S553 - Democrats Pass New Gun Control Bill, Media Launches Creepy Coordinated Propaganda On Gun Crime
Democrats Pass New Gun Control Bill, Media Launches Creepy Coordinated Propaganda On Gun Crime. The new bill, which was supported by some Republicans, would expand background checks and require private sales to have a background check effectively ending them.Its under the guise of a simple background check but would nationally prohibit people from selling to each other without going to a proper location. But the bigger story is the coordinated media campaign. A series of articles all nearly identical just swapping out location but pushing the same narrative, gun crime is skyrocketing and perhaps the solution is gun control.It may just be an A/B testing effort to target localities but the end result is the same. Crime waves sparked by defunding police are being used to justify gun control measures
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Democrats have passed a new gun control bill expanding background checks, and they had a little bit of Republican support to do it.
But the bigger story here isn't so much about them trying to pass this bill.
It may fail in the Senate.
The bigger story is this weird coordinated propaganda push.
A bunch of news outlets all wrote nearly identical articles saying that gun crime is skyrocketing.
And then going on to explain how gun control may be needed to stop this.
In reality, it seems like much of this crime may be attributed to defunding the police and the COVID lockdowns, which resulted in more crime.
Our next story.
Woke activists at Teen Vogue have accidentally cancelled themselves They were trying to apparently get their new editor-in-chief fired or heavily criticized over ten-year-old tweets.
What ended up happening is that a seven-figure advertising deal was lost because, well, they didn't like the idea that there were these offensive tweets coming from an editor-in-chief ten years ago, and these activists may actually have just cost themselves their job as their company could lose millions.
And last, I'm going to get into Tucker Carlson and his conflict with Taylor Lorenz because I think we need to rise above this.
I don't like the infighting.
I don't like the conflict.
And I think it's pointless.
I think we are all better than just squabbling over personal issues.
And if we want to take issue at what journalists do that we think is wrong, we need to focus on the institutions and the ideas and avoid the online flame wars.
Before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the show.
Give us five stars if we deserve it.
Thanks so much.
Let's jump into that first story.
They said, we need social workers to deal with many of these circumstances, so we don't need to send in police.
Now, I think there's a fair assessment that says there are probably certain circumstances where a community officer and a social worker can help.
Defunding the police is the opposite of what you would need to do if you wanted to bring more people on.
You need to actually fund the police.
In the wake of the calls for defunding the police, we actually saw departments and cities, various jurisdictions, actually take away funding from their departments.
In Minneapolis, where all of this started with the George Floyd riots, they actually defunded their police department, and it resulted in a major wave of crime.
Now, some people say it wasn't the fault of defunding the police.
You're wrong.
But many news articles and many locals are saying that's exactly what happened.
And because of it, Minneapolis is now spending $6.4 million to recruit new officers.
So when they defunded police and crime began to skyrocket, and then the city decided, we're going to spend millions of dollars to bring cops back, I think it's fair to assess.
The crime was the result, or at least perceived to be the result, of defunding the police.
But of course, like with the COVID lockdown, Democrat politicians cannot let a good crisis go to waste.
It appears now that there is an ongoing effort to use this, use the crime we are seeing, to propagandize in an effort to get more gun control.
Of course.
Joe Biden made it a campaign promise.
He said we're going to ban the online sale of firearms and ammunition, and he absolutely intends to push for more gun control.
Today, in actual news, the actual story that's coming out, the House passed H.R.
8, which expands background checks.
And this is what I want to start with, to show you the Democrats are serious, and there's even some Republicans We're not really conservatives or Republicans siding with the Democrats to pass this bill, which basically says, in any capacity, any sale has to be done with a background check.
I guess it would ban the private sale of firearms.
They're calling it the Charleston loophole.
But that's not the biggest story.
The biggest story, perhaps, is a collection of articles that pop up on Google when you type in a certain phrase, and you can see, across the board, There is a coordinated series of news articles making it seem as though the crime wave we are seeing is the result of guns and that we need gun control to deal with it, ignoring the fact that much of the crime we saw over the past year could be attributed to defunding the police.
It could be attributed to police not wanting to engage in certain ways because some officers are facing criminal prosecution for doing their jobs.
Well, I'll always be the first to say, police reform absolutely.
It seems like they're exploiting the increase in homicides caused by defunding the police in some jurisdictions to justify gun control.
I won't waste time.
I'll show you right in the introduction before we read into gun control law that's coming.
This from Google.
All you need do is type in mass shootings surge, and what do you see?
Mass shootings surge in Florida as nation faces record high.
Then right below it, mass shootings surge in Tennessee as nation faces record high.
Mass shootings in Wisconsin as nation faces record high.
In South Carolina, record high.
In New York, in Ohio.
And then the one that stands out, mass shootings fall in Indiana, but nation faces record high.
Why are all of these different news outlets, supposedly different news outlets, writing nearly identical articles, but centralizing the story on the locality?
Each and every one of these articles references gun control is needed.
I'll make it simple.
I am not saying there's a grand conspiracy, necessarily.
It may just be they're exploiting fear over crime, as news outlets do, to generate clicks.
But whether it's intentional or not, it is resulting in a justification for more gun control.
I want to read the story about H.R.
8 and explain to you what's going on and what Democrats are doing, but I do want to point out I believe we are going to see a major push for gun control under Joe Biden, and I want to talk about how it doesn't really make sense.
I know there's a lot of people who watch who are way more knowledgeable on firearms than I am, but over the past year I've become much more of a 2A individual, protecting the Second Amendment, and I own many firearms, so I'll talk to you about some of my experiences and what I think may result from.
What's going on?
Put it simply.
The left called for defunding the police.
Crime skyrocketed.
And now the media is saying, gotta take away all the guns.
It's the only answer.
Perhaps the answer is actually to let people defend themselves and also respect police, but reform them.
Before we get started, however, go to TimCast.com and become a member to get access to exclusive segments and episodes from the TimCast IRL podcast.
We have a bunch of really great segments and episodes that you can check out, and when you become a member, you help support and protect my podcasts and my show because, you know, at any point we could get banned.
They want to take away your guns.
They really do.
They've said it as much.
Now, there are certain individuals who say, no, no, no one's coming for your guns.
But of course, Beto O'Rourke, what did he say?
Heck yes, we are.
I firmly believe they do want to.
And the more conversations I have about what constitutes an assault weapon, the more it really does feel like this is just a power grab.
Now, for most people, for most of you who are watching, Who are not gun owners or big on gun rights and don't really care.
The reason why I'm covering this is not necessarily about gun control and gun rights.
It's about media manipulation, as it usually is on my channel.
When I saw that these stories were coordinated and nearly identical, it kind of creeped me out.
Because even if it's an accident, it plays into that trope we saw way back with the Deadspin video.
Did you see this?
When it showed all the local news outlets all saying the exact same things.
This is very dangerous to our democracy in unison.
We think we're getting independent and local news.
We are not.
It is coordinated, it is pre-written, and it serves a purpose.
Whether it was the intent of these news outlets or not, it will fuel a narrative, and that narrative is, the crime can only be stopped with gun control.
Well then you have no police, because they've defunded the police, then you have no weapons to protect yourself, and the criminals who don't care about the law will be armed, and why would any sane person argue for that?
Let's get started with this.
I want to show you the news on H.R.
8, the actual gun control bill that was passed, because for one, it's legitimately happening right now.
It is a bill that's going to affect all of us.
And I believe it shows the seriousness of the Democrats in their efforts to enforce new gun control bills.
USA Today says House passes bills expanding background checks for gun sales, closing Charleston loophole.
They say what does H.R.
what H.R.
8 does and doesn't do.
They say, H.R.
8, a background checks package meant to enhance reviews of those seeking to acquire firearms, would not create a firearms registry or other federal mechanisms for review.
Instead, the legislation would expand the cases in which a background check is required for the sale or transfer of a firearm, including for private individuals and groups selling or transferring firearms, closing the gun show loophole.
The requirement would apply to online sales.
The bill would make it illegal for anyone who is not a licensed firearm importer, manufacturer, or dealer to trade or sell firearms to another person.
Current federal law requires background checks only for licensed gun dealers.
Non-licensed individuals who would like to sell or trade weapons could do so through a licensed firearm dealer who would run the necessary background checks.
As with much legislation today, the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where Republican lawmakers largely remain obstinate This bill makes no sense.
gun control measures.
The bill passed with a few Republican votes, signaling there may be support among the GOP
for such measures.
People could still temporarily trade and share firearms at shooting ranges, on hunting trips,
and when it's necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm under new regulations.
This bill makes no sense.
And let me explain.
If you go online, say, to gunbroker.com, and you seek to purchase a firearm...
So GunBroker allows various stores and individuals to sell firearms.
It still has to be transported to an FFL.
This is a store that is certified by the government to do a background check and sell you a weapon.
