybe you should So here's the thing.
Ilhan Omar wasn't the only one to vote present on it.
However, when you combine this with the context of other things she's done and how she's voted, things start getting kind of weird, right?
Like, she's not really against sanctions.
She just doesn't want to sanction Turkey.
She also doesn't want to recognize the Armenian genocide.
Now, she issued a statement.
And the statement was also weird.
Her office apparently sent out a statement saying that until all other genocides are recognized in the U.S., she refuses to vote on this one.
Wait, wait, hold on.
First, there were other people who didn't vote, and there were many people who voted no.
Okay.
It's not just about Ilhan Omar.
That I can understand.
But hold on.
You're not going to affirm the devastation that was the Armenian genocide, the horror that this was, until other genoc- Wait, what?
Shouldn't we be like, hey, we'll denounce this one, and then you can propose a bill to denounce the other ones?
Why do they have to be lumped into one?
This is such a weird thing, right?
Don't the Armenians deserve to have recognition for the strife and the struggles and the horrors they faced?
Same as anybody else?
So why vote present?
At the same time, refuse to sanction Turkey.
And that's where we come back to NBA star Enes Kanter.
Now, before I read this, I have to do the promo.
Go to TimCast.com if you want to support my work.
And the reason I absolutely have to do it is because I've said Armenian genocide several times.
And I think it's important to talk about, especially in this political context.
That means YouTube is going to do everything in its power to strike this video down.
We've seen it.
They're doing these... It's like shadow banning, essentially.
They call it throttling.
They restrict viewership.
They make it harder to see.
Look, man, I get it if you don't want to put ads on my content, but blocking important mainstream news is beyond me.
Look, I get it.
Okay, so there's this big data leak.
Even CNN has some of their videos throttled.
And to me, that's nuts.
Listen, dude.
You don't gotta agree with CNN's anchors.
You don't gotta agree with me.
I'm reading thehill.com for you and the Star Tribune.
These are mainstream publications.
This is news.
This is the news that is happening in our country that people are talking about.
There's an NBA star saying Ilhan seems like she's on the payroll of Erdogan, yet YouTube wants to knock it all down.
So anyway, you've heard me rant about that before, but that's why I do the promo, so forgive me if that one was long, but I think it's important to make that point here, that...
When you think about what Ilhan Omar has done with all of her scandals, the affair that is now, according to Daily Mail, confirmed.
They say it's confirmed.
They have sources.
I'm very careful with confirming it myself.
Personally, I'll defer to the Daily Mail.
But we've seen these photos.
She has committed campaign finance violations.
She has made offensive anti-Semitic comments.
I don't care what your opinion is when people say they weren't really anti-Semitic.
That's not up for you to decide.
Okay?
These are the rules you guys made when it comes to offense.
And if there is a group of people, and there are, very large and bipartisan support in Congress for condemning what she said, gonna have to side with most people find what she says anti-Semitic and offensive.
She does all of these things.
She pays a fine.
She has to reimburse her campaign over campaign finance violations.
She's accused of having an affair with a staffer.
She got divorced, he got divorced.
These scandals are nuts!
Now you gotta question her actions here, being the only Democrat to not vote for sanctions on Turkey.
And I'm gonna have to say, man, at what point do people stop protecting her?
And this brings me back to what I was saying about censorship.
You know, one of the difficult things in highlighting what she has done, what she's been accused of, and what she's doing now and how she's voting, is that when I try talking about this, my videos will get deranked, making it harder for people to realize what she is doing.
Listen.
She's allowed not to vote on things.
She wasn't the only one who didn't vote on the Armenian genocide thing.
And she... Republicans voted no on sanctions, 15 of them, but she was the only Democrat.
She's allowed to do those things.
But people are allowed to know about it.
How are we supposed to highlight this when big mainstream... Is CNN gonna cover this story?
No.
The Hill is.
The Hill's actually really good.
And there are a lot of digital outlets that will, but it's not going to make it to the big front page stories.
The New York Times is not going to run it front page.
They are going to ignore it as she keeps doing these things that are questionable, scandalous, or outright violations of law.
Yes, she had to pay a $500 fine for violating campaign finance law.
And now this.
And the NBA star saying, look at this.
So good on Enes Kanter for calling out.
I think this is the guy, too, who was talking, who was criticizing China as well.
And if that's true, this dude seems like a real stand-up guy who gets it, who has seen the face of, you know, of oppression, of dictatorship.
Now, Erdogan, I don't necessarily want to say he's a dictator, but boy, does he get close.
So here's the thing.
For some reason, whenever she comes in the news, we don't see it.
They defend her.
And the reason I say this is I want to give you another example.
When the Star Tribune said she married a man, possibly her own brother, I was like, whoa!
You know, most publications at that point said it's a baseless rumor.
But the Star Tribune looked at a bunch of evidence and said, Possibly her brother.
