Michael Moore Is SHOCKED That The Left CENSORED His Documentary Challenging Climate Change Activism
Leftists Just Got Michael Moore CENSORED Because He Dared Challenge The Climate Change Agenda. Moore's latest film 'Planet Of The Humans' was removed by leftists outraged that he dared challenge their narrative.The film Planet of the humans argues that many of these environmentalists are running a scam to manipulate people to make money.The film triggered many far leftists so much so that Moore was called a hero of the far right by the Guardian and slammed by many famous activists.Moore has made his own bed, once a hero to the white working class he seems to have broken once Democrats ditched them in favor of social justice politics.As Obama said its a circular firing squad and its only a matter of time before the causes supported by Moore and the Democrats comes back to haunt them.#Democrats#FarLeft#Censorship
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Michael Moore learning a lesson that many of us have learned over the past year or a couple years, because he has now been cancelled.
His latest documentary, Planet of the Humans, has been censored on YouTube, over 8 million views on this video.
And it's gone.
Why?
Somebody didn't like the context in which their footage was being used, so they filed a copyright takedown notice.
Now, copyright is nuanced, to say the least.
This might not actually be a legitimate takedown notice.
Michael Moore might have a fair use claim as to why he used this footage, but regardless, Left-wing activists didn't like the fact that his film described climate activism as basically self-serving scam, so they found a way to remove it.
I kid you not, The Guardian is actually now saying, straight up in this op-ed, that Michael Moore became a hero to climate deniers and the far-right.
Ah, what a fall from grace.
You see, Michael Moore for a long time was supposed to be some hero to the working class.
He was supposed to be presenting the issues that affected factory workers.
But what has he become?
Well, you see, when this weird shift happened, maybe like 10 years ago, or was probably bubbling up before then, the white working class, they voted for Donald Trump.
I mean, a lot of them did.
And Michael Moore now had to make a choice.
Was he for Trump?
Or was he going to reject the people who had once supported him, not everybody, but a lot of them, and go and jump on the progressive bandwagon?
Well, of course, he decided to jump on the progressive bandwagon.
Instead of staying true to fighting for the factories that he once made documentaries about, he said, meh, orange man bad.
You see, a lot of people in Michigan really like Donald Trump because he brought the factories back.
Michael Moore got it right in 2016 when he said people were going to go out and vote for Trump as the biggest F.U.
to the establishment.
Michael Moore got it right when he said Trump went to those auto manufacturers and said, I'm going to slap a 30% tariff on your cars and no one will ever buy them again.
He was right about it, but he was wrong later on in his speech when he said they would regret it.
They didn't.
Maybe Michael Moore is just late to the party and he started to realize he bet on the wrong horse.
Either way, he produced this documentary called Planet of the Humans that has now been censored, and he's kind of outraged about it.
So let's take a look at what's going on with this.
But we do have some other censorship issues emerging right now.
One of the one of the top trends on Twitter is basically about removing Trump because he posted some memes and some offensive conspiracy theory about Joe Scarborough.
So we're going to have a good old censorship showdown today.
But the first story I want to talk about is the news and Michael Moore's response.
Michael Moore film, Planet of the Humans, removed from YouTube.
Now I remind you, 8 million views on his latest documentary.
I went and saw Fahrenheit 11.9.
It was garbage!
It was trash!
I was surprised, to say the least.
But hey, he bent on the wrong horse.
Now before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
I am competing against the mainstream media as it were.
I am but a humble, independent, political, commentary kind of guy.
And a little bit of journalism in there.
But I don't have a big marketing budget like CNN does to put up billboards.
And to make it worse, YouTube actually gives them preferential access and props up CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
The best way to get around this is by all of you sharing the video, if you do like it.
Otherwise, if you just want to watch, then hit the subscribe button, like button, notification bell.
Hopefully that's enough and YouTube will start recommending my content to you.
But let's read from The Guardian.
British environmental photographer's copyright claim prompts website to remove film that has been condemned by climate scientists.
Now, how is this that Michael Moore is making climate denial stuff, whatever they want to call it?
YouTube has taken down the controversial Michael Moore-produced documentary, Planet of the Humans, in response to a copyright infringement claim by a British environmental photographer.
The movie, which has been condemned as inaccurate and misleading by climate scientists and activists, allegedly includes a clip used without the permission of the owner, Toby Smith, who does not approve of the context in which his material is being used.
Let me give you a quick lesson on fair use.
I don't care if you care about the context that's being used.
If they're using footage that has a legitimate fair use claim, then you can't take it down.
Now, it does get more murky when you're dealing with a photographer whose business is to produce this content, in which case, it actually might be a legitimate takedown, and Michael Moore may have just screwed this one up.
In response, the filmmakers denied violating fair usage rules and accused their critics of politically motivated censorship.
Smith filed the complaint to YouTube on the 23rd of May after discovering Planet of the Humans used several seconds of footage from his Rare Earthenware project detailing the journey of rare earth minerals from Inner Mongolia.
Smith, who has previously worked on energy and environmental issues, said he did not want his work associated with somethings he disagreed with.
I went directly to YouTube rather than approaching the filmmakers because I wasn't interested in negotiation.
I don't support the documentary, I don't agree with its message, and I don't like the misleading use of facts in the narrative.
So this clearly was a political takedown.
It just so happens that, well, Michael Moore made a mistake and created this exploitation vector.
Planet of the Humans director Jeff Gibbs said he was working with YouTube to resolve the issue and have the film back up as soon as possible.
He said in a statement, This attempt to take down our film and prevent the public from seeing it is a blatant act of censorship by political critics of Planet of the Humans.
It is a misuse of copyright law to shut down a film that has opened a serious conversation about how parts of the environmental movement have gotten into bed with Wall Street and so-called green capitalists.
There is absolutely no copyright violation in my film.
This is just another attempt by the film's opponents to subvert the right to free speech.
Planet of the Humans, which has been seen by more than 8 million people since it was launched online last month, described itself as a full-frontal assault on the sacred cows of the environmental movement, veteran climate campaigners and thinkers such as Bill McKibben and George Monbiot.
Have pointed out factual errors, outdated footage and promotion of myths about renewable energy propagated by the fossil fuel industry.
Many are dismayed that Moore, who built his reputation as a left-wing filmmaker and supporter of civil rights, should produce a work endorsed by climate skeptics and right-wing think tanks.
Several have signed a letter urging the removal of what they called a shockingly misleading and absurd documentary.
Climate scientist Michael Mann said the filmmakers have done a grave disservice to us and the planet with distortions, half-truths, and lies.
On Moore's official YouTube channel, the usual link to the film has been replaced by a page noting video unavailable.
The video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party.
On the planet of the humans website, the link to the full movie is also dead.
Though the trailers and other video material are functioning as normal.
I kid you not, Michael Moore is now a hero of the far right.
That's what you get when you challenge the machine, whether it's right or wrong.
No.
Michael Moore's film, Planet of the Humans, did not do us a disservice.
Like any idea or concept, it is doing us a real service, and if you don't like it, it needs to be challenged.
I did not like Fahrenheit 11.9.
I certainly think Michael Moore has every right to produce it, to rag on Trump, and I rolled my eyes and said it was a bad documentary.
I'm glad he made it.
I like the idea that people produce things that challenge us, and when we see something we don't like, you know what we do?
We write about it and say, here's what's wrong.
And that's exactly what they did.
But this is how they take things too far.
They use loopholes, copyright, to try and take down ideas they can't defeat.
And it makes you wonder.
Why?
Was it really that bad?
If it really was that bad, you should have easily been able to debunk it, right?
No, I guess they had no choice but to force it to be removed.
Now that's where things get insane.
But take a look at this story from a couple weeks ago.
How did Michael Moore become a hero to climate deniers in the far right?
I love it.
Oh, I absolutely love it.
You know, it's only a matter of time before the circular firing squad of the left comes for you, too.
I don't care who you are, I don't care what you do, they's a-comin'.
And Michael Moore, wow!
I almost didn't think it was gonna happen, but here we go!
This is what you get.
To be honest, I'm surprised he made the film in the first place.
I kinda respect that he did.
Let's read why Michael Moore is a hero to the far right, and then we'll carry on.
They have a response to this, and we'll talk about more censorship that's happening on YouTube, as well as Twitter.
Denial never dies.
It just goes quiet and waits.
Today, after years of irrelevance, the climate science deniers are triumphant, long after their last desperate claims had collapsed, when they had traction only on alt-right conspiracy sites.
Wait, what?
What does that have to do with climate denial?
Those groups are not connected.
A hero of the left turns up and gives them more than they could have dreamed of.
Planet of the Humans, whose executive producer and chief promoter is Michael Moore, now has more than 6 million views on YouTube.
The film does not deny climate science, but it promotes the discredited myths that deniers have used for years to justify their position.
It claims that environmentalism is a self-seeking scam.
How does that make Michael Moore a hero of the far right?
while enriching a group of con artists.
This has long been the most effective means by which denial, most of which has been funded
by the fossil fuel industry, has been spread.
Everyone hates a scammer.
How does that make Michael Moore a hero of the far right?
Yeah, silly, isn't it?
And yes, there are scammers.
There are real issues and real conflicts to be explored in seeking to prevent the collapse of our life support systems.
But they are handled so clumsily and so incoherently by this film that watching it is like seeing someone start a drunken brawl over a spilled pint, then lamping his friends when they try to restrain him.
It stumbles so blindly into toxic issues that Moore, former champion of the underdog, unwittingly aligns himself with white supremacists and the extreme right.
And there it is!
We've made it that far.
Congratulations, Michael Moore, for being, like they've called me, far-right-adjacent, or whatever that means.
Oh, wow.
Heaven forbid someone wants to actually entertain an idea.
But you know what?
I'm gonna stop right here and say, interestingly, I wonder what the reviews are for this film, because we've seen Dave Chappelle, for instance.
His comedy special was slammed by critics, and typically when the critics are slamming your film, it's actually pretty good.
Actually is pretty good.
Now, not always.
Sometimes they're just bad movies everybody hates, like, you know, Star Wars.
Oh wait, no, I'm sorry.
They gave Star Wars The Last Jedi a good review.
I know I've just triggered a lot of people who actually liked the film.
I guess I didn't like it.
The point is, when they come at this film like this, when they insult it, berate it, it actually makes me want to watch it more.
So I have to wonder what their goals really are.
Maybe they're just that stupid that they take actions that have the Streisand effect.
You've just taken down Michael Moore's film I had no interest in watching?
Now I kind of want to watch it to see why you wanted it taken down.
Because, I mean, let's be honest.
If the ideas were really that bad and easily debunked, you would have just debunked them.
But you want to get rid of them.
Hmm, okay.
Here's what they say.
Occasionally, the film lands a punch on the nose.
On the right nose.
It is right to attack the burning of trees to make electricity.
But when the film's presenter and director, Jeff Gibbs, claims, I've found only one environmental leader willing to reject biomass and biofuels, he can't have been looking very far.
Some people have been speaking out against them ever since they became a serious proposition.
Almost every environmental leader I know opposes the burning of fresh materials to generate power.
There are also some genuine and difficult problems with renewable energy, particularly the mining of the necessary materials.
But the film's attacks on solar and wind power rely on a series of blatant falsehoods.
It claims that in producing electricity from renewables, you use more fossil fuels to do this than you're getting benefit from it.