To put it simply, if I go online and say I would like to purchase this firearm, it cannot be sent to my home.
It is sent to a store.
When I walk into that store to do a transfer, I have to fill out a form and go through a background check through what's called NICS.
N-I-C-S.
I don't understand, and perhaps maybe I'll have to read through the whole bill itself to try and break down the nuances.
I don't understand what Democrats are trying to do when they're basically saying, if you want to sell something, you've got to go through a store.
It essentially means that you can't go to arms list and list your firearm and transfer it through a store, or you already have to do that, so is it just meaningless garbled nonsense?
I'd say so.
Earlier today, I saw someone post about banning assault weapons, and they said no self-respecting hunter would use an assault weapon to go and hunt.
It's a nonsensical statement.
Let me try to help inform those who don't know a lot about this, and I'm learning, you know, in the past year.
Where I live, certain weapons are illegal.
I mean, in most places, in like the entire country, there are certain weapons that are illegal, don't get me wrong.
But there are certain things that make no sense.
For instance, a carbine, for example, is a small caliber long gun.
Essentially, I mean, you know, some people might argue and they'll say, Tim, you're wrong, but you might have a weapon that has a folding stock and takes a small caliber bullet.
A folding stock just means the part that goes in your shoulder, you can press a button and it folds in for easy storage.
That would be considered in some jurisdictions an assault weapon.
Well, this individual posted to Facebook saying that no self-respecting hunter would use that.
And I'm like, maybe there's no reason to use that version of assault weapon for hunting, but have you ever actually looked at what constitutes an actual hunting rifle?
For instance, there's something called a 450 Bushmaster.
I'm only recently becoming familiar with a lot of this stuff, so forgive me for those that know a lot more than I do.
Feel free to comment and correct anything I might get wrong.
But there are semi-automatic 450 Bushmasters with polymer tips, and that's what you would use for hunting, and they're used for taking down buck, which are bigger and heavier than humans.
What do you mean no self-respecting hunter would use an assault weapon?
Assault weapon has no clear definition, like a pistol grip, the way you hold it, certain things you put on it.
There's a lot of reasons why people might use what's constituted as an assault weapon, by some definitions, to go hunting with.
But think about what I mentioned earlier about smaller caliber weapons.
Those can be significantly less devastating to a person.
Like, a weapon for hunting is meant to take down bigger game.
I suppose if someone was hunting turkeys or pheasants, they might not use something big.
But these people have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to weapons.
Let's get to the nitty-gritty.
Maybe there's a lot of people who say, Tim, I don't really care about firearms and all this stuff.
I think you should, because it's in the Constitution.
And as Dave Chappelle said, the Second Amendment is just there in case the first one doesn't work out.
And that was an incredible statement by Dave Chappelle, who is not a conservative, as I showed you early.
Just go to Google and search this, and it is the craziest thing!
The media manipulation in this country.
Maybe it's not conscious, but it is still creepy it's happening.
Well, let me put it this way.
It's definitely conscious.
There's no way they accidentally copied and replicated all of these articles, but targeted localities.
I would say this.
Simple solution.
Maybe it just makes more sense that USA Today Networks, which publishes these articles, sent out a pre-written script saying, take this story about mass shootings, it will shock people, it will scare them, if you make it about their locality, we'll get more money.
We'll make more revenue.
And in order to make the piece long, so we get people to stay on the page longer, include as much as you can politically about gun control.
Maybe.
Or maybe there are activist individuals who work for these companies who say, I want a big push on gun control.
I would not be surprised.
We know activists work in news outlets.
I don't know their intent, so I'm not going to imply I have any evidence to suggest that's the case, other than they did this, and it will result in sentiment favoring gun control.
Maybe you're in favor of certain gun control, and that's fine.
I know staunch 2A defenders who do think there could be reforms.
I actually did a training program with the New Jersey Police Department Where I met this very proficient shooter who said he actually thinks we need new gun control laws, but he also thinks we need to fix and get rid of some of the ones we have now.
The general idea being some kind of uniformity.
And I think he's right, actually.
For instance, reciprocity.
You could have a concealed carry permit in some states that don't mean anything in other states.
I kind of think we should have more reciprocity.
So, if you've gone through the background check, if you've gone through the concealed carry training program, and you are certified and qualified and licensed to do so, why should you get arrested because you were driving through a certain state?
Now, I understand there are certain federal laws, but sometimes state police just don't care.
Let me read for you some of these stories.
As I showed you, we already have, they're all replications.
They all say, mass shootings surge in location as nation faces record high.
They are the same.
Newark Advocate.
They say, mass shootings in Ohio increased 25 in 2020, from the 14th year before, while nationally, mass shootings jumped nearly 50% during the pandemic, with crippling unemployment, violent protests, and idle youth.
I don't think it's entirely unfair when they point out that, you know, COVID, lockdown, and idle youth, poverty, and things like that played a role.
But let's just search for the word control.
And here we get a paragraph.
Quote.
But he adds that police departments likely will have to step up their efforts to get the estimated 50 to 100 million illegal guns in the country out of circulation.
The gun control measures, often touted by President Joe Biden's administration, may also come into play, he said.
These include measures aimed at keeping guns away from people who are a danger to themselves or others, and creating a standard for gun storage.
I started this archive in 2012, and my goal has always been to see that my job is eliminated.
So far, that hasn't happened.
Okay.
He's not saying outright we must have gun control.
But hold on.
It's still saying.
Joe Biden wants to do these good things as standard.
Joe Biden wants to ban the online sale.
HR8 wants to make it much more difficult for people to transfer weapons, where it already is hard and you already have to go through what's called an FFL.
Joe Biden wants to outright destroy online companies.
There are many small businesses where you can buy ammunition, accessories, and weapons.
Often, these have to go through a gun store.
You'll order them, but the weapons will be sent to a gun store.
I think these people just don't know that.
Joe Biden's bill would be devastating and wouldn't change anything.
It doesn't quite make sense.
So you can't buy online?
So what do you do?
You go to a gun store and then tell them you want to buy it?
Perhaps it's innocuous, but it seems to many people I've spoken with at the range and at the gun stores, the fear is it's just another grain of sand in the heap that will ultimately result in the inability to own firearms.
Many on the left say, well, you shouldn't be able to have warships or tanks, should you?
They had warships.
They were called corsairs and privateers.
At the time the Constitution was being written, there were letters of marque for private ships that they basically said, go attack our enemies.
Privately owned warships by American citizens.
So they certainly have eroded our right to bear arms.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not entirely convinced people should have warships.
I'm not entirely convinced warships are good in general, but I understand why they exist.
And I suppose so long as the right is in that Constitution, it's not up for vote.
Let's jump to the next article.
The Chronicle Express.
Mass shooting surge in New York as nation faces record high.
Okay, let's type in the word control.
What's this?
An identical paragraph in a different outlet targeting a locality?
You see why that's creepy?
It's the same thing.
But he adds police departments will likely have to step up their efforts to get the illegal guns out of circulation.
Joe Biden's plan may come into play.
Okay, let's jump to the next article.
Mass shooting surge in South Carolina.
Let's type in the same word.
There it is again.
But he adds, police departments will likely have to step up their efforts.
Let's jump to the next one.
Milwaukee.
Mass shooting surge in Wisconsin.
Let's type in control again.
The same paragraph exists in all of these.
These are, at the very least, in my opinion, it's plagiarism.
Right?
Are these written by different people?
Marco Della Cava and Mike Stucka for the USA Today Network.
Okay.
Did all of these individuals write the same articles?
It would seem they did.
And what they did after writing the same article was they went in and just changed key tidbits.
Personally, I think it's creepy.
I don't think it's the apocalypse.
I really do feel that they're just trying to maximize... It's something called location or A-B testing.
They know that they will get more clicks if they focus specifically on where you live.
But think about it.
When people are targeted in this way...
With a scary story.
Being told that these things are affecting them.
Here's Florida.
Florida, which has some fairly decent gun laws.
Basically, people can own weapons fairly easily.
Same paragraph, same paragraph, same paragraph.
Now, the one that says mass shootings fall in Indiana is interesting.
It still has the exact same paragraph.
We need to get the guns off the street even when they say mass shootings are falling.
Here's the issue I take with all of this.
The news is simple.
Okay, well, no, it's not really that simple, but it's fairly simple in my opinion.
From Fox News, February 14th.
Minneapolis push to defund police backfires after residents complain of slow response times increase in crime.
The city council on Friday voted unanimously to approve $6.4 million in additional funding for the police department.
So here's the gist of it.
Maybe I got a little too in the weeds in the gun control stuff.
I don't know, maybe you're interested in that.
What I end up seeing Is that, for one, a lot of people have no idea what's happening or why.
And they're willing to support gun control measures, even though the real problem may be defunding the police.
It may be Democrat policies around locking down cities and destroying the economies, resulting in poverty, desperation, and crime.