Now, the crazy thing about what Kantor said is, he says it seems like she's on Erdogan's payroll and working for his interests, but not for the American people and democracy.
They say the House bill had rare bipartisan support and overwhelmingly passed on Tuesday in a vote of 403 to 16.
They say Omar had authored a Washington Post op-ed earlier this month, saying she thought sanctions against Turkey would be ineffective, but not against Israel.
Cantor has vocally clashed with Turkey's government in the past, and his criticism of Erdogan has led to an array of problems for the player throughout his NBA career.
Yeah, they say that Cantor had his passport revoked in Romania, and claimed later in the year his father had been arrested by Turkish authorities.
In January, Cantor didn't travel with the New York Knicks and his team at the time to London due to death threats.
Dude seems to be a stand-up guy, willing to put everything on the line.
To defend the rights of people he believes in.
But take a look at this.
A story from the Star Tribune.
Minnesota Armenians upset Ilhan Omar didn't support measure recognizing the Armenian genocide.
This is what I was talking about.
This is why these videos are important.
The only way she gets voted out in her district is when people say enough.
Now, I've heard a lot of people say, Tim, she got voted in because it's a big Somali refugee district and they're gonna vote for her no matter what.
That may be true.
That a lot of people are tribalist and don't care about what she does so long as she is part of their tribe.
And I don't mean racial tribe.
It's a culture.
She's a refugee, they're refugees, so they're gonna be like, I got more in common with her.
That's actually a normal thing.
I don't think it has anything to do with race.
I don't think it has anything to do with the country she comes from.
I think...
Actually, I'll put it this way.
Technically, it has to do with, you know, the circumstances of her life.
And that includes her nationality, her race, her things like that.
What I'm really trying to say is, people in general are tribalistic.
And they will find something to connect with.
So yes, Ilhan Omar comes from a community that has a large population of Somali refugees.
Maybe they voted for her because she is one as well.
Or, also, it's true that there are a lot of white people in her district as well, in Minnesota.
And they voted for her too!
That's a thing.
You want to sit here and argue, you know, demographics or whatever?
I'm uninterested, okay?
I understand the point you're trying to make.
First and foremost, people need to know about who she is, what she supports, and what she's doing.
If the people in her area continue to support that, that's how the country works, even if you don't like it.
No one else can go to Minnesota and vote her out.
If you live there, you vote her out.
Technically, you can move there and then vote against her.
I don't think that'd be particularly effective.
But the point I'm trying to make is, She got elected.
She's doing what she's tasked with representing this district.
And if it turns out large swaths of her district don't like what she's doing, Armenians certainly don't, well, they'll vote for somebody else.
Or they will primary her, which may be the more effective way of getting her out of office.
But in the end, all that matters is, does she have the trust and support of the people in this area?
Nothing else is relevant.
Race, nationality, none of that matters.
It's about trust.
Now people are racist, and they do base trust on these things.
So I think the most important thing...
Any of us can do, is make sure we don't let them sweep this under the rug.
Because you have to recognize, it's not about the people who live in her district.
I think that's a gross overestimation.
I think it's about the fact that you'll see organizations like Media Matters rushing to her defense, even after all this.
Why does the media protect her?
Why did Katie Hill have to resign, but Ilhan Omar doesn't when there are way more scandals?
I don't need to make this super long.
I'll end it here.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
Feminists are outraged because a study says that men are funnier than women.
Now, I assume this study basically just shows a bunch of people jokes written by other men or women and then asks them about it.
But there has been some... I don't know if it's a study, but some people have asserted in the past That women aren't as funny as men because they don't need to be to attract a mate.
So guys need charisma, status, power, to prove they're worthy.
Thus, men are more likely to be funny.
But they do stress in the study, it doesn't mean all men are funnier than all women.
I think it's a really important point because a lot of these studies will show a difference between men and women and then I guess collectivists go ahead and assume it literally means every woman all the time everywhere.
Not the case.
But let's read the story and see exactly what they're claiming and the outrage.
The Daily Mail reports, who gets the last laugh?
Scientists claim that men are funnier than women but female comedians brand the study effing ignorant.
Okay, stop.
Look.
You might not like the results.
But that's not how you respond to science.
It makes you sound like a science denialist.
Are you a male funnier denier?
They say the battle of the sexes is no laughing matter.
Especially when it comes to the age-old argument of who is funnier.
But it seems science has finally settled the long-standing score.
Men are, on average, funnier than women, claim psychologists who reviewed multiple past studies investigating how amusing different people are.
The investigations judged participants' sense of humor, for example, by asking them to write an amusing caption to go with the cartoon.
The researchers caution that the findings do not suggest all men are funnier than all women, with many women comedians being funnier than 99% of men.
However, the findings have left some women comedians feeling put out of humor.
You know, and if you're gonna get angry about this, I think it just goes to show why you're probably not that funny, right?
I can't imagine somebody who gets this bent over a study like this, takes it so personally, can be funny, for the most part.