You would have been better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place.
This is flat wrong.
On average, a solar panel generates 26 units of solar energy for every unit of fossil energy required to build and install it.
For wind turbines, the ratio is 44 to 1.
I'm gonna stop you right there and ask you, what is a unit of solar energy?
How does that compare to fossil energy?
Is the energy released by one unit of fossil energy more or less than a unit of solar energy?
Is he the problem with how they make their arguments?
I can only surmise that they don't actually have one other than, well, they made a few points, and they're fair points.
Well, how about you let me actually see this to see if you're right or wrong?
Oh, that's right, they got rid of it.
Well, Planet of the Humans EP Michael Moore and director Jeff Gibbs blast blatant censorship after controversial documentary yanked from YouTube.
Michael Moore reaping the benefits of the circular firing squad.
It was only a matter of time, man.
It really was.
They say, E.P.
Moore and writer-producer Gibbs told Deadline, they discovered today that their film, which had racked up more than 8.3 million views in a month plus, was taken down from YouTube after a copyright claim was lodged against the documentary over four seconds of footage it contains.
I'm gonna stop and say, I think that might easily fall into fair use, but keep in mind, so you have an exemption for fair use for the public's right to know, something educational, newsworthy perhaps, But if someone's job is to source footage, and you take it and use it, you've basically stolen from them.
So in that case, yeah, it might be legit.
Quote, this attempt to take down our film and prevent the public from seeing it
is a blatant act of censorship by political critics of Planet of the Humans.
Gibbs said in a statement provided exclusively to Deadline, it is a misuse of copyright law to shut down a film that
has opened a serious conversation about how parts of the environmental movement have gotten
into bed with Wall Street and so-called There's absolutely no copyright violation in my film, so we did read that.
The four-second clip, subject to copyright claim, comes 37 minutes into the documentary, in a sequence titled, How Solar Panels and Wind Turbines Are Made.
The footage shows a mining operation for rare earth metals, which are used in wind turbine manufacture.
Gibbs says he incorporated the footage under fair use, an exception to copyright law that allows news reporters, producers, and documentary filmmakers limited access to copyrighted material to illustrate points.
And not just that, it was four seconds.
Sounds like they have a very strong fair use defense.
It's unclear who asserted the copyright violation.
Full stop.
We read that news already.
So Michael Moore, I'm sorry, man, but look, you reap what you sow.
You are the one who is propping these people up.
You are the one who is making these documentaries.
You aligned yourself with these activists.
They don't care for the facts.
They don't care for the law.
They just don't want to lose.
They want to be in charge.
They want to be in control.
And they don't like you because you said something outside the orthodoxy.
You shouldn't have helped empower them.
Now, it's not like Michael Moore is the biggest cheerleader of the progressive left, but he still was a cheerleader.
And now he's tried to step outside those bounds and make a thought-provoking film, Planet of the Humans.
Well, here's what you get.
They call it garbage.
Michael Moore's garbage Planet of the Humans has been removed from YouTube.
That's the response from these people.
These people who want nothing but censorship.
They don't want to actually have to argue against you.
They just want to bash you over the head figuratively.
To prevent you from working.
Michael Moore had every opportunity to stand with the working class, to ask serious questions.
His speech from 2016 about, I believe it was from 2016, about Trump went viral.
I think Trump was sharing it.
And now he's just a flip-flopper with no idea what he's saying, what he's doing.
You know, full disclosure, at one point Michael Moore actually gave me some money when I was live streaming down at Occupy.
But I'm going to show you now.
Michael Moore, in my opinion, has just become a grifter.
I'm sorry.
I'm not saying, I certainly don't think his film should have been taken down.
But first, let me show you, let me show you this story from the New York Post.
Trump tweets Michael Moore story bashing Biden's lack of enthusiasm.
Michael Moore gave an interview.
In it, he said that Biden doesn't generate the enthusiasm needed to win, basically.
He then later came out and said the only way Trump wins is if he cheats.
It seems to me that what Michael Moore is really doing is dipping his toes in both the left and the right to try and figure out where he can find his best opportunity.
Well, Trump tweeted out this story.
Let me stop.
Let me say this.
That, to me, says that Michael Moore is just, he's just trying to figure it out.
It's like he wants to make money.
He has no principles, to say the least.
But Donald Trump tweeted out this story.
The New York Post says, President Trump highlighted comments from leftist filmmaker Michael Moore to take a shot at former Vice President Joe Biden, his likely 2020 Democratic presidential rival.
Michael Moore torches Biden.
He lacks, quote, necessary enthusiasm to beat Trump.
Trump tweeted highlighting a story in Breitbart News.
While he was right in 2016, and we do have a great and we do have great enthusiasm, many say, done a fantastic job at DJT.
In an interview with Vandy Fair last week, Moore, who predicted Trump's 2016 victory, was asked about Biden adopting the Democratic-Socialist agenda Senator Bernie Sanders touted during the primary race.
He said Biden, whom Trump routinely mocks as Sleepy Joe, must embrace Sanders' principles to attract would-be Democratic voters in November.
Quote, Biden does not generate the necessary enthusiasm that it's going to take to get people out, Moore said.
The Democrats are cynically counting on everyone's desire to remove Trump.
And that won't work.
Even FiveThirtyEight says that that won't work.
But that's not the point.
The point is what Michael Moore then goes on to say.
Ah, apparently last week when he said this, It didn't resonate well.
Why are you attacking Joe Biden?
I don't know.
I'm assuming people criticized him for saying it because we saw what happened next.
He went on to Bill Maher's show and said, well, the only way Trump wins is if he cheats.
Excuse me?
I thought your position was that Biden wasn't good enough.
Now you think Biden's so good that Trump has to cheat?
Yeah, Michael Moore is worthless.
I'm sorry.
And I mean that with all due respect, which, to be honest, is very little.
But a guy with a career like his, to become this nothing, to be desperate, confused, you know what, man?
He almost deserves the censorship.
Almost.
I don't like the ideas videos taken down, but let's be honest, man.
He almost deserves it.
Well, I'll leave that story where it is.
But I got a couple little tidbits I want to add to this, because if we had someone like Michael Moore, if we had the actual principled liberals from yesterday, you know, I mean, like the past 10 years, actually speaking up and defending free speech, Moore would not have been banned.
So you reap what you have sown.
And now we see some of the top stories on Twitter.
Trump shares disturbing meme of Biden's campaign in a coffin.
But this results in people basically, not just this, we also have, you know, Trump tweeting about Joe Scarborough and this woman who died in Joe Scarborough's office, and people are now demanding that Trump be removed from Twitter, or as the New York Times opinion writer Karen Swisher, Kara Swisher, I do that so much, said, a council, a board, should be created to look over Trump's content and determine, like, what should be removed and what shouldn't be.
Absolutely not.
Now, I will say I do find it funny that Michael Moore would probably agree with me.
Especially at this point, when the political left has weaponized copyright law and YouTube's rules to take down your content.
What's the word for when you revel in someone else's pain?
Okay, whatever.
I'm not gonna do that.
But seriously, I just wish many of these people realized that when they were advocating for these rules, it would come back to haunt them, and now it does.
At any rate, Twitter is apparently refusing to remove Donald Trump.
Now, this story is more of an aside, right?
I just want to briefly mention it because it's in the vein of the censorship stuff we're seeing today, and it's happening today.
But let me show you the bigger story, and maybe I'll do a longer segment on this later for my 6 p.m.
segments.
YouTube is deleting comments with two phrases that insult China's Communist Party.
These Chinese language phrases are removed within seconds.
And YouTube says it was an accident, so I have to wonder why it is that certain things get censored on YouTube.
I did a couple videos about China, and I'll tell you what, the backlash was hilarious.
I ignore it.
I don't care.
But a bunch of pro-China accounts started making videos and attacking me, making fake footage and pulling things out of context and accusing me of saying things I never said.
Oh, they were angry!
I don't care, dude.
I really, really don't.
But YouTube admits it.
Take a look at this.
The first story was that China was deleting these things.
We saw a bunch of high-profile people say, I've tried to make these comments.
YouTube deletes these comments because they insult China's Communist Party.
So Ben Smith over at The New York Times said, I asked YouTube about this, per spokesman Farshad Shadloo.
This appears to be an error in our enforcement systems, and we are investigating.
Users can report suspected issues.
These removals were not a result of a policy change.
What are you supposed to report?
You post a comment.
Seconds later, the comment is gone.
What do you click on?
What do you do?
Find a chat representative?
Try and call one of these companies with no phone numbers?
Nah.
YouTube was actively censoring things that were critical of the Chinese Communist Party.
Now, this should explain to you why it's so nefarious that we're seeing the waves of censorship that we are today.
I'm not a fan of Michael Moore.
I think he's become a grifter just desperately trying to figure out where he can make money.
So I'm not interested.
Sorry.
You play to the progressive left, you push these weirdo authoritarian practices, and they come for you?
You know what?
What do you want me to do about it?
Should I defend your right for your film?
You know what?
I will.
I will.
I'll defend.
His film should not be removed.
Fair use.
Put it back up.
And maybe he'll win that.
Fine.
But maybe next time someone threatens to take away your rights, you say something about it.
Otherwise, your next film will be gone too.
So, I guess we can leave it there.
I never thought I'd see the day where Michael Moore would be a hero of the far right, and be far right adjacent, and all these other nonsensical things.
But I did believe we would come to a point where censorship would get so awful, it would absolutely start eating these people alive.
We know the poem.
First they came for, then they came for, you know how it goes.
Well, here we are.
The left has a... I don't know if they take joy in it, but they target those who are susceptible to their beliefs, which tends to be themselves.
You see how this works?
A conservative, an independent, a moderate, a politically homeless individual, an intellectual dark web, whatever, They don't agree with your authoritarianism, so they ignore it.
I certainly do.
Now you can force companies to ban people.
That stuff, you know, it might be able to work.
But when you get someone like Michael Moore, who is a part of their tribe, they can easily target you and take you down, force you to apologize, and what are you going to do about it?
You are the most susceptible.
So the rest of us are going to be chilling on the other side of that fire, having a party, while you're scared to cross over.
We're going to be having drinks, we're going to be talking, we're going to be arguing, and it's going to be a good time.
And you can stay where you are, being beaten down by people who won't let you get a word in edgewise.
You can sit down, shut up, and hear what we have to say.
That's the way they play.
Well, over here with us, we argue with each other all the time.
And afterwards, we crack open some beers and say, well, you know, I guess we talked as much as we could.
For them, they will only get more censorship, and it will only affect themselves.
I don't mean only, but inevitably it's going to affect themselves.
Like Obama said, it's a circular firing squad.
They're going after each other more than anybody else at this point.
But I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
I think everybody is familiar with what a Karen is by now, because the phrase Karen has taken the internet by storm.
If you are a middle-aged woman who demands to see the manager because you're upset about the way a business is operating, you are a Karen.
If you pull out your cell phone and start screeching at someone, doing something kind of, you know, against the rules, but not really a big deal, you are a Karen!
If you start filming people and screaming at them for not wearing masks, you are, in fact, a Karen.
And now we have the queen of all Karens!
Okay, not really.
But we have Karen Swisher.
I did it again, I'm so sorry.
It's Kara Swisher for the New York Times, but her name is just so close!
