Elon Musk Twitter Buyout Could COLLPASE Amid Potential FRAUD, Twitter Says Elon VIOLATED NDA. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal says an external audit is not possible due to a lack of data.
Elon Musk revealed that Twitter only used 100 accounts to determine how many people were bots on the platform and in doing so was accused of violating his NDA. But if advertisers didn't know this how can they trust what they are actually buying.
It seems the pro democrats and left wing bias of Twitter is being exposed along with bots and spam and whether Elon Musk Twitter Takeover happens we have learned a lot
#ElonMusk
#Censorship
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elon Musk has been accused of violating his NDA with Twitter for revealing they only use 100 accounts to check for spam.
The deal could possibly fall through, but we're not sure.
Although, in my opinion, it looks like Elon Musk may have discovered fraud.
The CEO of Twitter is saying they can't actually do an external audit of their spam bots because, well, you just don't have the right data.
Something doesn't add up.
In our next story, The shooter in Buffalo.
This is not the first mass shooting this year, and the media is already lying claiming this man was a Republican when he was actually an authoritarian leftist by his own admission.
What about all the other mass shootings this year?
Why focus on this one?
There was a mass shooting the day before 17 people were shot.
The media, it's all political propaganda.
In our next story, ABC tries to defend grooming, in a sense, and their ratings drop because of it.
A drama depicts a teacher standing up to a racist parent who doesn't like his child's gender transition.
If you like this show, leave us a good review and give us five stars.
Share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Elon Musk's buyout of Twitter is at risk because he may have found potential fraud, and now
he's being accused of breaking his non-disclosure agreement by revealing Twitter does their
bot audit for the entirety of the platform by checking just 100 users.
Now this story gets crazy, ladies and gentlemen, and I am of the opinion that Elon Musk has
discovered fraud at Twitter.
I'm not saying Twitter has committed fraud.
I'm saying when I look at it, everything I see seems like Twitter is defrauding advertisers
and shareholders.
So there's a lot to break down.
Elon Musk said last week he was putting the Twitter deal on hold because he wanted an
assessment of the bots and spam accounts.
Now this matters.
If Twitter is saying, here's what we're worth because here's what we can deliver, and it turns out what they can deliver is not the same as what they report, because it's spam and bot accounts, well then they're not really worth what they say they're worth or what shareholders think they're worth.
And then you end up with Elon Musk overpaying for a broken platform.
Now what if that was really it?
Twitter's only alive as a platform because we use it.
Because political junkies and journalists are on the platform, but we're a teeny tiny portion of the population.
No.
It's true.
I think only around 20% of the country actually has an account.
And only around, I think, 20% of that group actually uses Twitter.
Which means it's something like, what is it, like 2% of the country are active users?
Maybe Twitter doesn't have any real users.
Maybe it's all spam bots.
But here's what happens.
Twitter, behind the scenes, checks a hundred accounts and says, we think these are bots.
Elon says, I'm going to do a random sampling of a hundred accounts.
And he gets flack for it.
People say, a hundred accounts?
That's not enough.
You can't audit spam bots from a hundred accounts.
And Elon goes, I just said that because that's what Twitter was doing.
Twitter comes out and says, you broke your non-disclosure agreement!
Something fishy is going on.
I think Elon found fraud.
Parag Agrawal, the CEO, comes out with this huge thread, panicked, like, you have to understand, like, this is how spam works, and how bots work, and, uh-oh.
Could it be that Twitter was selling advertisements to people off fake numbers?
Yes.
We know that Twitter incorrectly, I'm being generous here, Incorrectly reported their total user numbers on more than one occasion.
But even left-leaning The Verge said, How is that possible?
The first time you make the mistake, we get it, but you did the same thing twice?
Perhaps, my friends, it is all intentional that Twitter is a dirty company doing dirty things to make money and convince advertisers they're more valuable than they really are so they can oversell ads, make money, and fund their manipulation machine.
Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey.
They get into it over the algorithm.
Jack says, the algorithm wasn't intended to manipulate.
Sure, whatever you want to say.
I don't care about your intentions.
I care about what the machine you built does.
Well, I invented dynamite, but I didn't intend to kill people with it, says the merchant of death, Alfred Nobel.
And so, uh, he creates the Nobel Prize.
Because he didn't want to go down in history as the guy who was the merchant of death.
The story there is his obituary was accidentally published before he died.
He read it and said, that's what they think of me?