Danish comedian Sophie Hagen, for example, tweeted that the study was effing ignorant, while Scotland's Eleanor Morton called it another boring study.
Oh, I'm sorry, is science boring?
Psychologist Gil Greengross of Wales Aberstwyth University, sorry Wales, I can't say your words, and colleagues from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro reviewed 28 past studies that investigated how funny participants 5,057 in total were.
The team also wanted to determine whether the stereotype that men are innately funnier than women has any grounding in reality.
Quote, this stereotype is shared by both men and women, but of course, just because it exists does not mean it's true.
In many of such studies into humor, participants are asked to write a witty caption for a cartoon, which were then anonymized and rated by independent judges.
According to Dr. Greengross, the findings revealed that, to the best of our knowledge, on average, men appear to have a higher humor production ability than women.
In fact, having ruled out the existence of confounding factors like participant age or nationality, the team found that 63% of men are funnier than the average woman.
That is a huge humor gap, which you cannot close.
The fact that men on average appear to be funnier than women does not imply that every single man is funnier than every single woman.
We get it, dude.
We get it.
There are many great female comedians, such as Sarah Silverman.
Disagree with the Silverman thing.
Tina Fey?
Definitely agree with the Tina Fey thing.
She is amazing.
Ali Wong?
Not super familiar.
And historically, Lucille Ball.
I would agree with Lucille Ball, Joan Rivers especially.
And I would stress for them, it's a different kind of humor from a time long since past, but definitely.
I Love Lucy was a very popular show.
Sarah Silverman though, I'm not trying to be mean, but Sarah Silverman is just a shock personality.
I don't find her funny, okay?
She's a comedian for sure, I'm not taking that away.
And she tells jokes.
And she's very famous.
And people love her jokes.
I just think her shtick is to be outrageous.
Not even offensive, okay?
Like Dave Chappelle doing the bit of like the Chinese stereotype, there was a point to it that was a build-up over woke outrage.
Sarah Silverman just literally says really, really shocking things that there's no punchline.
Some people really like it.
Hey, more power to ya!
You know, she's done some offensive stuff she lost her job over.
It's a whole other thing, I'm not gonna get into it.
Tina Fey, though.
Tina Fey is incredible.
And you know who I have to stress as well?
One of the funniest things I have ever seen.
Nikki Glaser's roast of Alec Baldwin.
Nikki Glaser had probably one of, if not the funniest routine I have ever listened to.
It was amazing.
You should really check it out if you haven't already.
So here's the problem.
On average, men are funnier than women.
Yes, so what?
Why are you mad about that?
It doesn't mean you're not funny.
Stop getting angry about this stuff.
It's like, dude, on average, men are taller than women.
Yeah, so what?
It doesn't mean they're better than you.
Like, that's what's so crazy about it.
They take it so personally, where it's like, did you know that most men are, you know, men tend to be funnier than women?
Yeah, and it doesn't mean a woman can't be funny.
And there's a lot of reasons why that may be the case.
So if you want to be funny, go figure it out.
This reminds me of this, like, viral video where this woman pretended to be a man, and she thought the only reason no one thought she was funny was because she was a woman.
So she dressed up like a guy, like, disguised herself, went on stage, and did a routine, and nobody laughed, and she, like, cried afterwards.
You gotta look that up.
It's some video I watch.
Let's read.
The team has some theories as to why humor might come with a gender gap.
It is possible that the view that women are less funny is so pervasive that societal forces discourage girls and women from developing and expressing their humor, making a woman less likely to be perceived as funny.
There is, however, minimal evidence to support the view that our society suppresses women from producing and exhibiting humor.
On the other hand, the evidence does suggest that humor plays a major role in mating, with a strong evolutionary bias.
Women, who bear heavier costs of reproduction, are typically more discriminating when it comes to picking a mate.
Humor is a good proxy for intelligence, which remains a desirable quality in a partner, and would have been more crucial during the hunter-gatherer part of human evolution.
Men, on the other hand, prefer women who laugh at their humor.
That means that over our evolutionary history, men likely had to compete harder with other men to impress women with their sense of humor.
Plenty of evidence supports this view, showing how important it is for women to find a man with a great sense of humor, while men generally do not place a high value on women's humor production ability.
And I'd agree with that.
I think, you know, typically, the closest I get to, I don't know, comedic behavior is like snark or sarcasm.
I don't care for, you know?
So, maybe that's the case.
I've never really thought about dating someone who was funny.
It never occurred to me.
Maybe that's because I am internalizing the patriarchy.
The studies the team reviewed only focus on regular people, not professional comedians.
Well, listen.
The cream of the crop?
The best of the best?
Yeah, you're gonna find they're funny.
And I gotta say, like, some of my favorite comedians, Tina Fey, and especially now Nikki Glaser following that roast.
I admit, that's the only thing I've seen from her.
But man, that was incredible.
One of the best I've ever seen.