We know poverty breeds crime.
So are the mass shootings and the homicides, the fatalities, a result more so of the lockdowns and defunding the police?
Perhaps.
Now, those articles do mention that.
I want to be fair.
But they also put in people's minds that Joe Biden is going to take action and get that gun control.
And many people are going to read the headline and not the story.
And when they read that headline, they're going to say, oh, no, mass shootings are on the rise around the country.
What do we do?
And they'll turn to the simple answer.
A Democrat like Joe Biden or even a Republican like Rep Kinzinger saying, you know, we need gun reform.
Kinzinger is supposedly a Republican from Illinois, and he's what many people I guess refer to as a FUD, an Elmer FUD, I suppose it is.
I wonder if I, uh, I don't know if I have the actual, uh, I think I have it.
Here we go.
Rep.
Adam Kinzinger says, The vast majority of Americans believe in universal background checks.
As a gun owner myself, I firmly support the Second Amendment, but I also believe we have to be willing to make some changes for the greater good.
And then Michael Malice says you belong in jail.
I don't completely agree with Michael Malice about Kinzinger going to jail.
I'm not a big fan of establishment politicians, nor people like Kinzinger, who is certainly not a Republican.
He's in Illinois.
He kind of just pretends to be, I suppose.
But I do think there can be changes made.
I do believe we need... I think it's fair to say 100% reform the gun laws.
I do.
You know why?
Too many of them make no sense.
Make no sense in some jurisdictions.
For instance, older weapons, or my favorite is that M1A, which is kind of an updated version to the M1 Garand.
It's an old weapon, an old design.
It's illegal in Maryland.
And I believe it's called the SCAR-20, a more modern 308, which is basically the same round.
Not illegal.
Why?
Why is the old way called an assault weapon?
It makes no sense.
So when I say reform, I mean it.
We gotta get rid of some of these laws.
You know, that's the problem I have with a lot of these Republicans and people like Kinzinger.
They will jump up and down screaming, we need more gun control and never say, but we need to fix those ones that make no sense.
Where are the Republicans saying we need to repeal these things and change these laws because they're not working?
Anyway, I digress.
The issue I see is, for one, it's disingenuous.
They're exploiting the increase in crime to make it seem like it's an issue of guns as opposed to an issue of failed policies in major urban jurisdictions.
They defunded their police.
What are we supposed to expect from this?
Now they're going to spend $6.4 million to recruit more officers?
Well, it's no wonder crime is skyrocketing in these jurisdictions when you demonize and defunded police.
I don't think that was the intended goal, to be honest.
But the result is a fairly simple outline.
Leftist rioters burned down cities with impunity after an individual lost his life.
The police are blamed for this.
And then we see two things.
Jurisdictions actually took away money from police, making it harder for them to do their jobs.
Many police were completely demoralized, quit, or refused to do their jobs.
And if they refused, maybe they should be fired.
But many of them said, don't expect me to go out there.
We then saw the rise of autonomous zones.
In Minneapolis, for instance, they created a new autonomous zone around what they call George Floyd Square, and there was recently a shooting.
Someone died.
We saw what happened in Georgia, where there was a site... a little girl got shot, because people set up another autonomous zone.
It keeps happening.
They set up these autonomous zones, the police don't go in, shootings happen, and they say, oh no, we gotta get rid of the guns.
Okay, you get rid of the guns, and you get rid of the police, and then you will be ruled by organized crime.
It's that simple, man.
I mean, for that matter, as most of you probably realize, it makes no sense to ban guns universally.
It doesn't make sense, I'm sorry.
Look, in places like West Virginia, you can easily and freely transfer guns between people.
I was actually surprised to find that out, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.
I'm very pro 2A, for sure.
I got some really cool stuff I bought recently, but I also wonder this...
When you... I was talking to a gun shop recently, and I said, if I own a gun and, you know, like, in West Virginia, am I allowed to just sell it to somebody?
And they said, yes, so long as they're legally allowed to own it.
You can't knowingly transfer or sell a weapon to somebody who is not legally allowed to do it.
However, they said, make sure you get it all in writing, file the paperwork so that you can prove That you sold it.
unidentified
And I'm like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
Well, if that person commits a crime with your weapon, they're gonna come looking for you, because when you bought it, they may find out who that weapon was registered to, or that serial number, or things like that.
So they said, make sure you document this stuff.
And I was kind of like, if I'm going to do a transfer, I'm going to do it through an FFL, because that protects me from liability.
That just seems like, you know, crossing the T's and dotting the I's.
But I understand a lot of people don't think it's necessary, especially when you're talking about friends and family members.
In some places you can transfer weapons, so long as it's to a direct relative or things like that.
I'm not the biggest opponent of those ideas.
I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I do understand why people are scared that you will see these grains of sand making a heap, and eventually you will get more and more cumbersome laws, and there's already too many in the books.
I have to be completely honest.
Recently, I've been calling around numerous departments to get clarification on different state gun control laws to understand what these bills do and what they mean.
And you will not get a unified answer.
That is a problem.
I think we need to get rid of state-level laws.
Hear me out, just wait.
I know the right are screaming and cheering.
Say, yes, get rid of all of them!
And the left is saying, what are you nuts, Tim?
No, hold on.
I think you've got to get rid of them and you've got to write some uniform policies that pertain to everybody that we all agree on, that we absolutely agree on.
I tend to lean more towards you should all be allowed to keep and bear arms because, I'm sorry, the Constitution guarantees that right.
The right to defense, the right to defend yourself, the right to hunting or sportsmanship or whatever.
Second Amendment is not about hunting.
It is about defending yourself and a free state.
And if they have a problem with it, well then, amend the Constitution.
It'll never happen, right?
Exactly.
So instead, they create laws that supersede this, essentially, and I think it's wrong.
I don't like it.
I had this revelation when someone commented on a video, and they basically said, I said, I'm okay with certain, you know, restrictions on guns and gun control, and they said, okay, well, I agree with you on that regard, so then can I have restrictions on your speech?
And I said, no.
I get your point.
You have to amend the Constitution if you want these changes to take place.
But it seems like in every different state they have violated the Constitution in a variety of reasons.
I'll give you a very simple reason.
I'll give you a very simple example.
It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's in the Constitution.
Nothing else matters.
They say a well-regulated militia.
No, no, no, no, no.
The right to keep and bear arms.
That means you should be allowed to bear it, walking around with it.
But many states don't allow you to even have one.
It's almost impossible in some states to even get a concealed carry permit.
You need some kind of justification.
Why?
It says you have a right to bear that weapon.
The Constitution is being violated in this capacity.
And if you don't like it, I'm sorry.
I mean, it's just true.
Amend the Constitution if that's your issue.
It doesn't happen.
Instead, we see manipulative and nefarious plots.
We see people willing to exploit a crisis, just like I mentioned with COVID.
We recently saw Gavin Newsom in California say we're not going to return to normal, even if the pandemic ends, because normal means inequity.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
Now that crime is skyrocketing because of the pandemic, and crime is skyrocketing because of the defunding of police, you are now going to see all of these stories used as justification for more gun control.
Trying to have a conversation with somebody about why these measures don't work, it's tough, but you have to be respectful.
So this is what I request of all of the gun owners out there, is to just let people understand it simply and kindly, and they just really don't get it.
Like I mentioned with that Facebook post where they said, you know, That no self-respecting hunter would use an assault weapon.
Ask him what an assault weapon means.
Or, I mean, you don't even got to do that.
You just, I just simply responded with, so I guess the issue here is that assault weapon is not defined, it's defined different ways state by state and federally, and it's hard to understand what it really is.
They also interchangeably use the phrase assault rifle and assault weapon, and I think generally a lot of people are good, have good intentions.
They just want people to stop being murdered, and I respect that.
But they're being taken advantage of by politicians who won't tell you the truth and just want to scare you to exploit you out of your vote.
I'll tell you this.
Go to any one of these, you know, lefty liberal types.
Leftists, I'll remind you, are very pro-2A.
No, no, no, like legit, like the anti-vote people, they love guns.
These are really the establishment liberals.
Tell them that politicians are lying to you to extract your vote.
And that you agree that we don't want people, you know, to die.
Now let's talk about how we solve this problem.
You will find many people willing to have a real conversation unless, of course, they're like a grifter, I guess.
I think most people have good intentions, but I do think a lot of people are drama and rage-driven.
If you can have a real conversation with someone, I think we can actually make progress.
When someone on the left says to me, the liberal types, we have to stop these mass murderers and these shooters and these killers, I just say, you're absolutely right.
What can I do to help you?
And then when they come to me and say, we need to ban this, this, or this, I say, okay, I hear you.
Interesting.
Did you know X, Y, and Z?
And then show them some links.
Some people don't want to hear it, some people are more interested in tribalism, and the conversations go nowhere.