Demanding that Twitter cleanse the Trump stain.
The president is spreading a vile conspiracy theory on the platform.
Maybe Twitter should finally hold him to its rules.
Twitter doesn't have rules against being stupid.
I'm sorry, listen.
This is the fundamental bait, like the fundamental principle behind Karen culture.
And I want you to know too, I'm not going to say cancel culture anymore because think about it for two seconds.
I mean, it's Karen culture, right?
The only difference between a Karen and what happens online with social justice warriors is that we can see the Karens, but they're doing the same thing.
Think about it, right?
You get a video of like, Somebody is, you know, walking down the street not wearing a mask, and then Karen comes out and starts yelling and blocking you or saying like, no, you can't, you can't, you have to wear a mask.
And it's like, why do you care?
Leave me alone.
Or the infamous viral video where some BMX riders are trying to jump downstairs.
You may have seen it.
It's got like 60,000 retweets.
For those that haven't.
There's a big stair set.
We in the, uh, I don't know what you call it.
Skateboarding?
Biking?
It's a location called El Toro.
The Bull.
It's a massive stair set.
And this dude's on his bike and he wants to do this really crazy trick, right?
And a Karen pulls up in a cart and blocks it.
For no reason.
I mean, it's like, I don't want you jumping off stairs.
It's like, dude, why?
There's nobody here.
The building's closed.
That's Karen-ing.
Like, for no reason.
You just want to assert your authority over someone else.
We get it.
Well somebody, this kid, I don't condone this too, I actually don't like, you know, that people do this kind of stuff.
It's like if someone gives you, you know, is giving you the business, you just leave and come back later.
But I get it, dude really wanted to get his trick, they're pros, they're filming, it's part of his job.
But there is a challenge when you're, you know, let's be honest, trespassing.
But so anyway, this dude gets in the car, he backs the, it's a golf cart, he backs it up, she's screeching like a banshee.
Dude nails a tail whip.
Down this massive stair set.
If you don't know what that means, trust me, it's a legit trick.
So this is a really cool video.
Everybody loves it.
Because it's showing the Karens up.
We, as Americans, are very much for freedom.
Online, you have Karen culture.
We've called it cancel culture.
I'm gonna call it Karen culture.
You know why?
Think about it.
Karen Swisher, okay?
Now that was on purpose.
The other one was on purpose too, let's be honest.
But anyway, the point is, she's like, I don't like the fact that Trump is a bad person, that he says mean things.
She actually advocates in this article that Twitter should set up a council or a content board to review the naughty things that Donald Trump says and purge them.
Okay, that's ridiculous, okay?
You can't... Let me tell you something, listen.
If I went outside right now and said something dumb and offensive, what could you do about it?
Nothing.
And we engage in political discourse on social media.
So just chill.
Okay?
That's it.
All right.
You got it.
Chill.
But you get all these people who are online seeing mean words and they go, that's hate speech.
That's against the rules.
I'm reporting you.
It's like this desperate attempt to feel powerful.
Well, this is what we get.
Twitter must cleanse the Trump stain, says Karen Swisher.
All right, let's just read it.
Please delete those tweets.
The widower begged in a letter last week to Twitter's chief executive, Jack Dorsey, my wife deserves better.
Yes, Twitter, Laurie Klausutis certainly does deserve better.
Nearly two decades after she died in a tragic accident that has morphed into a macabre and continuing nightmare for her husband, Timothy Klausutis.
I'm going to stop right there and just say this.
Please delete those tweets.
First and foremost, I think Trump is really, really over the line.
He has crossed the line with these constant tweets about Joe Scarborough and this woman.
It's like, dude, just stop, man.
No one cares about Joe Scarborough enough.
Listen, I saw the first tweet when Trump brought it up, and I was like, oh, geez, here he goes again.
But the first tweet, it's kind of like, yeah, yeah, it's Trump.
I get it, right?
He's going after this dude, and he's hitting him below the belt.
I get it.
But like the fourth tweet, I'm like, dude, I don't care about mourning Joe, bro!
I don't!
It's one guy on a stupid opinion show with his wife or whatever.
That's over the top.
And let's be real, man.
At a certain point, it's like, dude, dude, dude, we get it.
You know, it's like beating a dead horse.
It's like, it reminds me of that meme from The Simpsons where Homer is beating up the, uh, the crusty burglar.
And the kid's like, stop, stop!
He's already dead!
It's like, okay, we get it, dude, you know what I mean?
So now you have the husband of this woman coming out.
He wrote this letter to Jack Dorsey.
I think I actually have it here.
He writes a letter to Jack Dorsey asking him to delete the tweets.
Nah, that's not okay.
I'm sorry, man.
Look, I do not like Trump tweeting about this, but I gotta be honest.
You can't go and... I mean, you can ask for sure, but Jack should absolutely not take down these tweets.
And guess what?
A bunch of other journalists, surprisingly, agree.
They say, Jack Dorsey should not intervene, should not delete these tweets.
Trump should.
It's like, yeah, okay, alright, I can respect that.
If you think Trump shouldn't have done it, Trump should, you know, take it back, fine.
Some people think he shouldn't.
I actually think Trump should not take the tweets back.
I don't think he should delete them, and I don't think they should be banned.
You know why?
Let everyone see what Trump has to say.
Now, if Trump wants to get rid of them, okay, fine.
You can delete whatever tweets you want.
I recently purged my entire Twitter account of everything because I hate Twitter.
Twitter is such an awful place.
But it should... Listen, the point of free speech is that we want to get to know you, man.
We want to see what you have to say.
And when you say something that people don't like, we want to have that available for people to mention.
Now, if you choose to delete it, fine.
If Trump likes the tweets and he stands by them, then he should be allowed to say them.
Think about political discourse before Twitter.
Now I get it.
Twitter has rapidly accelerated political discourse.
You used to have to go to the water cooler, right?
I mean that figuratively.
You could go outside, and you can say whatever stupid nonsense you want, and no one could do anything about it.
I mean, there's a line, right?
Threatening people and stuff.
But what's Karen gonna do?
She's gonna be like, I demand the city appoint a council to prevent people from having protests where they say things I don't like.
They're gonna be like, go home.
It's called the Constitution, the First Amendment.
But now that we've put our political discourse on social media, you now end up with billionaires who can snap their fingers and erase your political ideology overnight.
Now, right now, these people are just, they're content with it.
You know why?
Because they're the ones in power.
Look, man, I don't think Jack Dorsey is all that bad, to be honest.
But I do think he is very ignorant when it comes to a lot of key news issues.
And I do believe that he wants some kind of, you know, freedom or whatever.
But he doesn't understand that he's being heavily influenced by this new age religion, this cult dogma.
He really is.
Check out the Joe Rogan podcast from last year that we did.
He truly doesn't understand that he's over the line and catering to a bunch of wackos.
And so when you get these people enforcing this insanity, it's just not good for anybody.
She says, the boogeyman plunging him and the family of his late wife into the very worst of memory holes is a conspiracy theory loving twitchy fingering blah blah blah Donald Trump.
President Trump on Tuesday tweeted to his nearly 80 million followers alluding to the repeatedly debunked falsehood that my wife was murdered by her boss former US rep Joe Scarborough.
The son of the president followed and more directly attacked my wife by tweeting to his followers as the means of spreading this vicious lie.
That's from the husband.
Yeah, I think it was wrong.
They gotta drop it, man.
You know, I hear so many stories, conspiracy theories, and people talk about, like, I know this happened.
And at a certain point, it's like, bro, I know.
I get it.
I hear you.
It's been 20 years.
What more can you do right now?
Because people get fervent on this stuff.
So I'll tell you what, right now, you are not winning anyone over by doing this.
How many people do you think, sitting in there at home, going like this, who should I vote for?
Then they see Donald Trump tweet about Joe Scarborough and they're like, wow, I just saw this.
That means I'll vote for the president.
Nobody!
Nobody.
I'm sorry, dude.
Okay.
The first tweet, I get it.
It's him, you know, throwing, you know, below the belt punch, getting his audience to, you know, just like his base will be like, yeah, go for it.
But come on, let's be honest, man.
It's not convincing anybody to do anything.
So, here's what Karen Swisher says.
Mr. Clausus deserves an answer from Mr. Dorsey, who has the unenviable task of sorting out what is perhaps unsortable, which is to say the ugly heart of Twitter's most famous character.
While sources close to the company said executives had been trying to figure out what to do over the weekend, the company has at this writing been silent about the latest controversy involving Mr. Trump's appalling and rule-breaking Twitter habit.
I got an answer for you, Twitter.
It's called free speech.
How about you get rid of these fake rules that prop up one ideology and let people speak their minds?
There's a funny post.
It went viral.
It was like a comment from 4chan.
Someone said, any sufficiently unmoderated platform will become right-wing.
Leftists require moderation for their ideology to persist.
That's unfortunate, isn't it?
Your ideas aren't good enough to debate.
You aren't good enough to debate your ideas.
I can debate left-wing policy positions that I hold all day and night and have a good discussion about it.
We don't have that anymore.
These people have become weird, dried husks without principle.
You know, shells of whatever was left of the actual liberal principles.
And now the actual liberals are joining the right-wing culture war side.
Why?
Hey man, look.
I like Dave Chappelle being offensive.
And they gave him a bad rating on Rotten Tomatoes?
That is insane.
I don't know where it's at right now.
I like Ricky Gervais.
I like edgy comedy.
I like Family Guy.
Seth MacFarlane, I love how he... You know what, man?
I think Seth MacFarlane needs to get off his high horse.
He's not the worst, you know, in terms of virtue signaling.
He's not like Mark Ruffalo or something.
But come on, man.
You're gonna come and rag on the president?
Dude, you invented half of the jokes that Trump's base likes saying.
So, calm down a little bit.
But let's get to the point where she talks about, I don't know, whatever this stupid council thing is.
She says, this mess is, oh, she actually brings up Alex Jones.
I'm not getting into that.
This mess is perhaps the high tide of that endless spew of toxic bile, because it is being relentlessly amped by the leader of the free world.
Tweeting misinformation is not new for Mr. Trump, who uses the service as his political cudgel to govern, campaign, wage petty digital wars, and more recently, peddle dangerous medical advice about COVID-19.
Says who?
Says you?
I find it hilarious that two non-scientists argue over what is or isn't safe.
Sorry.
Pass.
There have been some studies saying it's not safe.
There have been some studies saying it is safe.
I mean, look, let's be honest.
Hydroxychloroquine, just as an aside, has been around for decades, okay?
We know what the risks and the problems are.
Pass.
Come on.
At least Mr. Trump is consistent in his lowering of the bar.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
She goes, let's get to the real issue here.
The real issue is the very serious collateral damage of this fight, which is the post-mortem libel of Ms.
Klausutis and the ensuing suffering of her husband and family.
They are the victims of Mr. Trump and of Twitter's inability to manage its troubled relationship with him.
The company tends to be hands-off when a Trump controversy erupts relying on a tenant, that he is a public figure, and also that it cannot sort out what is truth and a lie, and is therefore better off letting its community argue it out.
While that might work when it comes to some issues, it has broken down here.
No it hasn't!
You're just a Karen who wants Trump bad because you're like, that was mean, Trump!
You tweet mean things, Kara Swisher, I would like you banned, because in my perspective, you've crossed the line.
And guess what?