I will also say this, Jonathan Pye, is that, am I getting his name right?
One of the funniest routines I have ever seen, it was incredible.
Joe Rogan, Incredible stand-up routine.
It's amazing.
And Dave Chappelle.
But I'll tell you this.
I don't think Dave Chappelle is the top.
Sticks and Stones was really, really good.
But I think Nikki Glaser was... Her roast of Alec Baldwin was better than Sticks and Stones.
They're both really, really good.
I'm not saying like it's a drastic gap.
But man, I can't stress.
So the reason I'm bringing her up...
Is because I can fully recognize that one of the funniest routines I've ever seen has come from a woman while having no problem being like, yeah, most women aren't that funny.
It doesn't mean there's not, you know, it doesn't mean the funniest person in the world can't be a woman.
And they all get bent out of shape about it.
Taking it personally, this woman says, do not click on that chortle article about women not being as funny as men.
Steve wants those juicy clicks, but do not fall for it.
It's just another boring study that claims women don't need to be funny to find a mate.
So we're not.
Nothing new.
I actually think it's more likely and more interesting that many men actively seek out partners they don't think are funny because mommy told them they were the funniest little boy in the world.
Aww, is someone's ego bruised?
Nobody personally insulted you, dude.
No one ever told me I was the funniest little boy.
That's insane.
That's not even a trope.
Can you imagine any point in history where a parent was like, isn't my son the funniest?
No!
Everyone claims their kids are the cutest or whatever, but it's so absurd.
This woman said, it's also effing ignorant.
I think they're saying effing.
There's a difference between being good at writing jokes, a skill anyone can learn, I disagree, and being funny.
Some people are, some people aren't.
There are amazing joke writers that aren't funny, and funny people who couldn't write a joke.
That is true.
I don't think anyone can learn to write jokes.
I do think there are a lot of people who are just funny for some reason.
Family Guy made a joke about this, where Peter Griffin got injected with the Seth Rogen gene, and he said it's a gene that makes it appear like what you're saying is funny, even though you haven't even made a joke.
And then Peter turns into Seth Rogen, and then he says something about needing to go home, and the guy laughs.
And he says, how charmingly chubby, or whatever.
And that's the point.
There are a lot of people who are funny as who they are, whether they can write a joke or not.
Yeah, absolutely.
Men and women.
I think it's funny they're all getting bent out of shape.
That's basically the story, I guess.
Feminists on Twitter are angry.
Oh, what else is new?
Did I need to read that?
I guess not.
That's about it.
The findings of the study were published in the Journal of Research in Personality.
There you go.
Some science has come out.
Naturally, there are many feminists who are angry.
And I do want to make sure I stress, just because there are some people on Twitter who are angry and happy to be verified doesn't mean that all women everywhere care.
I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of women don't care about this.
And are probably like, yeah, men are taller too.
Like, whatever.
It doesn't mean women can't be tall.
It doesn't mean they can't run fast.
It's just a tendency.
But why do they take it so personally?
I don't know.
Here's what you do.
Comment and let me know why you think everything is so personal.
You know what I mean?
It's like a scientific study came out.
They're angry at the universe because the scientists didn't make the science.
I mean, technically they did.
They did a study.
But it exists.
It's like, it's reality.
So who are you mad at?
God?
Whatever, man.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
I'm going to go ahead and call this Tulsi Derangement Syndrome.
You've got emerging conspiracy theories from some conservatives that Tulsi is being propped up on purpose by Hillary Clinton as a third party spoiler.
Not for the Democrats.
Wait for it.
For Trump?
Listen, man, there's no conspiracy.
Tulsi is just a roguish type who's on the left, and I do not believe Trump voters are gonna vote for Tulsi.
But sure enough, we're seeing this insane conspiracy mumbo-jumbo from Intelligencer.
Thanks, New York mag, for your psychotic garbage.
It's from the same guy who claimed Trump may have been an asset of Russia since the 80s.
Why is this guy still writing?
But you know what I saw?
I saw this from the Daily Wire.
Miller.
Why Hillary Clinton might be right about Tulsi Gabbard.
Is this a joke, Daily Wire?
Apparently, there's only a couple comments, there's three, but they're all saying the same thing.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
Stop.
Tulsi is not a Russian asset.
Can we please stop?
But you know what?
I saw this from the Daily Wire.
And I was thinking to myself, why would the Daily Wire write this?
They've been pretty spot on with a lot of their commentary.
Though I disagree with a lot of political opinions.
They tend to have an astute assessment of a lot of the political bickering.
Like the nonsense Hillary Clinton espoused about Russia.
So why publish this opinion piece claiming Hillary Clinton might be right?
Daily Wire, why are you siding with Hillary Clinton?
Okay, okay.
Daily Wire may be, this guy, I shouldn't say Daily Wire, but Paul Miller.
Maybe he genuinely believes Hillary was right about this and doesn't mean he agrees with everything she's saying.