He wasn't trying to make something to blow people up with, but dynamite was something pretty powerful.
Well.
It may be that Twitter didn't intend to manipulate.
I don't care.
You did it.
Your left-wing policies create, combined with a left-wing algorithm, or with a biased algorithm, creates manipulation.
I think Elon Musk is playing 4D chess, and a lot of people strangely act like he doesn't know what he's doing, but I think he knows what he's doing.
And I think he's exposing Twitter.
Well, let's go through what happened today.
And expose what's happening with Twitter.
Because I think, again, I'll say it.
I think we may be seeing fraud getting uncovered.
Now, I'm not saying I have definitive evidence.
I'm saying what we see so far in the news says to me fraud.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you will get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast.
You'll be supporting our journalists and we use Rumble infrastructure so we can stay away from Amazon And Silicon Valley's big tech companies.
If you agree with that message of building separate infrastructure so that we can't get censored, go to TimGuest.com, become a member, and help support our work.
But don't forget, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
We've got many stories to break down.
Elon Musk claims bot check broke NDA.
Well, let's start with this from the Daily Mail.
The bots are angry at being counted.
Elon Musk says his team will do a random sample of 100 Twitter followers to see how many are bots, as he weighs proceeding with $44 billion takeover, and exclusive photos show him hours before pausing the deal.
Now, this story is from the 13th, but it's the context as to how the whole bot thing begins.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and his team are preparing their own audit of 100 Twitter followers to check how many are bots and spam accounts.
Earlier, citing a week-old regulatory filing from Twitter, Musk claimed he wanted to pause the deal to verify that false or spam accounts represented fewer than 5% of the company's 229 million users during the first quarter.
Let's slow down.
Now, that was during their first quarter.
Something interesting happens.
In that week that Elon Musk announces he's buying, as the news breaks that he's buying the platform, we see a wave of new followers for people on the right, and we see people like the red-headed libertarian get unbanned.
Many other smaller users saying, my account was just unbanned for some reason.
I don't know why.
So why was Twitter unbanning so many right-leaning accounts or right-wing accounts?
I don't know.
At the same time, left-leaning accounts and celebrities lost hundreds of thousands of followers.
How does that happen?
Twitter claims it's organic.
It's all organic, they say.
People were just leaving the platform, and conservatives were joining the platform, I suppose.
But that makes no sense.
We know people had their accounts restored.
It seems like Twitter was fudging the numbers.
That was in quarter two, because the announcement came in the second quarter.
In the first quarter, they say 5% of their users were spam bots.
Okay, some have said to me, Tim, no, no, no, you're wrong.
It couldn't be fraud.
Well, in this context, they couldn't be manipulating the followers because the numbers, the 5% from the first quarter, Yes, hold on there a minute.
In the first quarter, they can change the data after the fact and claim, all these users are right here and they've been here the whole time, right?
They can ban them and say, oh yeah, look, look, look.
If they're fudging the data, they're fudging the data.
On Friday, Musk followed up saying, to find out, my team will do a random sample of 100 followers of Twitter.
He later jokes that the bots are angry at being counted.
Twitter's official account has 61.7 million followers, meaning Musk has a large group to choose from.
If Twitter's reporting is accurate, that would mean that there are fewer than 11.4 million fake accounts that are targeted for ads.
Musk has 92.4 million Twitter followers.
Musk has been attending a private dinner party in Beverly Hills just hours before hitting pause on his Twitter deal, and you can see him on his phone probably tweeting, having a good time.
Haha, that's very funny.
Some people are arguing this is a ploy by Elon to lower the price.
So here's what happens.
Elon Musk gets accused of trying to back out of the deal because 100 followers is not nearly enough to do an audit of the entirety of the website, right?
Well, right, it's not.
Here's what happens.
According to the New York Post, Elon Musk on Saturday tweeted that Twitter's legal team accused him of violating a non-disclosure agreement by revealing that the sample size for the social media platform's checks on automated users was just 100 accounts.
Twitter Legal just called to complain that I violated their NDA by revealing the bot check sample size is 100.
That actually happened.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Musk said, any sensible random sampling process is fine.
If many people independently get similar results for a percentage of fake, spam, duplicate accounts, that will be telling.
I picked 100 as the sample size number because that is what Twitter uses to calculate their 5% fake, spam, or duplicate.
Elon Musk was right to use the same number.
He's trying to see if he can reproduce the results.