Some people try to use these stories as weapons, but I feel there's a lot of people who just don't care.
A lot of people want tribal victories, and a lot of people are authoritarians who don't want you to have the right to bear arms.
I'll give you an example of the danger in the tribalism.
The Gravel Institute.
They try to be a left-wing version of PragerU.
That's what they're trying to build themselves as.
Well, they made a post where they said what happened in D.C.
on the 6th was bad only because it was the right that did it.
And they said if the left did it, they would actually approve of it.
You see, that's the problem.
I don't believe any group is morally superior based on their ideology.
I believe in protecting the individual liberties of everybody.
And that means Christians and Muslims are both allowed to bear arms in this country.
They're both allowed to practice their religion.
It means the left is allowed to bear arms, the right is allowed to bear arms.
And it also means there are going to be people who will lie, cheat, and steal to take power, and pretend like they should be the ones who only have that right.
They'll claim you should be censored, but they should not be.
They'll claim that if they do it, it's good, but if you do it, it's bad.
That's why you have to watch out for what the Democrats are proposing with a lot of these bills.
We are better off when we can all equally bear arms.
We are.
There are some issues, because in very dense population areas, you will have problems if everybody is walking around with weapons, and these people don't have training.
I'll say this for all the gun owners and all the conservatives.
Imagine what it would be like if all these Democrats who have no idea how guns work, all of a sudden had them and were walking around with them.
Not gonna be pretty.
Y'all need to get training courses, I'll tell you that.
But I want to point out that many of these Democrats have armed security, and while they're proposing these gun control measures, pushing these stories, and pushing this propaganda, they're guarded.
They're allowed to bear arms, but you're not?
It doesn't make sense.
I've learned, I learned this growing up, growing up in Chicago.
My dad used to talk about it.
He didn't like the idea and he wasn't the biggest, you know, gun guy, but he was just like, these, these politicians walk around with guns and armed guards and then say, we're not allowed to have them.
And I'm like, that's kind of messed up.
It is kind of messed up.
Why should only the police, why should only the state, the authority, have the right to bear arms?
That's not what this country was based on.
Anyway, I digress.
It turned into a bigger gun control thing, I'll be honest, because the Democrats did just pass this bill.
But my bigger fear is media manipulation.
That's freaky, isn't it?
All these identical stories.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastirl at 8pm, so come hang out.
You can super chat, we'll read your comments, and we will see you all then.
My friends, I give you the greatest backfiring in cancel culture history where woke leftists tried to get a woman fired because of 10-year-old tweets resulting in their own publication losing a seven-figure ad deal.
Let me slow this down and start from the beginning.
We have a story from the Daily Beast.
Beauty brand Ulta pulls teen Vogue ads over new Editor-in-Chief's old racist tweets.
You hate to see it.
The suffering of these poor media institutions that just want to write a smear piece about you and make you seem like a villain so they can enrage their tribal allies and make more money.
All right, our story begins, my friend.
The other day where I covered this, there was a woman who I believe is a corrupt reporter who worked for Axios.
She was covering the Biden campaign, started dating their PR guy, a spokesperson, I guess.
And then when he got a job in the Biden administration, this woman started, she's dating this guy, claiming it's not a conflict of interest, but you literally can't be a journalist dating the administration you're supposed to be covering.
She's corrupt.
Now, in 2019, they pulled up tweets of hers from 2011 when she was like 17 years old and she said some offensive things about Asians.
She apologized and deleted these posts.
You know what?
I respect her for it.
Fine.
You said mean, nasty things.
You got rid of them.
Don't be mean and nasty, alright?
I can accept an apology and we can all move on because we're mature adults.
But then, she was rewarded for her corrupt behavior working at Axios, given the role of editor-in-chief of Teen Vogue.
Now, for those of you that may not be familiar, Teen Vogue is supposed to be a fashion magazine, but for some reason they praise socialism and Karl Marx.
It's a very strange magazine, but sure, whatever, I guess.
Well, around 20 or so individuals Who worked for this company, wrote a scathing letter saying, how could this have happened?
You're hiring a bigot!
This corrupt journalist from Axios didn't pass the purity test.
And now Ulta is pulling ads from Teen Vogue!
So the journalists, call them air quote journalists, who wrote this scathing letter, angry at the hiring of the editor-in-chief, just sunk seven figures from their own company!
They're canceling themselves, ladies and gentlemen.
This is amazing.
It's one thing when you're like, that dude who works for that company should be fired, and he gets fired.
It's one thing when you're like, look at the dude who works for Fox.
Take away his advertisements, and they take away his advertisements.
It's another thing when you're like, I work for this company, and I don't like this lady, so they take away your revenue stream.
What's gonna happen?
They're going to get fired.
Why?
It's not going to be fired because they sent this letter.
They're going to get laid off.
They're going to lose their jobs because they have no money.
Wow.
This is amazing.
Let's read this from the Daily Beast.
They say the ad campaign worth seven figures is on pause following internal concerns over new top editor Alexi McCammon's past tweets.
Daily Beast reports a major advertiser for Teen Vogue has paused its campaign with the publication following internal uproar Over the new editor-in-chief's decade-old racist tweets about Asians.
Popular cosmetics and skincare retailer Ulta Beauty said in a statement to the Daily Beast on Wednesday that it is halting its current advertising campaign with the Condé Nast-owned publication.
According to people familiar with the situation, the deal was worth seven figures.
They say.
Diversity and inclusion are core values at Ulta Beauty and always have been, a company spokesperson said.
Our current spend with Teen Vogue is paused as we work with Condé Nast to evaluate the situation and determine next steps regarding our partnership.
Well, it appears Ulta is the only advertiser to have thus far taken action over the controversy.
Concern over the fallout was raised at a high-level Condé Nast sales meeting this week.
Ulta has been sensitive to criticism of its handling of racial issues after several high-profile public allegations of racial profiling and a lack of diversity over the past several years.
My friends, let me take this opportunity to let you know that we here at TimCast Media, we are a minority-owned company.
And that's a fact.
It literally is a fact.
So, there you go.
Alright, so here's what they say.
Over the past several days, Condé Nast... I was mostly kidding about that.
Condé Nast has been flooded with criticism and debate over the selection of Alexi McCammond as Teen Vogue's new editor-in-chief.
The 27-year-old reporter was viewed in political journalism circles as a rising star for her coverage of the Trump White House and the 2020 election, which garnered her an award from the National Association of Black Journalists and an on-air contributor gig with MSNBC.
I'll also point out One of my documentaries has an honorable mention from the, uh, it was a finalist for the National Association of Black Journalists Awards.
It wasn't the winner, but we were, you know, we got this, like, special card.
They liked the work we did.
But ultimately, following Condé's announcement of its new top editor, critics resurfaced old tweets from 2011, in which a then-college-aged McCammond, who is black, used racist stereotypes about Asian people.
I'm not gonna read what she said.
This is YouTube.
McCammon had previously apologized for the posts when they first surfaced in 2019, saying she was deeply sorry, and that the social media posts do not reflect my views or who I am today.
You're gonna make me defend her.
She apologized.
Thank you, Alexi.
Have a nice day.
Uh-uh-uh.
But she also engaged in unethical journalism, dating a guy in the Biden administration when she was covering the Biden administration, although she claims she wasn't, but she was.
Sorry.
This person should not be rewarded.
This person should be terminated, okay?
A violation of journalistic ethics.
Or, I mean, honestly, it was a scandal.
I don't think I would condemn her to a life of misery simply because she did something bad this one time.
When she was young and she said offensive things, that one gets a freebie.
That's a free pass, okay?
No, get out of here.
Young people say dumb things.
You apologize.
Move on.
As for the unethical behavior between her and the Biden administration, I think, OK, you get a warning.
She hates Donald Trump and she's being eaten alive.
All right.
The left is going to continue eating themselves.
Obama called it a circular firing squad, and so be it.
People are terrified to speak up and speak out, and there's a big problem.
But in the end, they think it's going to benefit them.
It's not.
They say, according to a person familiar with the matter, McCammon has been meeting one-on-one with staff individually to apologize and discuss moving forward, and is planning a virtual roundtable on Clubhouse with several Asian-American Teen Vogue writers about issues facing the Asians in America.
Facing THE Asians?
After the publication of this story, McCammon posted to Twitter a lengthy note addressed to her new colleagues.
And following this week's news of internal uproar over her old tweets, McCammon received support from high-profile media figures like MSNBC host Chris Hayes, NBC Peacock's Medhi Hassan, who both argued that tweets from someone's teenage years should not count against them professionally as adults.
You know, I want to say I agree with Chris Hayes and Medhi Hassan, but I'm willing to bet they will flip 180 when it's a conservative or a Republican who has nasty old tweets.
They'll scream and spit and yowl about any new Republican.
They will condemn Marjorie Taylor Greene because three or four years ago, she posted something dumb.