But I think this is ridiculous.
Okay, when you look at these stories, it is absurd.
How could you accuse a major in the National Guard who is vetted, cleared, security, classified, access, all that, of being a Russian asset?
Okay, maybe they don't like what her opinions are on foreign policy, but please don't say Hillary Clinton was right.
Come on!
But this is the interesting thing.
Because you can see, whatever tacit alliance there is right now between moderate types or anti-SJW types, Tulsi Gabbard fans, and the right, it's not a strong bridge.
It exists right now, kind of based off of this idea of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I'm not a big proponent of that idea, but I don't look at it so much that way as if I've chosen to align myself with people I don't like.
No, no, no.
If you think the media is nuts and Hillary Clinton is nuts for smearing Tulsi, then we're going to get along when we talk about it.
We can disagree on other things.
That's normal.
We disagree.
So I see this.
And I decided to do a segment because we have two stories right now.
And they're both equally insane.
Actually, I take that back.
I'm sorry.
The Daily Wire piece actually, while I disagree with it, and I don't like them claiming Hillary Clinton might be right, they bring up points and they give their thoughts on those points and their legitimate issues having to do with foreign policy.
Okay, fine.
The New York Mag, however, is just conspiracy theories.
Not only do they think Tulsi Gabbard is going to run a spoiler campaign for Trump.
This is the conspiracy.
That they think Tulsi Gabbard is going to run because she's going to attract moderates away from Trump as a third-party run.
Let me say this right now.
Tulsi Gabbard has come out and said she has no intention of running as a third party.
I don't know the exact quote.
She said she wants to transform the Democratic Party and fix it.
All that stuff.
Okay.
I respect that.
Based on those statements, I wouldn't vote for her if she ran third party.
Somebody who's gonna vote for Trump is gonna vote for Trump if they like him.
It doesn't matter if Tulsi is running or not.
Tulsi's policies and Trump's are very, very different.
And Tulsi Gabbard just wrote an op-ed saying she wants to end the Clinton-Trump foreign policy.
I do not think Trump supporters have to worry about Tulsi.
The Democrats have to worry about Tulsi, okay?
So no, Hillary was not right.
She made a big, big mistake.
She is not trying to prop up Tulsi because the people I know who support Tulsi are not going to vote for Trump anyway.
So Trump supporters, be happy in knowing the Democrats won't get our support unless it's with Tulsi Gabbard.
The same is true for Bernie.
The same is true for Yang.
It is not a conspiracy.
Tulsi is who she is, the same as Yang is who he is.
Did anyone ever say that Yang is running as a spoiler too?
No!
Why not?
Well, you got nothing to smear him on because Yang hasn't been in government.
You can talk about his business stuff.
There are ridiculous conspiracies about Yang.
But in the end, Bernie, like Tulsi, like Yang, are individuals who are challenging the Democrats, and the Democratic base is fractured.
And don't take my word for it.
Check this out.
Daily Kos is considered far-left conspiracy nonsense by NewsGuard.
But in this comment, which I'm not going to read, it's basically a guy saying Trump is going down.
And the woman says, but what about this?
What about this?
Finally, she says, maybe if we can overcome voter purges, Russian meddling, Facebook promoting Orwellian disinformation, McConnell underfunding election security, the fragmentation of the Democratic Party voters, and a third party spoiler.
Stop right there.
Fragmentation of Democratic voters.
Even the left recognizes what's happening.
Can we please stop with the absurd conspiracy nonsense?
But I gotta tell you, this article is wonderful.
It's wonderfully absurd.
Oh, are they not gonna let me read it?
Let me see if I can try and read it.
Alright, here we go.
Here's the best part.
This guy, who believes that Trump may have been a Russian asset since the 80s, he wrote about it, said, Oh no!
What is very clear, however, is that Gabbard is now working hand in hand with the Republican
Party.
Oh no!
This is apparent in her pattern of working closely with Republican-controlled media like
Hill TV.
Wonderful.
Hill TV, at hill.com, they're really great.
The Hill is a great source.
They're typically very middle of the road, very fact-first.
They've got Crystal Ball, who's a former MSNBC host.
They do a show on Hill TV that is very, very fair.
But still, you know, Crystal defends Bernie Sanders and Tulsi and is a bit progressive with Twitter.
And I have tremendous respect for Crystal.
She'll talk about, you know, Bernie Sanders and defense of him and Tulsi and all that.
but will be reasonable, rational, and have a genuine conversation about opposing opinions.
It's quite wonderful, actually, to have that in the political space.
And she's been accused of being a Russian asset, and now, by New York Mag, of being
Republican-controlled.
Okay.
She used to work for MSNBC, dude.
But I love it.
I love that in today's day and age, if you hate Donald Trump, everything is a conspiracy, but you're allowed to write about it and no one says otherwise.
Seriously?