I got a ton of people who agree with me, so should we ban you?
No.
You don't like the president?
That's too bad.
I don't like his tweets either.
Too bad.
What am I gonna do about it?
Welcome to being an adult.
There's no authority figure that's gonna come down and take care of all of your problems for you.
Grow up and learn how to solve your own issues.
And that means sometimes people say mean things and you can't do anything about it.
I present to you... Okay, okay, hold on.
I gotta read you this Gordian Knot thing she brings up.
And then I wanna give you a real scenario to help you put this into perspective about these stupid Karen culture people.
How to fix it?
She said, well, I had thought of throwing Mr. Trump off Twitter.
Was not the worst idea.
Had thought throwing him off Twitter was not the worst idea.
After all, what would the president do without his raging addiction to Twitter?
Dude, he'd go on Gab.
He'd go on Mines.
And then all of a sudden, Twitter would lose substantial power.
And you know what?
Trump should.
He should have done it a long time ago.
Don Jr.
should have done it a long time ago.
Ivanka should have done it a long time ago.
Any one of these people in the Trump family could go to any other platform And make a post and it would be they would force the media to cover it.
They don't do it.
Instead, what do we get?
Send us a message through this forum.
They put up a website and it's like, have you been censored?
Let us know.
And that's it.
And then what?
And then Donald Trump, we get a story that he's considering putting together a council to review cases of social media censorship.
Yeah, it's called the First Amendment, dude.
Let me tell you something.
The First Amendment actually stops the government from creating a rule that would infringe on the speech.
That means Twitter as a company, yes, they're a private company, cannot be compelled to host speech.
It is a serious problem.
We can change things, but it actually is a First Amendment argument stopping us This is the challenge.
Now, I personally think we need to have these platforms function in some way where everyone's allowed to speak, because we can't have political discourse happening under the constraints of Jack Dorsey.
Or what Karen Swisher says.
She says that, uh, she, what is she, she bring up a council or something?
She says you can't ban him because of creative firestorm.
That I get.
She says you can also label Trump's tweets as misinformation or whatever.
We want to bring on somebody who's going to review content and have it banned, and it's going to be someone who has a conflict of interest?
Dude, you know what?
No.
Just no.
In the real world, there is no content review board to stop someone from speaking.
You people are authoritarian lunatics.
Let me now present to you a scenario I would like for you to consider.
Imagine there are no cities.
They have all been wiped out by a mysterious blast of energy.
I don't know, it came from the center of the earth, and whoosh, all the cities are gone.
And now you got a bunch of people, and you know, most of them are dead, and it's like the post-apocalypse.
So now it's everyone's devolved into hunter-gatherers again.
And here you are with your sharpened pointy stick, Walking through the woods.
And all of a sudden, somebody walks up in front of you.
And they start laughing.
And they say, you look dumb!
You're dumb!
And they start insulting the way you look.
They insult the color of your skin.
They call you, you know, a bunch of awful names.
Who are you gonna do?
Are you gonna be like, please!
Somebody!
Is there any authority above us who can tell him to stop saying this?
Sorry, you can wag your pointy stick at him.
But if he's got a pointy stick too, guess what?
Ain't nothing you can do about it.
Welcome to reality.
Now, What's your solution?
You have a council appointed where people can be like, I deem that what you said is offensive.
Off with his head.
No, we don't like that.
We like freedom.
Get it?
You don't like what other people say.
You know what happens?
These people just never learn, right?
I love it.
I think Glenn Greenwald said something like this, where it's like... I forgot the exact quote, but it was fun.
He basically said, if there was one thing that proved that the leftists had the complete inability to learn, it's that they keep advocating for censorship, and then they get censored and go, oh no, what's happened?
You know, look, she wants to get a council appointed to take down Trump's tweets.
You know what, okay, yes, you're a whiny Karen, I get it.
But think about what that means.
She only really wants this because she thinks it'll be a weapon for her to point at other people.
Why, we would put Mr. Klausutis on the panel.
Uh-huh.
What if the panel was set up by Trump?
What if that was the issue?
What if it was set up by, like, I don't know, a think tank that included libertarians, and then all of a sudden they didn't want to ban anybody, and now you're going, but the council's not working!
Yeah, because what makes you think the people in this council will have your opinion?
What she doesn't get is that the 80 million people who follow Trump follow Trump to see what he has to say.
It's that simple.
Now, I'm willing to bet a large portion of them hate Trump, but there's a lot of them who like Trump, and they like what Trump has to say.
You have a lot of followers, to be honest.
Karen Swisher has a lot of followers.
Fine, that's fine.
But she doesn't have as many as Trump.
So if you want to go up against a battle of public opinion, here's what I say we do.
Let's have a vote.
Who should be outright purged from the platform?
Karen Swisher or Donald Trump?
How about we do this?
Everybody lays out their arguments in the court of public opinion, and then we'll see who gets removed.
And I'll tell you who it would be.
It would be her because Trump has more followers than you.
Now, of course, if you got everyone else to go up against Trump, that's not the point I'm trying to make, right?
If she went to all the resistance and was like, everybody, come on, let's go for it, it would be a weird, I don't know, I don't know who would win.
Trump probably would still win, because there probably would still be a lot of leftists and journalists who would say, no, leave Trump up, and then she gets banned.
But if it came down to you saying, I think Trump must be, you know, his tweets should be removed.
And Trump saying, I think her tweets should be removed.
Who has more public support?
So let's say we put it to a vote.
Who should be on this council?
Trump's got more followers than you.
So no, don't go advocating for things you think you're going to win.
And then I'll tell you what happens.
You appoint these people to positions of supreme executive authority, and then they just get rid of you next.
Listen, I think Trump is definitely crossing the line with these tweets.
I don't like that Trump tweets these things.
Let's be honest, man.
I don't know anybody who does.
That's not true.
I know a lot of people who do.
That's completely wrong.
It's an exaggeration.
Most people I know roll their eyes at Trump's tweets.
But they at least recognize Trump has a right to do it.
And saying these things isn't against the rules.
So now you want to change the rules because you don't like that Trump is playing by the rules?
Nah, this is what they keep doing.
It's their MO.
Look at mail voting and all that other stuff.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I'll see you all then.
Proving once again that everything and everyone is stupid, we have a stupid story that doesn't matter being propped up by the New York Times of all papers, going viral with over 200,000 tweets about Central Park.
Why?
Cause some dude got into an argument with some lady over her dog?
And she deserves to have her life destroyed over this?
This is a tale of two Karens.
Okay, let me tell you.
One Karen is substantially worse than the other Karen.
But you may have seen this story going viral, everyone's talking about it, but of course, as with all things, it's a bit more nuanced.
I'll give you the gist of it, then we'll read what the New York Times has to say, because of course, the Times says, White woman calls police on black bird watcher in Central Park.
Video of the incident touched off intense discussions about the history of black people being falsely reported to the police.
Okay, yeah, that I get, but like, why is this news and why do I have to talk about it?
I'll tell you why!
It is a slow news day.
See, we're all recovering from that three-day weekend, Memorial Day, everybody at the beach.
And so come this morning, everybody's hungover, nobody wants to work.
So this is the news that we get.
Unfortunately, it means that some people have their lives destroyed.
Let me give you just the story, and then we'll read how the news writes it.
This dude's walking through the park.
He happens to be a birdwatcher.
He happens to be black.
I think he's actually like an Ivy League graduate.
He sees a woman with a dog not on a leash.
And this is where he goes into full-on Karen mode, but he's only like Karen level 1.
He's like, why ain't your dog on a leash?
And she's like, because he needs exercise.
And then he's all like, take the dog somewhere else.
And she's like, I can't, it's dangerous.
Then he tries to coax her dog away from her with treats and she freaks out.
Then he starts, she's like, get away from my dog.
He starts filming her.
And then she calls the police on camera and says that she's going to call the police and tell them an African American man is threatening her.
Out of line.
Definitely out of line.
It's kind of creepy the way she said it, too, because it really does seem like she was trying to scare him over, like, actual racism.
I'll tell you what.
So we got two Karens, man.
Somebody wants to come and give you the best about your dog.
Don't call the police.
What's wrong with you?
But seriously, bro, I get it.
You're a bird watcher, and she's supposed to have her dog on a leash, but come on, man.
If she gives you the business, just be like, I'm gonna go tell them you're not putting your dog on a leash.
That's all you gotta do, right?
And for some reason, this has now become a national trend.
But it gets really messed up.
The lady's been put on administrative leave, and it's like, come on, dude.
Listen, man, I get it.
You know, you see these incidents and you're like, these people are bad, this woman's bad, she should be fired, whatever.
No, no, no, no, no.
Hold on, man.
You don't destroy someone's life over a 20-second argument in a park.
Now, I get it.
She said some dumb stuff.
It's kind of gross if you were to ask me, but are we really going to destroy her life?
She adopted this dog two years ago.
The shelter took it back.
She had to surrender the dog back.
That is messed up, dude.
Could you imagine having a dog for two years that you rescued?
This video comes out, and I'll tell you what.
She's roughing the dog up a little bit.
Because apparently she's getting into an argument with a guy.
Not acceptable, man.
You can't take it out on your dog.
But it's not like she was beating the dog or anything.
All right, let's read this and see how they put their nice little social justice spin on this.
The New York Times reports, the encounter appears to have begun as one of those banal and brusque dust-ups between two New Yorkers.
A black man, an avid birder, said he had asked a white woman to unleash her dog in Central Park.
She refused.
Then the encounter.
Which was recorded on video, took an ugly turn.
As the man, Christian Cooper, filmed on his phone, the woman clutching her thrashing dog calls the police, her voice rising in hysteria.
She says, I'm going to tell them there's an African-American man threatening my life, she says to him while dialing.
Then repeats to the operator that he's African-American.
And let's be honest, this lady is like, you know what, man?
You deserve to be dragged and insulted.
I don't think we should destroy her life, but she's like hysterical on the phone going, I need some help!
This man is threatening my life!
Let me just tell you, both of the people in the story are Karens.
The dude who yelled her out the dog leash is a low-tier Karen, and this lady is like a high-tier Karen, calling the cops hysterically, like, what do I do?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, shut up.
The video posted to Twitter on Memorial Day has been viewed more than 20 million times, proving that we are truly a lost cause.
Touching off intense discussions about the history of the police being falsely called on black people, sometimes putting their lives in danger.
Let me tell you a story, man.
It's a messed up story.
Because I can sympathize and I can empathize with this stuff.
There was a young black man.
He was in a car accident.
Look this one up.
Look up the story and then you might have to fact check, man.
I don't have it pulled up.
He got in a car accident.
He's injured and he's bleeding.
He's hurt.
He needs help.
He runs to a house, knocks on the door because he needs help.
The people inside get scared.
There's a strange black man on their porch, so they call the police.
When the police show up, he's on the porch injured and seeking aid, and he turns and starts running to the cops.
They freak out.
Some cop draws his gun, kills the guy.
Yeah, that stuff happens, man.
That's messed up.
The challenge with this discussion is knowing the statistics.
For, you know, disproportionate, like, if the police are disproportionately affecting people of certain race.
And you've got activists who are adamant they know all the answers.
And you've got people who doubt on the other side.
But I'll tell you what, I approach all of these stories from an individual perspective.
Because if you do it that way, you would actually solve the problem.