Now they'll say, but she was an adult woman.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Marjorie Taylor Greene apologized for saying dumb things.
I respect it, and I have to accept it.
We're supposed to be good people who are figuring out how to work together and compromise.
Alexi Hammond apologized for these posts, and they should not be held against her.
Her journalistic career, that should be held against her, but I'm still willing to give a warning and say, okay, fine.
I don't think she should be rewarded for what she did.
Maybe, you know, like I said, a warning.
But here we are, and this is what we get.
I don't like this drama world of screaming in people's faces, and I think really what's going on with McCammond It's an opportunity for people to complain.
That's it.
You reap what you sow.
You see, these news organizations, they're not really news organizations, but these media outlets thrive on rage-bait drama.
They hire people who love rage-bait drama.
It is the bread and butter of what they do.
You see, they thought they could wield the One Ring.
You can't.
No one can.
You see, what happens is, they decide, we're gonna make money.
How are we gonna do it?
Well, no one needs news anymore because we have instant transmission and social media.
They need comforting lies.
They need rage bait, click bait, drama content.
So they hire people who are drama queens.
These people who complain about other people and it's all they do.
They're hoping that there will be some shock content drama that will generate clicks because people are more interested in the real housewives and the real YouTubers of, you know, middle Maryland or whatever.
They want to write stories about me and the stupid things that people claim because it's drama.
Because that's what people want, I guess.
But guess what?
When you hire people who live for drama, what do you think's gonna happen when the drama comes home to roost?
That's why I say it's like the One Ring.
It's extremely powerful.
Sure, it made Frodo turn invisible.
I'm assuming you're fans of Lord of the Rings.
And that works in their, you know, his favor at some point, able to escape certain things.
But he can't wield the power.
It corrupts you.
It corrupts your institutions.
It destroys them.
And so the Daily Beast brings on these people who thrive on drama.
What happens?
They start eating the organization from the inside out.
They say her detractors, who flooded the comments section on Teen Vogue's social media platforms, said the tweets couldn't be ignored amid a national conversation about racist harassment aimed at Asian Americans, as well as a reported spike in hate crimes against Asians in the U.S., which, yes, I agree is a problem.
But it was ten years ago, man!
They really want to burn people to the ground.
Well, you know what?
I'm sure each and every conservative is sitting back, chopping off a cigar, you know, whatever it's called, crimping the end of that cigar, puffing and saying, sucks for you!
Because the conservatives are the ones who are saying, stop it!
They don't want to let it go, though.
Additionally, within Teen Vogue, staffers have raised concerns about the decision to hire McCammond.
And according to multiple people familiar with the matter, former editor-in-chief Lindsay Peoples Wagner, who departed earlier this year for a top role at New York Magazine's The Cut, privately expressed opposition to McCammond as her successor, and did not include her on a list of recommended replacements she had with Condé Nast chief content officer Anna Wintour.
Alright, I don't care all that much about this.
You get the point, right?
Let me show you where we're at.
From Vox.com.
That's V-O-X.
Republicans are trying to outlaw wokeness, literally.
They're trying to outlaw wokeness!
Oh, how the right is trying to cancel left-wing speech.
Why is wokeness left-wing?
I mean, wokeness is just identitarianism.
I guess it's post-modernism or whatever.
Sure, fine.
But there are people on the right who hold similar identitarian views.
Call it whatever you want.
Vox says we're in the midst of something like a moral panic over so-called cancel culture.
As I noted a few months ago, there's a rising contingent of thinkers on the left and the right who believe a culture of censoriousness has engulfed intellectual life over the last few years.
To state the obvious up front, it's a genuine problem, although I don't think it's quite the existential threat some have suggested, and I consider it a debate not so much about the right to speak, but rather about where to draw the boundaries and what sorts of social sanctions are permissible when those boundaries are transgressed.
But when the topic is broached, it's almost always framed as a left-wing problem.
This is somewhat misleading.
The left, of course, has its accesses, and there are very real efforts to not only suppress unpopular speech, but also punish violations of new orthodoxies.
There is, however, an emergent cancel culture on the right, one that is every bit as pernicious as what we're seeing on the left, only it hasn't received nearly as much attention.
Whereas the left is mostly exercising cultural power on campuses and social media, The right is introducing legislation here, here, and here, intended to stifle left-wing speech in public schools across the country.
We'll read this, and I absolutely think it's worth pointing out, because I do think the right has their version of cancel culture.
I think many on the right have tried engaging in cancel culture, and many of them complain because they don't control the cultural institutions, but given the power, they probably would still do it.
But let's be real here.
It is not a problem of the right.
It is the exception.
On the left, it's the rule.
I just showed you.
Teen Vogue is literally canceling itself.
They're losing.
They're at risk of losing a seven-figure advertising deal because their employees are complaining about their own employees.
So yeah, the cancel culture stuff on the left is so egregious, they're literally imploding.
I do not see Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire, you know, being complained about by his staff because of his past tweets, for which he has many.
Ben Shapiro has a lot of controversial tweets or statements.
Doesn't happen on the right.
Now, there may be legislation, and there are efforts, but like I said, I think most people who are giving you a fair assessment will say, on the right, it is the exception.
Of course it happens, but it's not standard.
It's not typical of conservatives on the left.
It's the rule, not the exception.
The exception is like Jacobin Magazine defending free speech.
That's why I give respect to Jacobin.
I always try to give respect where it is due.
Jacobin, for those that aren't familiar, is an actual, it's like the preeminent socialist magazine.
They have many, many articles defending free speech for the most abhorrent individuals.
And they're correct when they say, if we allow them, the establishment powers to censor those we don't like, we are next.
Think about it this way.
If you're on the left, if you're a progressive, you should be looking at the fringe elements of the right effectively as a canary in the coal mine or as kind of a barrier.
They need the outrage to justify the censorship and they use the right to do it.
Once they do, they start banning a bunch of progressives.
Many progressive YouTube channels have recently got demonetized or outright shut down.
And that's what Jacobin was warning about, and that's what I've been warning about, and Glenn Greenwald's been warning about, and Matt Taibbi, and Mike Tracy, and many other people who are moderately liberal individuals, some progressive, who are telling you, start defending free speech.
Conservatives, of course, are absolutely about this, and there's been big issues pertaining to religious freedom, so the First Amendment is not a new battle for conservatives.
Too many on the left just don't seem to get it.
Well, let's read now and see what Vox says.
They say to highlight one example, A recent bill in Iowa has proposed banning materials derived from the New York Times' 1619 Project from being taught at community colleges and other schools under the control of the state's Board of Regents.
Whatever you think of the 1619 Project, and it's not without problems, that's an extraordinary step in an outright attack on academic freedom.
Well, I will say, I don't trust Vox.com, I'm sorry.
And so take it all with a grain of salt.
But I do not believe the 1619 Project should be banned from being taught.
I believe they absolutely should teach from it, but that requires an objective and academic view which challenges its notions, its conclusions, and seeks to cite the claims made in the project.
As Vox mentions, it's not without problems.
Many historians have come out and said it's BS.
Teaching it, I still think, you're supposed to be a critical observer.
Depends on what the bill from Iowa actually says.
And this is where I think things can get muddy.
Because Vox might not actually give you the full details, but let's just read.
We'll read here.
They say, an act providing for the reduction of certain funding and budgets for public schools, community colleges, and regents, institutions following the use of specified curriculum and including effective date, yada yada yada.
So let's see.
Maybe I can just read the conclusion.
Okay, so it's not particularly long, but... They say the bill includes findings of the General Assembly that the recently developed United States history curriculum derived from a project by the New York Times known as the 1619 Project attempts to deny or obfuscate the fundamental principles upon which the U.S.
was founded, and that the General Assembly has a strong interest in promoting an accurate account of this nation's history through public schools and forming young people into knowledgeable and patriotic citizens.
The bill amends provisions governing the educational program established by the State Board of Education to prohibit a school from utilizing any United States history curriculum, in whole or in part, that is derived from the 1619 Project.
Well, upon reading it, I will say you can't do it.
It's a violation of the First Amendment.
The state should not be going in and saying you can or can't teach certain articles from newspapers.
There's an interesting argument about, excuse me, religion in that regard and there's there's an informal separation of church and state but perhaps if we're going to be talking about
What I mean by that, or I should say, a unanimous curriculum.
argument here. And I'm very pro-free speech. But the issue is whether or not they solely
teach the 1619 Project, are teaching children accurate things, and whether or not our schools
are publicly funded must adhere to a unified curriculum.
What I mean by that, or I should say a unanimous curriculum. What I mean by that is, who
gives the schools the right to teach certain things?
Now, I do think if parents have an issue with it, they should be able to take their kids out, but there's the problem.
No school choice.
If we had school choice, for those that are familiar, where you get a voucher, for instance, voucher programs, take your kid out of the school, send them to a different school, then by all means.