I mean, let's be honest, there's been a lot of criticism over Jonathan Chait, especially after he claimed Trump may have been a Russian asset since the 80s.
But come on, how is New York Mag still allowing this to exist?
I will criticize the Daily Wire too, but I gotta admit, at least this one talks about Gabbard's foreign policy decisions.
They talk about Armenian occupied territory and stuff like that.
At least that's based in reality.
But please, Daily Wire, don't try and stretch the fact that just because Tulsi disagrees on foreign policy issues, she's somehow working with the Russians.
Now, the headline says Hillary Clinton might be right.
I would love to have a real conversation about why they believe Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy may be beneficial to the Russians.
That's a fair headline, right?
If you think so, that's your opinion.
I can respect that.
But to accuse a decorated veteran who's cleared for classified security clearance, whatever, you get the point.
Please Daily Wire.
However, this is absurd.
This is a whole new level of absurdity.
Because not only... Hold on, hold on.
I think what they're saying is she's running to help Trump?
A spoiler campaign for Trump.
I assumed what they were saying was to hurt Trump.
I guess what they're trying to say is to help Trump.
So it says, it is in Gabbard's interest to conflate the charge that she is working on behalf of the Republicans with the charge that she's working on behalf of the Russians.
The former is apparent, while the latter is impossible to prove.
Gabbard has taken some strident foreign policy stances that follow no apparent American dovish objective, and do line up with Russian goals.
While Gabbard presents herself as a non-interventionist, she bizarrely attacked the Obama administration for failing to bomb al-Qaeda in Syria, while crediting Russia for allegedly doing so.
Man, it is so, so complicated.
Because Tulsi Gabbard is talking about regime change war, not criticizing the targeting of an active terrorist group which attacks on U.S.
soil.
And that's why I think it's important to highlight.
Tulsi Gabbard is not a weak individual.
She will go after our enemies.
But why we're involved in Syria, or Libya, or Afghanistan, these are wholly different things.
And what's interesting, Some people have compared her to a kind of a Ron Paul personality.
Well, Ron Paul talked about, I could be getting this wrong, something called Marken Reprisal.
I could be getting it wrong.
Fact check me on this one.
But I was watching some interview where he said, why weren't we declaring Marken Reprisal on Al Qaeda instead of going after these governments who may have, you know, supplied, you know, who provided support?
Right?
Target the group.
I think that's fair.
Okay?
I'm still, I still question it for sure.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on.
Are we gonna, are we gonna bomb these groups?
But she's talking about targeting them in Syria.
I will add.
Tulsi should be criticized for seemingly contradictory statements she's made about wanting to pull out of Syria and then criticizing Trump for it.
Totally fair.
I don't think anybody's perfect.
I think it just comes down to who do you trust?
And I lean towards trusting Tulsi Gabbard more so than most other candidates.
I gotta admit, I don't trust Trump for the most part, but looking at the Democratic field, You know what?
I'll tell you this.
I'm not gonna vote.
I would never vote.
I would never vote for Trump.
I've heard, you know, Dave Rubin said something to that effect.
I don't want to quote him, but he said, based on how crazy the Democrats have gone, he'd rather vote for Trump.
I wouldn't, but I honestly think they are substantially crazier than Trump.
Save for Tulsi Yang.
Bernie's spiraled out of control.
Anyway, I don't even know what the point of this was.
I just saw both the left and the right pushing the absurd conspiracy that Tulsi is operating to help one or the other, and they both... I think, you know, if you want to ask my opinion, I think the reason you're going to see a lot of conservatives now come after Tulsi is because there is a fear that she could pull Trump voters away.
I really don't think so.
I do not think Trump voters will move for Tulsi.
And I'm telling you this because I know a lot of moderates who didn't vote for Trump,
who have the opportunity to support Tulsi, and are saying they want Trump to win.
There's a lot of people who want Trump to win as a sort of F you to the Democrats for
going so far left, as a kind of you reap what you sow moment.
And I'm not, I wouldn't vote for Trump anyway, but I wouldn't, I'm not, I'm, you know what
man, I'll vote in the Democratic primary.
I'll probably vote for Tulsi.
But if she's telling me she's not going to run third party, and then she goes and does it, I'm not going to be happy about that, okay?
Be honest.
I understand you can't.
And so that's why I don't play games.
If she said right now, I would consider a third party run, we'll see what happens.
I'd be like, oh, okay, we'll see what happens.
But she didn't.
She said, no, I'm not doing that.
I want to transform the Democrats.
And I, too, want to see the Democrats transform.
Anyway.
I don't know what the point is.
I just saw these stories and I was like, come on, man.
Daily Wire, do you really have to get in on this?
Can we all agree it's absurd and that she's just an outlier?
I'm done.
I think I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
You know what's really good?
There's good news right now.
And it's good news for free speech.
It's good news for those who want rational political discourse.
And it's really, really bad news for the woke $50,000-a-year digital journalists who write about their opinions and get paid a lot of money to do it.