I'll put it this way.
As someone who's covered a ton of these Black Lives Matter protests and rallies, if you have, you know, 10 instances where the cops killed somebody and that was a wrongful death, treat them all the same.
And if it is true that they disproportionately target young black men, then you will disproportionately help, you know, stop these cases, right?
Just make it an issue of the cops not being able to do it, period.
But when you make it all about one race, you drum up controversy and conflict that I don't think needs to be there.
But I guess to be fair, I think you absolutely can point out race in certain circumstances, for sure.
You just gotta make sure you do it tactfully.
And I think a lot of people don't.
You end up with this rage from a lot of people when it comes to issues of protest and racial justice, where they start screaming and insulting white people.
And then instead of actually solving the problem, you generate more animosity, which results in more scared cops hurting innocent people.
Let's read some more of this story.
20 million times, you kidding me?
Melody Cooper, apparently is related to the guy.
Says, oh, when Karens take a walk with their dogs off leash in the famous Bramble in New York Central Park, where it's clearly posted on signs that dogs must be leashed at all times.
I'm sorry, Melody, you're being a Karen right now.
And someone like my brother, an avid birder, politely asks her to put her dog on a leash.
Don't get me wrong, I think this lady was way out of line, but are you seriously gonna pull out your camera and film some lady because she's walking her dog?
Like, dude, I get it, the sign says no dogs, like dogs gotta be on a leash.
Alright, whatever, man.
Choose your battles.
I have no respect for this guy either.
Shortly after the video was posted by the man's sister on Monday, someone who said they had been the white woman's dog walker identified her.
The woman's name, Amy Cooper, soon began trending on Twitter.
By evening, Ms.
Cooper was placed on leave by her employer, Franklin Templeton, while the incident was being investigated.
Heads Insurance Portfolio Management at Franklin Templeton.
So Franklin Templeton, her job says in response to an incident involving an employee on May 25th,
Franklin Templeton issued the following statement. We take these matters very seriously,
and we do not condone racism of any kind. While we are in the process of investigating the situation,
the employee involved has been put on administrative leave.
Internet sleuths digging into Miss Cooper's life found an Instagram profile of her cocker spaniel
mix and began sharing old photos documenting injuries the dog had suffered.
Wow, so maybe she was abusing the dog, huh?
By nightfall, she had surrendered the dog, Henry, to the group she had adopted him from two years prior, according to a Facebook post by the group, Abandoned Angels Cocker Spaniel Rescue.
The police said they had responded to a report of an assault at about 8 10 a.m
Upon arrival police determined two individuals had engaged in a verbal dispute
A spokesman spokesman for the new york time new york police department said no summons were issued and there was no
arrest made All right. You know what man?
I draw the line, uh at actual physical violence, you know what I mean?
Like if she was beating that dog or whatever, you can see her in the video, she's like pulling the dog by the collar and the dog's resisting.
She should not have that dog if that's the case.
But I think that's fair to call out.
If the dude was calling her out for that, and that was what initiated the conflict, it'd be a different circumstance.
It's not, but I do think it's absolutely good to call her out, help this dog out for sure.
On Facebook, Mr. Cooper, who works in communications, according to his LinkedIn profile, posted his version of the exchange, which he said began when he asked her to leash the dog in the bramble, the semi-wild section of Central Park.
She refused.
And now, now I want to stop.
I do want to mention, he basically tells a side of the story, and the New York Times is very favorable, but I think when you look at the story, it's just, there's a, there's a, okay, all right, let's, let's, let's do this.
What is it?
Ms.
Cooper apologized according to NBC.
Mr. Cooper said he would accept the apology only if it was genuine, and she plans on keeping her dog on a leash moving forward.
That brings me to CNN.
A white woman has apologized after calling police on a black man and saying, there's an African man threatening my life.
Take a look at this.
Here's the Facebook post that went viral.
Now here's the exchange by the man's own admission.
Central Park this morning.
This woman's dog is tearing through the plantings in the ramble.
Me.
Ma'am, dogs in the ramble have to be on a leash at all times.
I pull out the dog treats I carry for just such intransigence.
I didn't even get a chance to toss any treats to the pooch before Karen scrambled to grab the dog.
Don't you touch my dog.
That's when I started video recording with my iPhone.
And when her inner Karen fully emerged and took a dark turn.
Bro, you're pretty Karen on this one.
Why are you carrying dog treats and trying to coax other people's dogs away?
So in the video, you can see her wrestling with the dog, but I'll tell you what, man.
I gotta say, if somebody's dangling treats to try and trick, like, get your dog to run away from you, and they're resisting because they want the treats, I mean, you gotta hold the dog down.
Now, she definitely crosses the line calling the cops.
That's stupid.
But now it's kind of like, I don't know, man.
Let me ask, like, what are you supposed to do?
Let's say you're in the park.
Yeah, I get it.
Her dog's supposed to be on a leash, man.
For real.
But let's say someone tries pulling out treats to lure your dog away.
I mean, what do you do?
Now, she definitely should not have been hysterically, you know, screaming that, you know, an African-American man, uh, American man was threatening her life.
But, I mean, all, all I can really say about this story is, it shouldn't be news.
I shouldn't be talking about it.
But you know what?
It's, uh, it's, you know, we're coming off Memorial Day weekend, and this is what you get.
I can't imagine what life will be like after the 2020 election.
I, you know, if Trump wins, it'll be nothing but Orange Man bad again for another four years.
And maybe that'll be it.
Maybe I'll quit and just, I'm done.
I'm over it, right?
I'd like to actually talk about things that matter.
And we don't actually, we certainly don't get that.
There's another story that I do want to talk about, though, in this point of people just desperately needing drama.
And that could explain the Orange Man bad narrative.
It's not even really about Trump.
It's about the need to just have conflict.
Both of these people are Karens.
One's obviously worse.
Why is this a viral trend?
Because people gotta be mad about something, I guess.
Can't people just learn to be happy?
You know what I mean?
Just like, you go outside and, you know, read a book in the hammock and look at the birds or something?
I mean, that sounds like it'd be nice, calm down, relax.
Nah, people won't be mad.
There was a viral video just last week, it's similar, where these FedEx drivers are yelling at some dude who's filming them.
And apparently this ends up like, it goes viral, People are claiming it's racist or something, and I'm like, dude, whenever I see videos like this, I don't know what's happening, man.
We heard this guy's side of the story.
What if he did really threaten this woman?
You know, I don't know, because you don't know what happened.
I think based on what we see from this, it's probably not the case.
This dude's a bird watcher, and he's, you know, he's easy.
You can't do this with your dog.
I can actually respect a little bit why the dude was mad about it, because you're a bird watcher, so you're coming there to watch the birds and there's a dog off a leash.
That could actually impact what you are trying to do.
So I get it a little bit, I'll be fair.
But you get this video with the FedEx guys.
Apparently the FedEx drivers, it was two black men, pulling up to a white guy's house, and the white guy says they drove on his lawn.
And all of a sudden it becomes this issue of racial justice and stuff, and it's like, Why, dude?
Why?
People get into fights all the time.
Are we really going to turn every single fight into some stupid online viral video?
That is how insanely desperate people are for anything to be angry about.
Bro, I don't care.
So these FedEx guys pull up on this guy's lawn.
He apparently gets tired of it because they keep doing it.
He comes out.
He starts yelling at him.
And then I think the police determined he actually instigated.
You can argue they did by driving on his lawn.
I mean, that's make a lot of people angry.
I mean, I'd be pretty angry if he drove on my lawn.
So the guy comes out, starts yelling at him.
And then it's two dudes.
The driver gets out, and he's yelling at him.
And then he's like, I thought you said you were gonna whoop my A, you know?
And then the other guy who's filming is like, I'm filming you.
He's like, I'm filming you.
And then all of a sudden, this goes online.
Becomes an issue of racial justice.
These two guys, the FedEx drivers, end up getting fired.
After they get fired, they post the video, and then launch a GoFundMe and raise $84,000.
You know what, man?
Everything is broken.
I don't know if we're going to develop some kind of resilience to this, and in the future, stop caring about people getting into fights.
But man, I can only imagine the things I've been involved in with like, I got a cheeseburger made wrong once, and someone said naughty words to me.
If only I had a cell phone camera, huh?
I could make $80,000.
Everything has to be about, I guess, race.
And this says to me, man, you know, when you see stories like this and you see stories like the FedEx one, bro, I don't think we can actually solve the problem of racism if this is the case.
You know why?
Because even when a story like the FedEx one clearly has nothing to do with race, it's just two people fighting each other.
Everyone online WANTS it to be race.
So then, how are you supposed to actually solve the problem and learn to live together peacefully if people are literally trying to latch onto ANYTHING and make it a racial justice issue?
Like, this story, too.
I get it, the lady said, you know, she called the police and said that stupid thing.
And that's stupid.
So you could, like, in this instance, I think it's fair to argue there is a racial component to that.
Like, let's be real, like, telling someone who's black, I'm gonna tell the cops that an African-American man, it's like, what?
Why would you tell him that?
Like, I understand you can call the cops and describe the person you're in an argument with.
That's stupid regardless.
Stop calling the cops.
Grow up and learn to deal with your problems.
It's New York.
What do you expect?
Central Park.
These people just don't know how to deal with their own problems.
But when you get the story of the FedEx people, and there's a bunch of other videos like this, like Covington is the perfect example of where everyone was adamantly just demanding this confrontation be about race.
Think about what that means moving forward.
We have the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.
Now we have just people being mean to each other, and even when there's no racial component to it, people make sure it is.
So what?
No matter what we do to actually end racism, everyone will ALWAYS bring up race?
Tends to be the social justice types.
The one way that I described it on the IRL podcast the other night is the pendulum swinging the other way.
And I'm like, maybe, here's the view, it's like, the pendulum swings to, you know, to one side, and you have a bunch of racists saying, you know, that they don't like certain groups.
Then it comes to the middle where it's like, be free and do what you want, and then swings to the social justice side where it's, now it's like, we have to help all of these poor minorities because, you know, we're privileged and they're poor.
And I wonder now if it's actually just the pendulum on both sides is not racist and racist.
And we swing back and forth, it doesn't matter what kind of racism it is, it's just racism.
So now we're in a world where... Actually, let me phrase it this way.
When I was younger and growing up, my family experienced racism.
Because most of you know, for a while it was a meme, that I come from a mixed-race family.
My mom is Korean and, you know, a little bit Japanese.
And my dad is white.
We're a bunch of little kids who clearly, you know, I guess when we were younger, you know, you look at us
And you're like, hey, wait a minute man. That family isn't just a white family. So we had vandalism on our house
We had like white supremacy stuff littered on our porch People had broken into our garage and stuff and you know,
you know what these things happen Someone threw a brick through our window people don't like
it People are racist.
And for a period when I was growing up, it started to feel like things were improving.
You know, my group of friends were all, like, a bunch of different races, and I'm like... It felt great that I could say that the racists lost.
And I was like, now I can just kind of be myself.
It's funny, I was watching that movie, That Thing You Do.
I don't know if you're familiar with it.
It's about, you know, a one-hit wonder band.
1996, it came out.
The movie takes place in 1964.
And I'm watching it, and I think it's 1964.