But if we're dealing with kids have no choice but to be here, then there must be an agreed-upon curriculum.
In which case, I actually don't think it is a violation of free speech for the government to ban the 1619 Project as a curriculum.
I'm not a fan of it outright, though.
My concern is that it's a slippery slope which will lead to very bad things.
So while I completely disagree with teaching the 1619 Project, I think the actual solution is not to ban it.
The actual solution is school choice.
The schools should be allowed to teach whatever.
And in that regard, I don't see why schools can't teach religion.
They really don't.
The issue, I suppose, is creating a fair and balanced system where you're actually teaching kids to be critical thinkers and teach them, here's the 1619 project, but here's the critical view of it as well.
If they teach it as fact, we've got a problem because then our schools aren't educating our children.
And so the conundrum here isn't so much free speech, Vox.
I believe you're incorrect.
The conundrum is, we are paying the government We have no choice in the matter, and our kids have to be here.
Well then I demand an accurate representation of history.
There is a problem.
Evolution, creationism, that whole legal battle, what do you do?
The answer is not suppression of speech.
The answer is school choice.
And that means if there's religious parents who want their kids to learn creationism, which was an old fight from decades ago, they move their kid to that school.
Private schools exist, you can do this, but then you're still paying taxes for the public schools.
Give the families vouchers, and that problem is solved, not a free speech issue.
I'm going to say, Jeffrey Sachs, professor of politics at Acadia University, calls it the new war on woke, and it's a disturbing escalation in the spiraling speech wars.
I reached out to Sachs on one of the more clear-headed voices in the debate to talk about the latest developments and the dangers of inviting the government into the censorship business.
That's true, though.
The government should not be in the censorship business.
I do think there is an issue here, and I believe You're going to see Republicans wanting this power as well.
Donald Trump and Candace Owens had previously said people should go to jail for burning the American flag.
Wrong.
Wrong.
No.
You can burn it so long as it's your property and it's done safely.
You want to burn something, I guess.
My only real... Like, when it comes to burning the American flag, first of all, I think it's disgusting.
I'm not a fan.
I love this country and I love the American flag and I would not burn American flag.
But if someone has private property, what makes America great is that.
It's a symbol of what makes this country great.
Burning the flag is the ultimate representation of true American freedom.
Watch the Penn & Teller bit about the Constitution and the American flag.
It's amazing.
He says, basically, like, we may burn the flag, but we do so as the ultimate symbol of the freedom that flag represents.
So, no, people have the right to express themselves in that way.
I've heard it from Republicans and Trump supporters.
People should go to jail for burning the American flag.
That's wrong.
And given the institutional authority, I think they would take away our right to express ourselves.
So no, I err on the side of freedom for the individual.
So I do not like the government, conservatives, anybody, coming in and saying, you can't say this, you can't say that.
The problem is, the approach to cancel culture is not more cancel culture.
Or I should say, the solution to cancel culture is not to start canceling other people.
Uncanceling is the solution.
So let me put it this way, my friends.
When we see, like, um, with all due respect to Mike Cernovich, his approach has been, cancel them back.
You know, highlight what, you know, James Gunn, for instance, offensive comedy.
I don't think that's the right approach.
I think you uncancel things.
I think what you do is you find something left canceled, like Pepe Le Pew or Dr. Seuss, and then you remake similar things.
To be fair, however, I think the issue of cancel culture is, it's a small fraction of fringe lunatics pushing things too far.
Are there racist stereotypes in Dr. Seuss books?
I believe, uh, yes, in one.
Should it be discontinued?
My personal opinion is no.
However, I do think, because it's Dr. Seuss, people take it too far, I do think there are certain cultural things we do eventually stop doing, and I have no problem with it.
I remember Family Guy announced they weren't going to do gay jokes anymore, and a bunch of people were like, oh, come on, don't be silly, and I thought, If Seth MacFarlane doesn't want to do jokes about this subject anymore, I don't care.
Maybe we've decided we won't make, you know, this into a... make fun of it.
That's fine if you don't want to do it.
But at the same time, the problem is, Family Guy still does racist jokes.
So you can't pick and choose, man.
If you want to recognize some things are funny and you want to make jokes, you do it.
Dave Chappelle did a stereotype of a Chinese person on his special on Netflix, and that went over swimmingly, I guess.
So ultimately, freedom is the answer.
If someone decides not to make a joke, I don't care.
If they're being hypocrites, I'll point them out.
If someone doesn't want to publish a book, well, so be it.
If you think that book should still be published, make something akin to it, and you draw the pictures and say, we're not giving this up.
We're gonna remake it.
So the opposite of cancel culture is... I'll tell you this.
You've got cancel culture and anti-cancel culture.
No.
The opposite of cancel culture is not anti-cancel culture.
The opposite of cancel culture is un-cancel culture.
I'll put it that way.
Well, I don't know, whatever.
You get the point.
They want to claim it's the right doing it, a war on wokeness, but please, spare me.
They're canceling themselves.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks so much for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
A couple of days ago, a journalist with the New York Times by the name of Taylor Lorenz put out a tweet in which she said that online harassment had literally destroyed her life.
This resulted in a major wave of moderate journalists and disaffected liberal types as well as conservatives roasting this journalist, saying, oh, calm down.
Online harassment is not destroying your life.
And I got to be honest.
I don't care about this drama.
Not at all.
But it's become something much, much bigger because Tucker Carlson highlighted Taylor Lorenz in a segment on his show in which he said, the most privileged among us, a New York Times journalist from Greenwich complaining about having their lives destroyed when most people would consider her to have one of the greatest lives you could possibly have.
I'm not a fan of any of this.
And I don't even want to talk about any of this.
But now there's been a back and forth in New York Times and Tucker Carlson, and you know what?
Why are we this stupid?
Why are we as people so stupid?
Everybody, every single person, myself included, every single person.
Listen, when I saw that Taylor Lorenz, a journalist for the New York Times, tweeted that harassment had destroyed her life, I said, okay, and I scrolled on.
It's just petty drama.
I guess now that Donald Trump isn't in the news, people need some kind of culture war to happen.
Look, I'm gonna read through this, we'll break down the story for those that may not be familiar, and I will say absolutely outright, there are so many more, there's so much more important news that we can be talking about.
And I wake up this morning to hear the New York Times putting out a statement about this.
I see Tucker Carlson talking about Taylor on a segment.
Why?
If she feels a certain way and you don't like her, criticize the ideas, criticize the behavior, criticize the entity, the institution that empowers this.
But all of a sudden now it's just Tucker is getting harassed and Taylor is getting harassed, and I'm like, dude, I don't like any of it.
Nobody should be going to Tucker Carlson's house.
I understand why he's upset about this.
Nobody should be harassing Taylor Lorenz.
And I just think it's dumb that this is what the news cycle is.
And I think it shows the decay that is our culture and our society.
The big picture here, by all means be angry, but please, please rise above this.
I feel like everything is falling apart.
When I turn on the news, when I come and I'm like, what's going on with the stimulus check?
What's going on with those whose small business has been destroyed?
What do we end up seeing instead?
Petty drama because people like the rage bait.
And here we are.
Now, I got a lot of friends who don't like Taylor Lorenz, and I know a lot of people who do like Taylor Lorenz, and they want to justify why it is or isn't right to call it individuals and things like this.
So let me say, first and foremost, even if you think one of these journalists, any one of them, not just Taylor, any one of these journalists, the New York Times or elsewhere, has done something wrong, After a year of watching Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters smash and destroy buildings and start fires, and we know there is a double standard, what makes you think using the same tactics is going to win you any political points?
I'm frustrated with this because for one, I think it's like the least important story that could possibly be happening, but it's become this like ongoing, nearly week-long fiasco.
I'm upset that it seems like people just don't learn.
They get pulled down into the weeds and the mud, they start fighting over petty drama, instead of talking about ideas, talking about institutions.
Instead, it just becomes Tucker Carlson is bad, Tucker's trending, and then Taylor Lorenz is bad, Taylor's trending.
And I don't understand why, and I gotta be honest.
It was people on the right, as well as some journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Matt- I'm sorry, Michael Tracy, I almost said Matt Taibbi, not Matt Taibbi, Michael Tracy, who were criticizing Taylor Lorenz.
By all means, feel free to criticize.
I often try to avoid saying people's names for two reasons.
For one, I do not want to create a pile-on effect.
I do not want people going to Tucker's house or anyone's house.
I don't want them sending mean tweets to anybody.
I want y'all to be nice.
I want people to be nicer to each other.
But I do want to criticize behaviors and ideas, to avoid the pitfalls of petty drama, and to focus on the things that are important.
Like, why people shouldn't behave certain ways, we must target the behaviors and the institutions that empower it.
When you focus on individuals, be it Tucker, and the left does it all the time, and you focus on Taylor, it rallies people to just point the finger at each other and makes personal drama.