Elon can take 100 random users 100 times, meaning he's getting a very large group, and then he can calculate the average percentage to see what he gets.
Twitter is claiming he should not have revealed that number.
Now, of course, people on the left are saying Elon Musk is trying to bow out of the deal.
Twitter's CEOs, according to The Verge, And Elon Musk are beefing over bot accounts.
This story from today.
Parag Agrawal claims internal estimates are actually well below the reported 5%.
I don't buy it.
I think if they were deleting users, I don't buy it.
Take a look from The Guardian.
Left-leaning users leave Twitter in protest at Musk takeover.
I don't believe it.
Why would Katy Perry of 200,000 progressives be like, I'm leaving this platform?
She didn't even tweet anyway.
Take a look at this.
The Washington Post.
Musk doesn't own Twitter yet, but conservatives are racking up followers.
I'll tell you what I think.
I think, you can see it right here, something happened.
Strange, isn't it?
Twitter announced sale to Elon Musk on April 25th.
From the 24th to the 25th, there is a small spike between conservative users and a small drop-off between progressive users.
Now, of course, behind the scenes, we knew this was, like, people knew this was coming, but we didn't know when.
Seems like Twitter did.
When the sale was announced, there was an explosion, and you can see it in all these different accounts.
I gained 100,000 followers.
Not on the Monday the announcement was made.
But the next day.
I've maintained that's strange.
It makes no sense.
If conservatives were joining the platform to gloat, they would have joined on that Monday morning when the news was coming out the deal was about to be finalized.
Not a day later.
And progressives would have left a long time ago.
Not a day later.
You can see the progressives were gaining followers a little bit.
Republicans were gaining a little bit.
Then it's announced and all of a sudden all these Democrats just leave.
Maybe, but I really don't buy it.
Let's take a look at where we're at.
Elon Musk has an algorithm argument, but I'll come to that in a second.
Parag Agrawal made a very large thread about spam bots that I think is BS.
He says.
Let's talk about spam.
Let's do so with the benefit of data facts and context.
First, let me state the obvious.
Spam harms the experience for real people on Twitter, and therefore can harm our business.
As such, we are strongly incentivized to detect and remove as much spam as we possibly can, every single day.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is just wrong.
Next, spam isn't just binary, human, not human.
The most advanced spam campaigns use combinations of coordinated humans and automation.
They also compromise real accounts and then use them to advance their campaign.
So they are sophisticated and hard to catch.
Some final context.
Fighting spam is incredibly dynamic.
The adversaries, their goals and tactics evolve constantly, often in response to our work.
You can't build a set of rules to detect spam today and hope they will still work tomorrow.
They will not.
We suspend over half a million spam accounts every day, usually before any of you even see them on Twitter.
We also lock millions of accounts each week that we suspect may be spam, if they can't pass human verification challenges, CAPTCHAs, phone verification, etc.
The hard challenge is that many accounts which look fake superficially are actually real people, and some of the spam accounts which are actually the most dangerous and cause the most harm to our users can look totally legitimate on the surface.
Our team updates our system and rules constantly to remove as much spam as possible without inadvertently suspending real people or adding unnecessary friction for real people when they use Twitter.
None of us want to solve a CAPTCHA every time we use Twitter.
This is a long one, huh?
Now, we know we aren't perfect at catching spam, and so this is why.
After all the spam removal I talked about above, we know some still slips through.
We measured this internally, and every quarter we have estimated that around 5%, less than
5%, have reported monthly, what does it say, MDAUs, is that daily active users?
For the quarter, our spam accounts.
Our estimate is based on multiple human reviews and replicate of thousands of accounts that
are sampled at random, consistently over time, from accounts we count as MDAUs.
We do this every quarter, and we have been doing this for many years.
Each human review is based on Twitter rules that define spam and platform manipulation, and use both public and private data.
For example, IP addresses, phone numbers, geolocation, client browser signatures, what the account does when it's active to make a determination on each account.
The use of private data is particularly important to avoid misclassifying users who are actually real.
First name, bunch of numbers with no profile pic, and odd tweets might seem like a bot or spam to you.
But behind the scene, we often see multiple indicators that it's a real person.
Our actual internal estimates for the last four quarters were all well under 5% based on the methodology outlined above.
The error margins on our estimates give us confidence in our public statements each quarter.
Unfortunately, we don't believe that this specific estimation can be performed externally, given the critical need to use both public and private information, which we can't share.