And I think it's funny because when we look back at all these movies, it's like, everything was great and everyone's smiling and all happy, and I'm like, man, like, you couldn't even, I'm pretty sure you couldn't even have interracial, like, there was no, like, interracial marriage was illegal in a lot of places back then.
And, like, that was the year they enacted the Civil Rights Act.
And so it's like, you watch this movie and everyone's dancing and singing this song, and I'm like, man, there's a lot of stuff, you just don't know about it.
So for me now, growing up in this world, I feel like we've finally done Well, and I'm like, we're finally coming to this cosmopolitan new reality where we can all hold hands under the rainbows and sing, and then guess what happens?
First of all, I understand a lot of these problems have never gone away.
I fully understand, as someone who's experienced issues and dealt with this kind of stuff, that there are real issues of racism from racists.
I don't think this is one of them.
I don't think this woman got into a fight with a guy because of the race or anything like that.
I don't think that if it was a white guy who yelled at her, she would have done anything different, other than say the words African American, which I admit, she crossed the line doing.
But for a while it felt like everything was improving, and you still had the old racists, but at least we were going to have an opportunity to just be people and respect one another.
And then the SJWs emerged.
And I remember going to Occupy Wall Street and seeing everything just become about race.
So I find it funny when people say things to me like, you've changed, Tim.
It's like, bro, during Occupy Wall Street, I was constantly ragging on the fact that they were giving voting privileges over money to people based on their race instead of the work they were doing to help.
It's not a way to solve anything.
But they think so.
And now we live in this world where, we just posted a segment, go to youtube.com slash TimCastIRL for the new podcast show.
We did a segment, I'm talking about a friend of mine who just, she's become an overt racist.
Like a racist, bigot, sexist, and I'm like, openly breaking the law too, like violating employment laws and stuff.
And I'm like, what's happened to these people where they now, all of a sudden, They used to be in favor of not discriminating.
It was like discrimination is wrong.
And now they've gone so far off the other side, they're openly breaking the law by discriminating against people in terms of who they hire and how they hire.
So here's my final point on this stuff.
First and foremost, I will never stop ragging on the fact that this is just, it's so dumb that this becomes news, you know what I mean?
But considering the racial justice component of it, my main thought seeing this was like, are we condemned to always have racism?
Is there not, because nothing, there will never be a moment where two people of two different races can interact where someone won't accuse someone of racism.
Seems like that's the case, man.
I guess I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be coming up at TimCast.net.
Check it out.
It is my main YouTube channel.
Again, TimCast.net.
Maybe you haven't seen it, and I'll see you all there at 4 p.m.
Oh, it's an accident!
It was all a big mistake!
YouTube was deleting comments, they probably still are, that make fun of the Chinese Communist Party, and it was just a big mistake!
Everybody calm down.
YouTube wasn't protecting the Chinese Communist Party.
Huh.
Pretty weird, right?
YouTube is deleting comments with two phrases that insult China's Communist Party.
These Chinese language phrases are removed within seconds, and YouTube confirmed it.
You get the joke.
They were trying to argue that it was a big mistake.
Let's read this, and then let's talk about China.
Now, this is sort of an addendum to the segment I did earlier today, because I did mention this, but now we'll dive in.
YouTube is automatically deleting comments that contain certain Chinese language phrases related to criticism of the country's ruling Communist Party, CCP.
The company confirmed to The Verge this was happening in error and that it was looking into the issue.
I am not going to advocate for people taking these symbols and posting them anywhere.
That is not the point of this.
This appears to be an error in our enforcement systems and we are investigating, said a YouTube spokesperson.
The company did not elaborate on how or why this error came to be, but said it was not the result of any change in its moderation policy.
But if the deletions are the result of a simple mistake, then it's one that's gone unnoticed for six months.
The Verge found evidence that the comments were being deleted as early as October 2019, when the issue was raised on YouTube's official help pages, and multiple users confirmed they'd experienced the same problem.
Comments left under videos or in live streams that contain the words Communist Bandit or 50 Cent Party are automatically deleted in about 15 seconds, though their English language translations and romanized pinyin equivalents are not.
The term, okay, first of all, I can't read this, it just shows me the two symbols.
The term, whatever, is an insult that dates back to China's nationalist government.
While this phrase, in Chinese, or Wu Mao, I guess, is a derogatory slang term for internet users paid to direct online discussion away from criticism of the CCP.
The name comes from claims that such commenters are paid 50 Chinese cents per post.
These phrases seem to have been accidentally added to YouTube's comment filters.
Why do they keep saying it's an accident?
And why am I supposed to believe it's an accident?
We all remember that Google was working on a project with China.
Maybe that's when it got added in.
Maybe somebody working for Google is loyal to the Chinese Communist Party.
That wouldn't surprise me.
Maybe they added it in.
Let's see, they say, these phrases seem to have been accidentally edited.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Which, uh, into its filters, which automatically removes spam and offensive text.
The comments are removed too quickly for human moderation and are deleted even if the banned phrases are used positively.
E.g., the blank are doing a fantastic job.
YouTube says it's been relying more on its automated filters in recent months due to changes to its workforce brought about by the pandemic.
The accidental censorship is even more puzzling considering that YouTube is currently blocked in China.
Giving its parent company Google even less reason to censor comments critical of the CCP or apply moderation systems in accordance with Chinese censorship laws.
Look man, Mike Pompeo said that the Chinese have infiltrated the United States.
We've seen a ton of people who are associated with various universities giving away information, being in on the take, getting paid by China.
It would not be surprising to me, especially considering, you know, YouTube's past work.
Like, they've done, like, big jobs and have tried to please China.
It wouldn't be surprising to me at all if there are people within Google who are sympathetic to China and would absolutely put these in on purpose.
How do you accidentally add two specific phrases criticizing the Communist Party in your filter program?
Sorry, doesn't sound like an accident.
They say the automatic deletion of these phrases was highlighted on Tuesday by U.S.
technologist and former Oculus founder Palmer Luckey on Twitter.
But early reports of the issue date back to the middle of May, when they were spotted by human rights activist Jennifer Zhang.
As mentioned above, though, The Verge also found complaints on YouTube's official help pages dated to October 2019.
I'm pretty sure Jennifer Zhang, too, had her YouTube channel, like, removed from the partner program.
I could be wrong about that.
She tweeted, Google has frequently been criticized for accommodating the wishes of the CCP by censoring content.
communist bandit.
In 15 seconds, this person tested three times, same results.
And then it looks like she posts the same thing in Chinese.
Google has frequently been criticized for accommodating the wishes of the CCP by censoring
content.
Most notably, it created a prototype search engine known as Project Dragonfly that complied
with Chinese state censorship.
The project, which was never deployed, is part of the company's long-running struggles
to enter the Chinese market.
Listen, if Google is going to be working on projects, publicly or privately, to help China in their censorship efforts, of course they're going to do things negative to us in their pursuit of expanded profits.
And as China becomes a larger and larger market and gains more power internationally, many of these companies are bending over backwards to defend the Chinese Communist Party.
So please spare us and stop insulting our intelligence when you claim it was just a big mistake.
It was an accident.
We didn't really mean to defend the Chinese Communist Party, much like the NBA and other video game companies have already done.
We get it, man.
You want that sweet, sweet money.
That sweet, sweet squilla coming from this other country.
Well, in this country, we have rights.
Now, fortunately for us, we're not at that point.
Where YouTube's gonna be like, shut up and take it.
But how long until we are?
With these progressive activists, many of whom are communists, let's be real, arguing for censorship, it's only a matter of time before YouTube just says, yeah, it's a new rule, you can't make fun of governments.
Or they'll argue, well, this phrase is targeting a national origin, because it specifically refers to the government.
Hey man, it's only a matter of time.
They say, when news of Dragonfly leaked in 2018, in a report from The Intercept, Google was criticized by politicians and its own employees for selling out its principles.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in June 2019, the company said it had terminated the project and that it had no plans to launch Search in China.
Here's an update.
They say it was updated with a response from YouTube.
So originally, this story didn't mention that YouTube confirmed it.
They said people had noticed these things.
But then the Verge apparently got a statement, and Ben Smith of the New York Times did as well.
He said that Farshad Shadloo, a spokesman for YouTube, Okay, okay.
You know what?
It appears to be an error in our enforcement systems and we are investigating.
Users can report suspected issues."
Okay, okay, you know what?
To be fair, I guess technically you can call it an error because it can be user input error
because someone sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party shouldn't have put those words
in the filter to have them removed.
But then questions come up of... Listen.
You're never gonna convince me someone accidentally was like, oops, I accidentally added these anti-Chinese Communist Party phrases into YouTube.
Nah, it was done on purpose.
That's my assumption.
Somebody did it on purpose.
Okay, assuming that's the case, maybe it isn't.
Is Google gonna do anything to try and weed out those that are doing this?
I doubt it, and it's only gonna get worse.
But maybe it will get, I don't know, worse in a different way.
Check out the story from Newsweek. China is stepping up its preparedness for armed combat.
We'll spend 178 billion on its military this year. News that we were actually waiting for,
because there's been an ongoing crisis.
Well, I shouldn't say crisis, but yes, when you've had many people arrested at various universities for working for China and lying about it, taking U.S.
grant money, doing research, and then giving that information or giving away any information to China.
We've got a serious problem.
But then you can see what's happening in the South China Sea with Taiwan, with, you know, China now wants to send aircraft carriers.
They don't have very powerful ones, but they're doing these strike group missions.
A lot of people think that they're either saber-rattling by doing these, like, beach incursion training missions, dumping more money into their armed forces, and then sending these boats.
It's either saber-rattling, like, look, we can do this, you know, we can take what we want, or They're actually preparing to take Taiwan.
We see what they're doing in Hong Kong, okay?
They're sweeping in, taking what they want.
They're gonna crush Hong Kong, they're gonna seize it, and put it under direct Chinese rule.
And maybe after that, then it's Taiwan.
China wants to claim this territory.
They're pressing in the South China Sea, they claim they own it, they don't, and they're building military bases on the atolls in this area.
They're creating artificial islands and putting up military bases.
The U.S.
has responded with military ships, I think, man, I think not only are there Chinese interests infiltrating the U.S.
and it's very obvious.
I mean, they're buying a property like crazy.
I think they're in Google.
I think they're in Facebook and many other countries.
It's called spies.
This is what they do.
They've been around for a long time.
It's funny to me.
Let me wrap up that thought.
I think we're also getting close to a physical confrontation.
It's what we're seeing.
One of the things that I find really funny is these people who believe in these conspiracy theories about, like, the globalists or whatever, and I'm like, yeah, maybe, I guess, you know, there are a lot of people who have global interests and want to make money, so they'll, you know, bend over for China.
Like, why is the US engaging in these deals that are really bad for it?
It's not because of the globalists, it's because people are selling out to China.
I don't think, it's like, it's, I think it's silly to act like there's this big cabal of, you know, demon lizard people, or, let's just be real, okay?
I don't want to be too overly hyperbolic.
But like the Bilderberg Group or whatever, it's like, I'm sure many of these people have global financial interests, so yes, they advocate for these things.
But if you want to figure out why all these bad things are happening, it's because we've got an adversary.
It's called China.
They infiltrate our companies, they infiltrate our universities, they're pressing in the South China Sea, and they're destabilizing the region, they're causing problems, they think they're owed these things, and it creates a crisis.
I'm sure they have their own point of view, but come on, man.