Let me slow down.
I'm sure a lot of people just don't care about this, and neither do I. But I should say, it's grown to a point where I think it needs to be talked about because I don't care if you're a conservative, I don't care if you're a liberal, a democrat, a republican, if you like Taylor, if you like Tucker.
Do you see why this is the cultural decay of a nation?
Of our society?
I know many of you may blame one side or the other more than the other, but ultimately, it's like, I feel like I walk outside, and I see, you know, like, two, you know, two dudes arguing over, like, a parking space, and they're ready to go to war over it, instead of just being like, move your car!
Choose your battles.
But this is what we've become.
The culture war has resulted in Tucker doing nightly segments on one of the highest rated shows in the country for conservatives, talking about a tweet from a New York Times journalist, and then following up and turning it into a flame war on TV.
I just wish we could go back.
Look, Tucker has done a lot of great work.
I think it's important.
I think there are things to criticize Taylor for, for sure.
I actually, of all the journalists I've had to interact with over stories that I've been critical of, I actually have gotten the best response from Taylor and I respect her for being kind to me when I've reached out with criticisms and concerns.
Ultimately, I think there are a lot of grifter journalists.
There are a lot of bad people.
I criticize them sometimes, but you'll also notice I tend to compliment people.
I try really hard to do that.
I am sick and tired of just... Everybody just wants to throw mud at each other all the time.
I don't want to do it.
I don't want to do it.
I don't care.
I just don't want to do it.
I want to talk about Joe Biden bombing Syria.
I want to talk about the kids in the Middle East who are suffering because of the foreign policy of these people who get elected.
And I understand, you may say, but these New York Times journalists, they're the ones who make Joe Biden possible.
Right!
Criticize the New York Times as an institution for what they defend and what they fund.
Let me read you some of the story, and I'll write down some of the arguments.
We'll talk about it.
Variety reports, New York Times defends reporter Taylor Lorenz from Tucker Carlson's cruel attack.
They say the Times is defending reporter Taylor Lorenz after Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson mocked
her during a lengthy segment in a Tuesday night broadcast.
Carlson said Lorenz, a tech and internet culture reporter, was at the top of journalism's
repulsive little food chain, and that she is far younger and much less talented than other
prominent New York Times reporters in a segment discussing powerful people claiming to be powerless.
He said, quote, you'd think Taylor Lorenz would be grateful for the remarkable good luck that
she's had, but no, she's not, Carlson said.
He then read a tweet from Lorenz posted on International Women's Day, saying how online harassment and smear campaigns have destroyed her life.
This is the tweet in question, tweeted on my birthday, no less, in the wee hours of the morning.
Taylor said, For International Women's Day, please consider supporting women enduring online harassment.
It's not an exaggeration to say that the harassment and smear campaign I've had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life.
No one should have to go through this.
Destroyed her life, really?
Says Tucker.
By most people's standards, Taylor Lorenz would seem to have a pretty good life.
One of the best lives in the country.
In fact, lots of people are suffering right now, but no one is suffering quite as much as Taylor Lorenz is suffering, he continued.
Let me say something.
Yeah, I think there's valid criticism.
I think the tweet from Taylor is absolutely one of those, like, I think it's kind of cringy.
And that's about it.
She has feelings, she tweeted her feelings, and I will carry on.
She has stated that the online harassment and smear campaign she's endured has destroyed her life.
Let me tell you something.
Taylor Lorenz made a claim that a VC, a venture capitalist investor, said something that he did not say.
And it caused a lot of problems for this individual.
And then apparently she followed up later and made some more comments that were just not true.
She said things that weren't true.
I was disappointed, to say the least, that she did not issue a stronger correction.
Instead, it was kind of this, like, half-cocked, oh, you know, I'm glad there's a clarification here.
No, she could have done better.
And because of that, she likely received criticism.
But when people see this, I noticed something.
A lot of people saying, getting called mean names is not destroying your life, calm down.
But she didn't say that.
She didn't say she was getting called mean names.
And so when I read this tweet, I just say, there's not enough information here for me to make a strong assessment.
When I saw the Covington kids thing, and everybody was piling on and screaming in the faces, you know, figuratively, digitally, of these kids about how evil and nasty they were, I just said, I don't have enough information!
I don't know what happened!
So what if Taylor is talking about someone showing up at her house?
What if she's talking about someone sending her pictures of her family?
Sending her death threats?
So when I hear that, I just say, you know, whatever.
Got no assessment.
I don't know what the harassment is she's been doing, but I can say this.
Nobody should be harassed.
It's interesting that a lot of people say, If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
You know, Twitter is a place where you're gonna get harassed, and people are gonna say mean things, and I'm like, oh yeah, I learned that a long time ago.
You know, right after Occupy Wall Street, I get a bunch of followers, all of a sudden it was just a barrage of people saying the nastiest possible things about me, digging through my life and my history, and it was sustained harassment.
They were posting pictures of my family, they were talking about very personal family issues, in an attempt to just cause me pain and suffering.
And I realized, It comes the territory, I suppose, but it should not be that way.
So by all means, you can think she's over the top, but I'll say this.
I don't like the attitude, they're like, well, you know, this is just how things are.
People are mean on the internet.
No, I'll tell people to do better.
I'll be an adult who's mature and recognized, can't do anything about it.
But online harassment is more than just saying mean things.
I have people who post my address.
I have people who have sent me death threats.
Sent me veiled threats.
I've had extremists on the left who have posted pictures of my mom.
I have had these things where they... I have had things that can be considered to be legitimate threats against the safety of myself and the people I care about and work with.
And we take these things very seriously.
And it is also true that Twitter does nothing about it.
Nothing.
That's true.
So why are we immediately just trying to play culture war nonsense over this one tweet?
I think it's stupid.
But let's carry on because the issue became more about the New York Times and Tucker Carlson.
The New York Times responded.
They say, on Twitter, our response to Tuesday night's Tucker Carlson broadcast.
In a now familiar move, Tucker Carlson's opened his show last night by attacking a journalist.
It was a calculated and cruel tactic, which he regularly deploys to unleash a wave of harassment and vitriol at his intended target.
Taylor Lorenz is a talented New York Times journalist, doing timely and essential reporting.
Journalists should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment.
That last sentence is true and correct, and that includes... Tucker Carlson.
People showed up to his house, were banging on his door.
Tucker Carlson does not deserve that, and people should not be doing that to Tucker, but they do it all the time.
They harass his advertisers.
They try to get his show removed because they don't like his opinions.
Tucker did not start any of this fighting.
But I have to question why Tucker decided to name-drop Taylor and criticize her over what was just one dumb tweet.
How many people post dumb tweets?
How many people?
So this is what, you know what I see?
It's cancel culture in a sense.
Now obviously I don't think every conservative is saying we're going to highlight this because she should lose her job or anything like that.
They're just saying grow up.
But I don't like the idea where it's like, someone said something dumb one time and then we're gonna turn it into the biggest news story in the country.
But this is exactly what we're doing.
And that's where we are.
And the New York Times is to blame as well.
I just wanna say this.
You know, honest, I gotta be honest.
The person I blame the least for the stupidity of this news cycle is probably Taylor Lorenz.
You know, look, there's probably a lot of people who wanna be tribal and they wanna say, but she's done bad things, she's smeared people.
Sure, by all means, criticize her work.
Absolutely.
But if she puts out a tweet, I just don't see why it's newsworthy.
I do not.
And tons of people on the right decided to turn this into something where they're all quote-tweeting it and criticizing her.
And it wasn't just the right.
Like I said, you had Glenn Greenwald, you had Michael Tracy, and those are two journalists I very much respect.
And I'm just looking at this like, why?
Why, y'all can talk about Joe Biden all day and night, blown up kids.
Like, that's important, right?
A New York Times journalist who put out a hyperbolic tweet that made you cringe a little bit?
I can't believe this is the news cycle that we get.
Maybe this is what we deserve, because we are people who just love watching the Real Housewives, or whatever, or the Jersey Shore, or Real World MTV, or whatever.
Whatever it is you kids are watching these days.
We love YouTube drama.
We love TikTok drama.
We love vlogs.
I mean, drama on YouTube is lucrative because people just like watching other people fight.
I don't.
I don't.
I like watching people invent things.
I like watching people accomplish great feats.
And I like people trying to be nice.
Let me tell you something.
Let's rewind this and go back and say you want to criticize Taylor's tweet.
Okay.
I think you can.
I think it's very simple.
You tweeted her and say, Taylor, what kind of harassment are you dealing with?
Let's clarify that first and foremost.
Then she says, you may see this tweet right here.
On March 10th, Taylor Lorenz tweeted, And she took the tweet from Kurt Schlichter, who just posted her name over and over and over again because Tucker said her name.
Why?
Why?
Kurt, why would you just post her name?