Externally, it's not even possible to know which accounts are counted as MDAUs on a given day.
There are lots of details that are very important underneath this high-level description.
We shared an overview of the estimation process with Elon a week ago, and look forward to continuing the conversation with him and all of you.
Elon Musk responded with the poop emoji!
Now, If there was ever an argument that Elon Musk was disparaging Twitter, this is as close as he's gotten, but I still don't think it passes, right?
People have said that because he's criticized Twitter externally, he violated his business deal with Twitter, and then he can't buy the platform.
It's like, calm down, dude.
The deal he had says he can't mention the deal and disparage Twitter at the same time.
He can post a poop emoji.
Elon responds.
So how do advertisers know what they're getting for their money?
This is fundamental to the financial health of Twitter.
He's right.
Elon Musk is correct.
Parag is only coming out now and explaining all of this to the public?
Hold on.
He makes a lot of really good points.
I agree with Agrawal.
You, it is hard to track spam because these accounts want to make money by manipulating this platform.
So Elon mentions, how do the advertisers know?
Unless you tell them and reveal this information.
I think something shady is happening.
Personally.
I'm not saying I have definitive proof.
Again, I will stress that.
Something doesn't add up when they're like, we can't actually, you can't do a spam, I'm sorry, you can't.
That's what they're saying.
It's not even possible to do a, uh huh.
There are many services that do fake or bot audits.
Now, I've seen a lot of people say, this user has X percent of fake bots, and it's true.
You gotta understand, it's not so easy.
I think if you do an audit of my account, it says something like 20% are bots.
And this is mostly recently.
Before the return of all of these right-wing accounts that were unsuspended, my estimate was like, I don't know, maybe like 7%.
So something happened where now this other third-party service thinks I personally have more bot accounts.
It makes sense.
When you have a lot of followers, you have a higher density of bots, not because you bought followers, but because bots follow prominent people to try and seem real.
That's what you gotta watch out for.
Also, many of these external bot checkers don't know.
Many people will sign up on Twitter, not tweet anything, follow 100 people and have no followers
because that's what they use Twitter for. It doesn't mean they're bots. That's all true. But the
idea that you can't do an external audit is insane.
He says, you know, uh, we believe the information can, uh, unfortunately don't believe it can be formed externally.
B.S.
If you grant access to the API, companies can find a way to figure out who's a bot or not based on posting frequency.
Did you know CAPTCHAs, many of them, are B.S.?
They say you should click the image that has the fire hydrants in it.
What they really track, not all of them, is your mouse movements.
Because bots have simple linear motions and they're quick.
Humans have a bit of randomness in their clicks.
It is possible to know if someone's a bot.
For that matter, I mean, Twitter theoretically could do like a mouse movement or, you know, something that it shows that internally, without spying on you, just shows the mouse movements and they can know if you're on desktop, if you're a bot or not.
And on a mobile phone, they could do similar things.
But again, you want to avoid getting too intrusive with someone's personal data.
How do the advertisers know?
That's the question that leads me to believe fraud.
That Twitter knows something is going on.
I think Twitter is manipulating people.
I think they're manipulating the users.
I think they're manipulating the advertisers.
Take a look at this story from Mashable.
Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey debated Twitter's algorithm, and Musk was actually right.
Interesting.
Usually, Musk v. Dorsey is a whoever-wins-we-lose situation, so this was a surprise.
They gonna say, I don't care for Mashable's weird opinion.
They say Musk, who may or may not buy Twitter soon, did what he always does on Saturday and posted some musings.
Among them was a call for Twitter users to change their feeds.
Let's talk about what Elon said.
Elon said, very important to fix your Twitter feed.
Tap the home button.
Tap the stars on the upper right screen.
Select latest tweets.
You are being manipulated by the algorithm in ways you don't realize.
Easy to switch back and forth to see the difference.
I'm not suggesting malice in the algorithm, but rather that it's trying to guess what you might want to read, and in doing so, inadvertently manipulate or amplify your viewpoints without you realizing it's happening.
Not to mention potential bugs in the code.
Open source is the way to solve both trust and efficacy.
We then have the Twitter thread from Prague, but Jack Dorsey chimes in.
After Elon said you're being manipulated, Jack Dorsey says it was designed simply to save you time when you are away from an app for a while.
Pull to refresh goes back to reverse chronological as well.
I don't believe you, Jack.