Chinese communism versus American...
Well, whatever you want to call it.
Constitutional republic with liberal democratic institutions.
We'll call it that.
I'm not inclined to believe that China is being forthright about what's really going on.
No, I think they're aggressively pushing, expanding, and that's the reason why we're seeing what we're seeing.
So drop the conspiracies, because it's right in front of your face, bro.
There's no secret underhanded plot from various factions and families.
It's just literally, we're about to, we're on the brink of war.
Thucydides' trap is real, bro.
China is a rising power.
They're challenging us.
Why do you think Google censoring these things?
Because they're infiltrating various institutions.
It's that simple.
Or maybe that's not simple.
Maybe it's complicated.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Now this was obviously coming at some point.
Many people have tried to cancel certain individuals.
Megyn Kelly loses her job for asking a question about blackface.
And then everyone brings up Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel and Robert Downey Jr.
And Robert Downey Jr.
gets a pass because when he did blackface, technically, In Tropic Thunder, it was intended to poke fun at the idea of blackface, so he's actually making fun of it.
So it's, you know, I guess they gave him a pass.
I guess people like Robert Downey Jr.
because he's Iron Man or whatever, but Jimmy Fallon is over party, trending nationwide.
It was only a matter of time.
Everybody knew he had these ridiculously offensive jokes, and it would come for him.
And you know what, man?
I don't care about your jokes.
I think they were done in poor taste.
I don't think they were really that funny to begin with, but I don't care.
It's whatever, man.
I got a different... I laugh at certain things.
I think Trump is funny.
I think this over the top.
Whatever.
Now he's gonna get... Well, actually, I don't know if anything's gonna happen.
He's probably gonna come out and do some stupid thing where he's like, I'm really sorry about what I did in the past.
There were different times.
I was insensitive.
And then they'll move on, right?
Well, let's see what's happening.
The New York Post says, why Jimmy Fallon is over party is trending.
Jimmy Fallon did blackface in 2000.
They say Fallon is catching heat on social media over a resurfaced year 2000 Saturday Night Live sketch featuring the former cast member in blackface.
The 45-year-old host of The Tonight Show went viral on Twitter overnight following a tweet with the hashtag JimmyFallonIsOverParty and a 20-year-old SNL clip featuring Daryl Hammond and Fallon face-painted brown doing an impersonation of Chris Rock.
The vintage skit posted by Chef Boyodeer is captioned with the sentence, Now that, I gotta admit, is a really, really good point.
But I don't think Jimmy Fallon should be fired over this.
Megyn Kelly shouldn't have been fired over it in the first place.
But this is really what we're doing, I guess.
Can I just point out the sheer absurdity of how a news cycle is started by Chef Boyardeere?
Wow!
Who could have predicted this?
When the great institution of the printing press was created, I'm sure our ancestors, going back hundreds of years, were thinking of the glorious Chef Boyardeere calling out a major news corporation for double standards.
Chef Boyardeere, you know.
Man, who knows what they would have predicted?
I have no idea.
The ensuing lament over the beloved broadcaster's now tarnished reputation was swift.
I know I did not just open Twitter and see that Jimmy Fallon did blackface in 2000.
Nobody is safe from Twitter when we got this much time on our hands.
First Lena, then Doja Cat, and now Jimmy Fallon.
Please let me catch my breath.
Jimmy Fallon is over party.
Set a bewildered Rat Gang 48.
These are the kind of conversations we should be having.
Today in the news, Chef Boyo Deer posted an image in which Rat Gang 48 got upset.
Really?
And they have a video of a rat running around a train in New York.
I don't care.
Okay, I don't care about the stupidity of Twitter users who pop up things and become newsworthy for whatever reason.
I love, though... Okay, listen, listen.
We're entering a reality where everyone's opinion matters.
Wow!
What will that do to our brains?
It didn't used to be that way.
You know, the opinions that mattered were those of wealthy individuals, influential people.
Now it's like, bro, go on Twitter, make Rat Gang 48, tweet about Jimmy Fallon, and boom, you're in the news.
Congratulations.
Representatives for Fallon did not immediately respond to the post's request for comment.
Look at this picture of him.
It's such a stupid thing.
Humans are dumb, man.
Alas, the trending Twitter topic provided a moment to redrag every other celeb who has worn blackface or engaged in racial epithets.
So Jimmy Fallon is cancelled.
For this, but Justin Trudeau does it dozens of times throughout his youth, and is still re-elected as PM?
I don't understand this planet, because it's fake!
None of it is real!
No one really cares, they're bored!
So, light up Jimmy Fallon and ignore everything else.
Come on, man.
Oh, and this came from Kiri Hugsloth.
Yeah, but that was specifically to mock actors doing this, right?
wrote Nova Mare beside a gif of Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder, where he played a white
actor who had been cast to play a black Vietnam soldier in an ill-fated period flick.
Yeah, but that was specifically to mock actors doing this, right?
Unfortunately, this gets mentioned, tweeted about once a year without a peep of an apology from Jimmy Fallon.
Tweeted, the Chelsea girl.
Along with a link to a 2019 Jezebel article calling out Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, and Sarah Silverman over their own long past transgressions.
Kimmel and Silverman, for their parts, responded to the controversies at the time of their resurfacing.
Not only that, dude, Sarah Silverman, I'm pretty sure she lost a, like, movie gig over this.
And she was freaking out.
I'll tell you what, man.
You want to sit back and screech Orange Man Bad and prop up cancel- I'm sorry, Karen culture?
Then sure.
You know, this is what's going to happen to you.
Maybe you should have been paying attention all along.
One of the reasons that people supported Trump is because he resisted political correctness.
When he was challenged by Megyn Kelly herself over the things he said about women, he said, only Rosie O'Donnell or whatever it was.
Calling- Something about calling women fat pigs or whatever.
And he's like, only Rosie O'Donnell.
Everybody laughed!
It was him straight up, and then he goes, this country is too politically correct.
Excuse me, it's, this country has a problem with political correctness.
And people said, you are right.
They liked George Carlin, they liked Jon Stewart, Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan, Ricky Gervais.
Look at all these people making all this mad cash.
Joe Rogan especially, and he calls this stuff out.
We understand what jokes are, man, calm down.
You know?
And now we end up with, like, I'm sorry, I have to apologize to all of you that I'm actually reading a story about a bunch of random Twitter users' opinions.
Now look, I get it.
Everybody has their opinions.
And I can respect everybody's opinions, but why do we just grab a handful of random people off Twitter and act like this is news?
Is Jimmy Fallon, is he gonna quit?
Is he gonna cry?
I doubt it.
I do think it's relevant that it's become, you know, that it is culturally relevant.
People are talking about it.
It's worth pointing out.
But I think it's even more worth talking about that these things happen.
It's like Twitter is this world where you've got hundreds of millions of people, and if you find a large enough gathering of any group, all of a sudden it's relevant.
No, I'm sorry, it shouldn't work that way.
If you have 100,000 people and 50 of them start screeching Jimmy Fallon, and that's the biggest faction screeching about any one topic, it doesn't mean it's newsworthy.
Just ignore it.
Now, if 100,000 people and 2,000, 3,000 are talking, it's like, okay, why is this group angry?
They go on to say this.
Some initial reactions were exasperation over so-called cancel culture.
Definitely!
Call it Karen culture.
That's what I call it.
Y'all whack.
How long ago was this?
Was this SNL?
No one can be famous anymore because we've all done something the society of 20 years from now doesn't like.
Can we stop trying to cancel people on their past and focus on the present?
And that's from Nancy Loves MJ.
Okay, great.
Great Twitter account.
Well, Fallon shouldn't have did what he did, but hey guys, why not cancel Loren Michaels?
He approved the sketch too.
LM has a problem giving POC and WOC a seat at the Saturday SNL table.
Has a problem giving them a seat at the table for the last 50 years?
Yeah, welcome to the reality.
And of course, you can always expect BuzzFeed to, instead of actually writing anything, they do what they do best.
They pull the Twitter accounts, and they just line everything up.
First of all, I do think it's fair to say there's a double standard.
So yes, I would like to talk about this story in that regard.
Jimmy Fallon did this.
Nobody cared.
Megyn Kelly asked why it was offensive, and they fired her.
So that's a really good point to bring up.
And now here we are.
People are ragging on Jimmy Fallon over this.
Sarah Silverman lost her job, lost a movie job over this.
So you know what?
You want to be offensive, you want to make jokes, I honestly don't care.
But if you want to be offensive and make jokes while simultaneously defending what this culture is, then why should I defend you and feel sorry for you?
Jimmy Kimmel just put out a fake clip where he dragged Mike Pence and gave like a weak half-apology.
You put out fake news dragging the vice president because you want to get stupid jokes.
You are this.
This is you.
Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel, Sarah Silverman, you are looking into a mirror.
So go cry me a river because you saw what it really looks like.
Your own face.
These are the people who have done this from the get-go.
Dragging people to get them banned, to get the internet outrage mob to chase them down, like Kimmel just did to Mike Pence.
Now, I'm not going to drag Fallon and Silverman over the fake news thing, because to be honest, I don't know a lot about if they have, and they probably have.
Sarah Silverman has done such shockingly offensive things, it's her whole shtick.
You would have thought when this started happening, she would immediately come out against it.
Nah.
It's only after she loses a job, does she realize.
So you know what?
Spare me if you're only now realizing why all of this Karen culture stuff has been a big problem for everybody.
What did you think was going to happen when these people were calling for justice?
Did you think that you were clean?
These people think that so long as they're a member of the tribe, they're safe.
And I guess it makes sense, right?
The cancel culture mob comes for you, you say, oh, I'm so sorry, I agree with you, and you hope they avoid you.
It seems like, for the most part, they go after people they deem white supremacists.
But eventually, there's no targets left.
And the piranhas get hungry.
The piranhas are gonna eat something.
And eventually, they're gonna find somebody and it's gonna be you!
When there's no one left to go after.
When they've gone after Trump 50 million times and no one cares anymore.
They gotta find a new target.
Today, it's Jimmy Fallon.
The sketch, I thought was dumb.
I'm- I do- Actually, like, I think it is very, very offensive.
I don't know if you've seen it.
He's like dragging- He's straight up dragging black people.
It's like, Wow, dude, making a lot of really offensive jokes.
And I don't care if SNL wants to run this stuff.
I don't care.
I'm sure at the time it was offensive.
It's meant to be offensive.
It's shock comedy.
Howard Stern did it.
Now Howard Stern's got a problem with Trump.
Just shut up.
All the virtue signaling, man.
It's like they go back in time and they ignore the cultural context around why the joke was being made.
For all we know, the context of this segment with Jimmy Fallon was literally to mock the idea of blackface.
I have no idea.
Like Robert Downey Jr.
So spare me these stupid stories.
And my advice to you BuzzFeed and New York Post and everybody else, don't bring... Look, the next time you're on Twitter and someone tweets something, how about you don't bring me every little piece of trash you happen to come across?
How about that?
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I'll see you all shortly.
One of the biggest stories of the day, a viral video showing a police officer kneeling on the neck of a black man who's saying, I can't breathe, And then dies.
This story is taking off.
The FBI is going to investigate.
And you always got to be really, really careful with these stories because I don't know what happened.
I'm very careful when any of these things pop up.
Ahmaud Arbery, Covington kids.