Are we children?
I just, I don't care!
Be mad at me!
Criticize me!
Tell me I'm wrong and we're allowed to throw mud!
No, I don't care!
How stupid is this?
Here's what I would say.
What kind of harassment are you dealing with?
I've dealt with harassment, too.
And if she came out and said, people are being mean to me, I'd say, I definitely think people should not be mean to you.
I definitely would appreciate it if we built a system like a social media system or a culture where we weren't mean to each other.
I don't know what you can do about that, though, because people have a right to be mean.
It sucks, but it's not illegal, and it's going to happen.
Perhaps you can protect your account, or perhaps, you know, Twitter is not a place you want to be active on.
I've learned a long time ago Twitter is just a hellscape where people just be mean and nasty to each other.
Which is why I've been engaging in what I call anti-tweeting.
Where I just will tweet nice things to people.
And that's it.
Because I hate it.
I absolutely despise Twitter and Facebook for that matter as well.
There was a report that came out recently, I don't have it pulled up, where they basically say Twitter and Facebook are just making everyone hate each other and making everyone angry.
I think I can tell you why.
Let me see if I have the proper tweet pulled up.
So, here we go.
This is from Matt Stoller.
Matt is the, he works for the American Economic Liberties Project.
And he said, here is the story of cancel culture in chart form.
The chart shows Google's U.S.
revenue going down.
I'm sorry.
It shows Google's U.S.
revenue going up and U.S.
newspaper revenue going down.
I said.
People don't want news anymore, they want comforting lies.
So big newspapers watching their decline shifted into rage bait.
This emboldened cancel culture because people needed to be constantly outraged.
Now watch the revenue crash even more with Trump gone.
Here's what's happening.
And this is criticism for Taylor as well.
As revenue for newspapers declined, newspapers needed to figure out what was maximizing their revenue, and they found rage bait and drama.
They then shifted into a whole bunch of articles that were dedicated just to attack people and smear people for stupid reasons.
We have one story from the Daily Beast.
I'm sorry, this is not the right one.
This is the story from the Daily Beast.
The Instagram stars hiding their famous Muslim-hating mom, Pamela Geller.
This is from Taylor Lorenz.
March 1st, 2018.
Now, it was explained to me by people who are concerned about Pamela Geller's safety that her private information was doxxed by Taylor Lorenz.
I don't know if that's true.
That's what people have claimed.
And I think it is absolutely fine and fair to criticize Journalists.
I do it all day.
I criticize the news media.
I try to focus on the institutions, however.
And the reason for it is, when you start pointing to the individual, you are no longer addressing the concept, the problem, or the power structures that allow them to do what they do.
You've now created drama where a bunch of people are going to say, leave my friend alone.
That's it.
What would happen if Tucker Carlson said, the New York Times is doing this?
And what if he said, a journalist in the New York Times is claiming that their life is being destroyed by harassment?
Not really.
You don't need to say the name.
You don't need to say the name to get your point across.
By engaging in the Tucker vs. Taylor thing, all we've really done is turned reality into reality TV.
The same thing was true for Donald Trump, and it's what I could not stand about the past four years.
Now they're doing the same thing with Marjorie Taylor Greene, and I'm like, I don't care!
But everyone else does.
Isn't it a damn shame?
This is the world we live in.
We get to basically waste time talking about the people we don't like.
There's this thing that Dave Rubin posted a while ago.
He said small people talk about other people.
Bigger people talk about, what did he say?
Bigger people talk about ideas, or I think it's bigger people talk about Uh, things that happened or something like that.
And then I can't remember the exact quote.
You probably know it better than I do.
But basically the idea was bigger and mature people talk about concepts and ideas and structures and systems.
And the small people just want to talk about other people.
I don't want to make a drama channel.
There are a lot of people on YouTube who make their bread and butter by simply making videos about me.
Why?
There are journalists right now writing stories about me.
Why?
What is the story about the guy on the internet complaining about his feelings, I guess?
Perhaps I'm worthy of criticism in a lot of ways, and by all means, I deserve it.
You know, not perfect.
I'm a guy on the internet complaining about his feelings.
But a lot of these people take it, it's all out of context, it's all manipulations, it's because there's a market for hating each other.
This is what I love so much about the online harassment stuff, right?
So, you have, on the left, They'll take things out of context.
They'll do it because it makes them money.
But they'll never show you the nice things I say about people on the left.
They'll tell you everything that I did wrong, but they won't tell you about the times I'm trying to be nice and do better.
They'll say, Tim Pool said this thing about Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.
And they won't say, Tim Pool praised Rashida Tlaib and AOC.
They won't tell you that, you know, Tim Pool said Juneteenth should be a national holiday.
They won't tell you that Tim Pool said, my tremendous respect to AOC for the work she did in Texas helping provide relief to people.
She deserves all the credit in the world.
They won't do that.
Because all they want you to do is hate me.
They want to write articles about why you should hate me.
That's a problem.
I get it though.
They're gonna write smear pieces about me, they're gonna make things up, they're gonna take all the drama in the world, whatever.
Because it makes money.
So when I see Tucker Carlson do it, I don't care if he's Tucker Carlson, Joe Biden, or Donald Trump.
I think it's stupid.
He didn't need to say Taylor's name.
There are a lot of journalists I want to criticize.
And I can criticize them right now.
But I avoid saying their names, for the most part.
Even last night when I was talking about the Lincoln Project, I don't say their names.
For two reasons.
I don't want to make them famous.
I don't want anyone sending a barrage of mean tweets at them.
And I recognize what it means when I have over a million followers on one channel and millions across the board.
And I criticize someone because I watched it happen before, inadvertently causing damage that I did not want to cause.
Why?
One of the primary journalistic ethics is minimizing harm, which means if I want to criticize a concept, idea, or a behavior, I want to make sure I do so in a way that doesn't damage people's lives.
No, don't get me wrong.
A lot of people will say, well, Taylor deserves to be held accountable.
Sure.
The left says that Tucker deserves to be held accountable.
And while I probably have a bias in favor of Tucker because I think he does a pretty good job, one of the best guys on TV, by the way, I will criticize him when I think this is nonsensical and a waste of time.
I'll criticize Taylor Lorenz as much as I have said.
Look, there was a point where someone was writing a smear piece about me.
And I reached out to Taylor and I just said, Hey, I want to let you know, this is not true.
And she respectfully and very politely to me said, Oh, okay.
Thanks for clearing it up.
I won't, I won't, you know, do the story or whatever.
And very easily, like I was impressed and I respect that.
And I think if we do better to just be nicer, you know what I mean?
So maybe, maybe it's biased of me.
Maybe people are going to say, Tim, Taylor was nice to you.
So you're being nice to her.
And I'm like, maybe that's what we should do.
So I respect that.
And I say it all the time.
There are very few reporters that I will talk to and say, here's the truth.
And most of them just be like, well, we want to smear you because it's going to get clicks.
Taylor didn't do that.
She didn't do that to me.
And I don't like the idea that people are just going to pile on and be nasty.
Don't get me wrong.
I do think Taylor deserves criticism.
There are some stories.
She's been accused of conflicts of interest, unethical behavior.
I said I was disappointed and she didn't issue that apology to Marc Andreessen.
She is not a perfect person.
But I still think you will not win by engaging in social flame wars and making it about people and I just...
I just don't want to deal with that.
I don't.
I wake up this morning, and the story just won't go away.
And I want my point to be with this, as you leave, if you've made it this far and if you even care.
Maybe most of the people have already left this segment, because they realized, I don't care about this.
Good, I'm glad you did.
But Tucker Carlson did a second segment responding to the New York Times, and now it's becoming a fight between the New York Times and Fox News.
And is this because we have nothing to talk about?
Is this because we know that it'll get better ratings?
Is Tucker talking about Taylor instead of, say, like, Middle Eastern conflict because he thinks his audience cares about it more?
I won't do that.
They'll say I will.
They'll accuse me of that, but let me just tell you all.
I will ignore stories like the Royal Family, Meghan Markle.
I don't care if it's the biggest trending story in the world.
I don't care.
It doesn't matter to you or me.
Some of you may like those stories and want to know more about them, and I can respect that if you do.
But I don't think it will impact your life all that much.
Now, trying to cancel the Queen, I guess, is a hilarious thing.
I want to talk about things that I think matter.
Derek Chauvin.
George Floyd.
The autonomous zone in Minneapolis.
And I wake up and I see this.
And I'll tell you one last thing.
The reason why I did this segment.
Because now we're looking at like dozens of stories.
Two prime time segments discussing it.
And a New York Times statement.
And I'm like, here it is.
This is the headline news for 2021.
Look what we've become.
And it's not you.
It's not me.
It's all of us.
Every single one.
So by all means, you can be mad, you can be disagree, I respect it.
Comment below, let me know what you think, and I'll leave it there.