I'm talking about the good news that is these media companies fizzling out of existence.
Because they're calling themselves journalists.
They openly oppose the First Amendment and free speech.
No, they're not journalists.
Please stop.
They're giving journalism a bad name.
Okay, there are a lot of problems going on at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and these big media outlets.
Fine.
But I think we can all agree the biggest problem are these woke, rage-bait outlets that crank out nothing but hate and vile and smears and then get called credible.
You know what Wikipedia, these Wikipedia editors, you do realize that Vice, Vox, whoever else, they don't have fact-checkers.
I know Vice didn't have fact-checkers when I was there.
This is my understanding.
I could be wrong.
I witnessed no fact-checkers.
When I was at Fusion, I witnessed no fact-checkers.
Okay?
These companies don't employ them.
They don't make the phone calls.
They write articles.
They press enter.
That was my experience.
That's what I witnessed.
So how is it that these woke trash articles are somehow credible?
They're not.
Please stop.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Welcome to the Washington Post Opinion Section, where Richard Stengel writes why America needs a hate speech law.
And it's really funny.
One of his arguments is, the world is dangerous, therefore we must give authoritarian control to a guy we don't like.
You know what's really been bothering me lately?
That Second Amendment advocates have brought this up all the time.
How is it that you can point to the government, the Donald Trump Republican-controlled government, and say, they're evil bad men on the far right and we must have a resistance.
However, we also must give them all our guns.
How does that make sense?
Yes, they're tyrants.
We should give them our weapons.
The other thing that's happening, okay, you have Mark Zuckerberg saying, I will not police political speech.
We're going to allow politicians to run ads.
They then get all angry.
They get all angry because apparently Mark Zuckerberg met with some conservatives like Ben Shapiro, and they say delete Facebook.
It's a big viral trend.
Simultaneously screaming that Mark Zuckerberg is having secret meetings with the Daily Wire and Ben Shapiro, and simultaneously pushing a conspiracy theory that the Daily Wire is allowed to break the rules on Facebook because of this.
And then they turn around and go, but Mark Zuckerberg should police political discourse.
No, don't give authoritarian controls to these lunatics.
Look at this.
Why America needs a hate speech law.
No, it doesn't.
You're nuts.
When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' junior assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate.
When you were a journalist, yes, you're not anymore, but you know what?
The joke I made is, why don't you form a group?
You can call it the Coalition of Journalists Opposing the First Amendment.
There are so many of you who oppose the First Amendment.
They rail.
These people are writing stories claiming Mark Zuckerberg should police speech.
He is a billionaire in control of an international multi-billion dollar corporation.
No!
Mark Zuckerberg is not elected and should not be dictating what is true and what isn't.
Why are you offering him a power while complaining about who he's meeting with?
These people are insane.
You know what happens then?
Let's say Mark Zuckerberg really is a conservative.
He's not.
I don't know what Mark Zuckerberg is.
Mark Zuckerberg's political ideology is that Mark Zuckerberg should be in charge, and that's about it.
But he should not get this power willy-nilly.
No, we regulate against that power monopolization.
It's bad for all of us.
But I guess if you want him to be in that control, if you want Donald Trump to be able to police your speech and Mark Zuckerberg to police your speech, you know what?
Fine.
Don't let me stop you.
But here's the problem, man.
See, I operate mostly on principle, but I also must—this is a personal thing here for me.
I don't want Mark Zuckerberg or Donald Trump telling me what I can't say.
That's terrifying.
Why are you arguing with me about this?
Why do I have to debate people on the left about why we shouldn't give major corporations and a Republican the right to police our speech?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
Look at this.
He says, But as a government officially traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.
Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Quran.
Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?
Because if you own it, it's yours!
You can't steal someone else's Quran and burn it.
You can't steal someone else's Bible and burn it.
But if you buy it, it's your property.
And guess what?
It's actually illegal in a certain regard to burn a book.
If you're in public, on the street, and you start a fire, that's reckless endangerment.
They can actually say, hey, you can't start a fire here.
And there are certain circumstances where burning a flag is allowed, but the police might still say, you can't start a fire.
It's not about your speech, it's about you starting a fire!
You own the book.
If you have a safe space that's legally allowed to start a fire, because we're talking about committing an act that can cause destruction, you can go in your backyard, you can burn the book.
It's your book.
You do what you want.
Now, there are environmental regulations.
You can't burn too many.
You can't get a stack of Bibles and light them all on fire, because they'll be like, dude, you're polluting the environment.
You're making life worse for everybody else.
Our rights You know, conflict with the rights of others to a certain degree.
You have a right to speech, but when you're causing a physical impact, things start getting murky.
This is what courts are for, okay?
Why would you want to protect someone's right to burn a Quran?
Because it also provides them the right to burn, I don't know, Nazi propaganda as well.
Do you get the point?
You know what?
I'll put it this way.