But now we got a major controversy.
And I'll tell you straight up, this man should not have lost his life.
I don't care what the reason is.
I am 100% opposed to the death penalty.
You're allowed to disagree with me.
I'm... I actually enjoy the conversation and the debates about this.
And people get really heated about it.
And that's cool.
I respect that.
And we have to have a real conversation where we explore the morality of ending someone's life.
But I think most of us can agree.
This is... This video is horrifying.
You got a man subdued.
This is why... I'll tell you why I oppose the death penalty.
You got a man subdued.
You don't need to kill them to prevent them from causing harm if you've already stopped them from causing harm.
What's shocking to me is how many people ignore this.
I want you to just imagine snuffing out someone's soul, their spirit, their consciousness.
No, I can't.
I can't imagine that.
I can't.
And I recognize there are a lot of ethical conundrums in other areas pertaining to things like pro-choice in life.
And yes, I've even...
Talk about moral conundrums.
I think that's why it's important that we talk about this stuff, to figure out what the best course of action is.
Instead of being angry and accusing people of being evil, if people really have trouble coming to a moral understanding, we gotta sit down and talk.
That's the best thing we can do.
Let's read this story.
And I'll tell you straight up, man, this on its surface, watching this video, Shocking.
Disturbing.
Disgusting.
Alright?
I don't know what happened before this, but to see a dude pinned on the ground saying, please, please, I can't breathe, not too dissimilar to the Eric Garner story in New York, it's disgusting.
100% beyond disgusting.
NBC News says, a man appearing to yell, I can't breathe, as a Minneapolis police officer pinned him to the ground and put his knee on the man's neck for about eight minutes, died Monday night, prompting the FBI and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to step in and investigate.
Video of the incident shows that a white police officer had a black man pinned to the ground next to the back tire of his patrol car with his knee on the man's neck.
I'm gonna stop you right there.
I understand why they're bringing race into this.
I get it.
I just want to point out, we're not at that point yet.
Okay?
I understand there are arguments being made about racism in this country and things like that, but for now, let's talk about the issue of liberty, justice, civil rights.
What all Americans deserve.
Okay?
You break the law, yeah, you're gonna get arrested.
But these cops shouldn't be doing this.
They should understand the risks.
Video of the incident.
Please, please, please.
I can't breathe, the man begs.
My stomach hurts.
My neck hurts.
Please, please.
I can't breathe.
Onlookers outside the Minneapolis deli urge the officer to get off the man.
You're stopping his breathing right now.
You think that's cool, one man says?
His nose is bleeding.
Look at his nose, this woman.
The officer doesn't budge.
And then the man goes silent.
More people begin to intervene and call for the officer or his partner to check for a pulse.
The officer remains on the man's neck, even as he lay apparently unresponsive, for a total of about eight minutes, before paramedics arrive and the man is placed on a stretcher.
Quote, The man looked already dead before the ambulance even got there.
He was clearly trying to tell them he couldn't breathe and they ignored him.
Darnella Frazier, one of the people who filmed the incident, told NBC News.
NBC News did not know what happened before the video recording began.
Very, very, very, very important point.
I don't either.
Apparently the man was resisting and so they subdued him, but it's tough.
It really, really is.
If this guy was resisting and fighting back and the cops were like, we have to stop him from fighting, it makes sense why they would kneel on him the way they did.
And there's probably a reasonable fear among these officers that if they get up, the dude might start fighting again or resisting.
But I'll tell you what, man, we gotta have better protocols for this.
Because what was supposed to be, apparently this guy, it was a report of forgery.
The cops pulled him out.
He resists.
That in no way should end someone's life.
Look, when it comes to death penalty stuff, there are some stuff where I'm like, I come very, very close to agreeing with a lot of people in supporting the death penalty.
But it's issues of liberty and freedom that stop me from crossing that line.
But I'll tell you what, man, you tell me a story about some dude... There's a story going viral where a guy said he saw that a child offender was in his area, an area he was moving to, He took matters into his own hands.
And I read that story, and I'm like, bro, I hear you, man.
I really, really do.
Oh, man.
Some of this stuff, you just want justice, and you want it now, and you want it fast, and you wanna feel it, you wanna see it, but you can't do it.
You gotta be careful.
First and foremost, it's always about the risk of hurting an innocent person.
This dude right here, who died.
He wasn't, well, we presume his innocence.
We do, we have to.
There was a report of forgery.
I don't know anything.
This wasn't proven in the court.
The dude died before he even got to say what happened.
That should horrify everybody.
It is one of the most egregious Fifth Amendment violations.
I mean, it's a violation of basically every single possible amendment.
I get it, I get it.
It's nothing to do with quartering soldiers in his house.
The Third Amendment, right?
But he had a right to due process.
He had a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Everyone does.
One of the things that bugs me the most about when these arguments come to issues of race is that it's deeper than that.
I understand the concerns you have and the calls for justice, but this is a fundamental violation of every American's rights, no matter what you look like, where you come from, your race, national origin, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, so on and so forth.
Notably, the right to due process.
That we can't assume this guy did anything wrong.
I don't know what he did.
I didn't see a video.
For all I know, they threw this guy to the ground, an innocent man, and killed him.
I don't know.
I'm not going to make that assumption either.
I'm not going to condemn the officers, because I don't know what happened.
I do know that a man lost his life, though.
Same thing with Ahmaud Arbery.
I want to see the evidence.
The Ahmaud Arbery case was not, you know, they claimed it was a lynching and stuff.
It's like, dude, chill.
I already know people get mad when I bring that up, but the evidence doesn't support this idea of just racists being racist.
This story doesn't necessarily either, but it does show the recklessness and, I guess, the callousness of some of these officers.
And that might be a bold assumption for me to say.
I don't know what was going through this officer's mind.
But I'll tell you what, man.
You can't... If someone can't breathe, listen.
And they should have known this because we've already been through this with Eric Garner.
Now there's... By the time you're watching this, protests have just erupted in Minneapolis.
We'll see what actually happens.
They say... A statement from the Minneapolis Police Department released early Tuesday said the officers had responded to a report of a forgery in progress and found the suspect in his car.
He stepped out of the car when he was ordered to, police said, but then physically resisted officers.
Sorry man, I don't buy it.
I'm sorry, I don't.
suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress.
Officers called for an ambulance.
He was transported to Hennepin County Medical Center by ambulance where he died a short
time later.
Sorry, man.
I don't buy it.
I'm sorry.
I don't.
I just don't.
They say that he started to resist.
How many videos have we seen?
And it's not for me.
Look, I get it.
There's a racial component.
But I've seen too many videos, regardless of race, of cops just grabbing someone, slamming him to the ground, and then leaning on him right away.
And I'll tell you what, I've personally experienced it.
I've been wrongly arrested a couple times.
Well, I'll put it this way.
I was wrongly arrested once, for sure.
And then I got arrested for skateboarding, which, to me, is a wrongful arrest.
But they tried to have some justification because they said, you know, like, you're not legally allowed to skateboard.
It was stupid.
And when I was arrested in the skateboarding instance, I'm on my knees when they're coming up to sit me down or whatever, I put my hands behind my back, they cuff me, no issue.
But when I was wrongly arrested, straight up wrongly arrested, I was thrown to the ground and the guy kneed on my head.
I didn't resist, I wasn't fighting, it was a completely false arrest.
I've personally experienced this.
And it was in a Chicago suburb.
Guy comes up to me, throws me down, I did nothing, said nothing, hands by my back, and then he lays me on the ground and puts his knee on my neck.
That's what he did.
I wasn't resisting anybody.
I did nothing.
And, you know, it's a long and complicated story that makes me really angry, but when I see this, I question why this is what they do.
And who's gonna be responsible when you don't know what happened, and through the general enforcement of a perceived crime or a concern of a crime, you end someone's life?
There's a big problem we have in this country, okay?
Many police officers, notably in like New York City, they use arrest as punishment.
They know you won't be convicted, they know you won't be prosecuted, and they know they can lock you up for days, weeks, or even months, and there's nothing you can do about it.
So we saw New York try to institute bail reform, and it became a disaster.
I actually understand the idea behind it.
I think they did it poorly.
The idea is, if you are presumed innocent, how is it that we can force you to pay money before you get your freedom back?
No, the state has to prove your guilt.
So I do respect the idea.
I like the idea, but it didn't work because they had actual criminals.
They knew were criminals that kept getting released and then going and committing more crimes.
So it's like, I don't know where the line is or how we solve this problem.
I recognize there's a serious challenge here between freedom and security, but I will never be that person to condemn someone to death or imprisonment, exile, pain, suffering, or anything, or deprivation of their life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, unless you can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt, they actually did something to warrant it.
That's the challenge with me and the death penalty, because I'll tell you this.
You tell me a story about some dude, you know, messing with kids, and I'm gonna be like, get the guillotine off with his head, right?
I'll be the first to call for it.
The problem is proving it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even in a court, we sometimes have innocent people who end up in jail and on death row, and that to me is really, really horrifying.
I want you to imagine being that person, being walked to your death knowing you never did anything wrong.
The Founding Fathers said it, and they inherited it from Blackstone's formulation.
I think it's his name.
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
And I believe it.
The Founding Fathers believed in protecting liberty above security.
Give me liberty or give me death.
You know what that means?
Means these bad people, these guilty people that escape to save that one person, might actually infringe upon the rights of other people.
And that's why I think we also have the Second Amendment, partly.
I think it's also why we had an understanding that you have some responsibility for yourself.
With freedom comes that responsibility to yourself and to others.
I want to make sure that our system doesn't become the machine that kills innocent people.
That terrifies me.
And you see a story like this, and the first thing I see when this man is begging for his life, I'm... I'm sad?
I'm angry that these people could do nothing but stand around and say, that's not cool.
They were killing this guy, dude.
And all that anyone could do was sit around and do nothing.
The problem with that anger and that sadness is that when it's unchecked, you end up with Antifa.
This just pure nonsensical rage going around demanding justice for perceived slights that don't even understand.
And that's why we must remain calm and collected.
And unfortunately, you can argue maybe it was the right thing not to intervene.
What are you going to do?
Tackle a cop or something?
You can't.
But, are you going to sit there and let someone die?
Man, we got serious problems.
We really, really do.
So, I don't know all the answers.
I really don't.
But I'll tell you this.
If you ask for my vote to end someone's life, I will tell you no.
Absolutely not.
That's why I oppose the death penalty.
It's why I'm absolutely opposed and shocked by things like this.
You want to pull that lever for the electric chair?
You want to pull that lever for the gallows?
You want to press that button for the lethal injection?
You're not going to see me doing it.
You know why?
Because you would need an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove it.
Show me a video of the guy doing it, And I might consider it.
The problem is, when we're talking about the support for the death penalty, it's not like on a case-by-case basis we get to vote as a society.
It's that we approve of it, and then the machine starts churning, and eventually an innocent person will lose their life.
I will not be party to that.
I'm sorry.
I won't be.
I hope this man gets justice.
I hope his family does.
And if it turns out that new video services showing something else happened, then I'll be glad to see it.
But if a dude's on the ground saying, please, please, please, I can't breathe, you got your knee on his neck, get your knee off his neck, bro.
Ask someone for help.
Restrain the guy if he's being physical with you.
But if someone can't breathe, you are responsible for that safety.