Richard, I would love for you to actually get your law or amendment or whatever passed.
Because then we can promptly burn your writings, and you can't do anything about it, and we will ban you, and you can't do anything about it!
I'm kidding, by the way.
It's a fair question.
No, it isn't!
Yes, the First Amendment protects the thought that we hate, but it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group.
You see, this is what they're doing.
It's one thing for you to command someone to do something, or to tell someone to do something, and it's another thing if you're saying, I hate Twinkies.
Look, if I say I hate Twinkies, you can't get mad at me if someone goes to a Twinkie factory and starts smashing Twinkies.
I didn't tell them to do it.
I just said I didn't like them.
Where do you draw the line?
First of all, and why is the Washington Post advocating against free speech?
You know what?
I think we should do this.
Anybody who says we shouldn't be allowed free speech, we will start with you.
And then we will stop your speech.
I would love, you know what I would do?
If I owned Twitter, I'd be like, Twitter is the free speech wing of the free speech party.
And anybody who opposes free speech, let me know.
And as soon as they do, delete!
Bye bye!
If you don't like free speech, why would I give it to you?
It was a thought that I had.
I have this idea for a conference I wanted to do, where basically it would be something on the importance of free speech, and what we would do is we would have a microphone with a kill switch, and I would hold a remote kill switch, basically just cuts off the receiver, and then I would be like, who wants to debate why we shouldn't be allowed free speech?
And then right in the middle of their point, turn it off, and I'd be like, oh, I didn't hear what you said, because you don't have free speech, so your argument doesn't exist anymore.
Isn't it funny that you would give up that power to explain why you were right?
He says, it is important to remember that our First Amendment doesn't just protect the good guys.
Our foremost liberty also protects any bad actors who hide behind it to weaken our society.
Yeah, we know that, which means we need vigilance.
It will be worse if you, you know, man, Think about this.
He's talking about the Internet Research Agency and Russia.
Do you know what happens if you lock down free speech?
The Russians adapt and exploit the current existing system.
Get people angry about not being allowed to speak.
You can't stop loopholes and attack vectors.
This is someone saying, we're under threat, therefore we must restrict the rights of Americans?
Are you seriously calling out the First Amendment?
The Russians understood.
That our free press and its reflex toward balance and fairness would enable Moscow to slip its destructive ideas into our media ecosystem.
When Putin said back in 2014 that there were no Russian troops in Crimea, an outright lie, he knew our media would report it and we did.
What?
What are you implying?
That the state should determine what we can report in the news?
He's not just talking about hate speech laws.
He's talking about ending freedom of the press, period.
Washington Post, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
How is it that you can claim democracy dies in darkness and simultaneously call for the darkness?
I'm not kidding.
He knew our media would report it.
Uh-huh.
And?
That's called light.
You're literally advocating for the government to suspend the freedom of the press.
That's partly because the intellectual underpinning of the First Amendment was engineered for a simpler era.
Aw, really?
The amendment rests on the notion that the truth will win out in what is supreme.
No, it doesn't.
You're making this up.
This is terrifying, insane, authoritarian rhetoric.
There is no underpinning idea that the truth will win out.
The point of the First Amendment is to restrict the government from taking away your right to express yourself.
The right to a free press, to religion, to assembly, to a regis of grievances.
And I always miss this one.
There's five, right?
So you have a freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion, and regis of grievances.
There it is.
Those are enshrined in the First Amendment.
That says the government cannot infringe on those things.
You're now arguing something that was never brought up, the marketplace of ideas.
That's not what it says.
I don't care what your interpretation is.
The idea is that as an individual, we are free from the government telling us what we can or can't say.
The point of it revolves around religion, okay?
You can believe what you want.
This country was founded partly by people who wanted to follow their own religion.
You would take that away.
Washington Post should be the first one out.
Let me read this conclusion because it's a waste of time for the most part.
It says, all speech is not equal.
And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add nude guardrails.
I'm all for protecting thought that we hate.
No, you're not, you liar.
But speech that incites hate.
But not speech that incites hate.
What is speech that incites hate?
You see, there it is.
I want to show you this manipulation.
Why America needs a hate speech law.
He starts by saying, you know, we shouldn't have people burning a Koran.
And some people might say, yeah, there's no reason to burn a Koran.
But by the time he gets to the bottom of it, the final conclusion is, speech that incites hate.
You see?
That's the next level.
He's not talking about hate speech.
He's talking about speech that might make someone later hateful.
Hate speech is literally saying why you hate a group of people.
Speech that could incite hate would be saying something like, the people in my house are messy.
That's not hateful at all.
However, it might make you say, I hate messy people.
I hate the people in your house.
You see the game they're playing?
Washington Post.
If I ever would advocate for burning a piece of literature, it would be this.
But you know what?
I don't.
I think everyone should hear this, and we should know exactly what the Washington Post is willing to publish.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10 a.m., podcast at 6.30 p.m.