There have been many circumstances where I've gone on my computer and all of a sudden I'm back on the algorithmic feed, and I have to switch back, and I'm like, how did that happen?
on my phone too. Hasan Solemiz, I'm pronouncing that wrong, forgive me, says,
it was definitely designed for manipulation.
If you had good intentions, you wouldn't have dictated this design to us.
Then Elon's tweet would be like this.
Hey, if you want to save your time, tap home, tap the stars on the upper right of the screen and select home tweets.
The point is, it defaults to an algorithmic feed.
If they wanted to save time for people, they would have just made it so you could opt into it, not that it's default.
No, it wasn't designed to manipulate.
It was designed to catch you up and work off what you engage with.
That can def have unintended consequences though.
Which is why one should be able to choose if they use an algorithm or not, and which one.
Simple solution to all of this.
Hasan Soylemez says, It is an imposition that you have to force us to use the algo to decide whether or not to use the algo.
How do these algorithms decide what we engage with?
Since the design changed, the interactions have decreased and our followers can't see our tweets.
Aren't you aware of that?
Jack Dorsey says, they simply try to put the tweets that you are most likely to engage with at the top.
That's it.
Predictive, based on what you like, retweet, reply to, search for, pause, et cetera.
It's meant to be a convenience, nothing more.
Again, most important is being able to turn it off.
Now, I agree with that.
The only thing is it defaults.
Okay, here's how it works.
This is a radicalization engine.
There was a guy who gave a presentation a while ago called The Filter Bubble.
If you follow 100 people and you mostly interact with one group of people because that's who you feel like interacting with, the algorithm will start to eliminate the other side.
You won't see it because you don't interact with it.
So let's say I follow CNN, The New York Times, Hasan Piker, and Steven Crowder.
Okay.
CNN.
Will I interact with?
No.
I follow them to see what they're talking about, not to have a conversation with a brand account.
So they're gone.
The New York Times.
I'm not good for the same reason as CNN.
I'm not going to.
Steven Crowder.
Okay.
Crowder maybe.
He'll tweet something and I'll add to it.
But then, we have a left-wing progressive commentator, much more likely to engage and counter the argument.
If I'm engaging with people because I don't agree with them, and then Twitter starts feeding me nothing but that, it is a radicalization machine.
Now, YouTube has been accused of having a rabbit hole.
There is a difference, but there are similarities.
YouTube does have the ability to radicalize, but it's not that big of an issue.
What was argued four years ago was that YouTube recommends to you content you've already watched.
So if you watch a video on immigration, it's going to send you more and more of this, and thus you'll become a far-right bigot.
What we actually saw in the data is that YouTube was recommending more left-wing content because left-wing content was so popular.
However, let me say for YouTube, there's no direct share function.
You can't, like, I don't follow you as an individual, I follow channels.
You follow my channel.
If you post something, I don't see what you posted.
I have to follow you.
With Twitter, there's retweets, meaning you can be fed content Rapidly!
Like that.
Someone makes a statement.
It goes viral.
Everybody shares it.
Everybody sees it.
On YouTube, there's no retweet.
It doesn't exist.
We don't follow that hundreds to thousands of people.
We follow the specific channels and we only get the content from those channels if we get them at all.
Additionally, If I interact with left-wing arguments more so than right-wing arguments, because I'm arguing with them, then Twitter will recommend more of the same, right?
And I'll argue more.
On YouTube, if I watch a video that says immigration, you know, breaking news, YouTube might recommend a left-wing perspective next, because these videos could be long.
So when they say that YouTube's radicalizing, there are some issues with the algorithm, period, no matter what you're using.
But it's Facebook and Twitter where they feed you all of this stuff.
You are being manipulated.
Twitter has a left-wing bias among their staff.
So they've created left-wing biased rules and terms.
Then they create an algorithm which feeds upon those, and you have a left-wing biased algorithm.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating Let me tell you why I think it does.
We'll wrap up all of these thoughts and get serious for a second.
your podcast is America on trial with Josh Hammer.
They ban people.
They tell us what we can't talk about.
They then say it was all an accident every single time.
Here's what's happening now.
So to wrap things up, if Elon Musk is able to gain Twitter, take it, buy it, we might restore these conversations.
Let me show you this from Newsweek.
MAGA candidates attack McConnell over abhorrent $40 billion Ukraine bill.
There it is.
Right now, Biden is sending hundreds of ground forces into Somalia.
Why?
Donald Trump withdrew forces from Somalia, and now Biden is sending them back.
MAGA candidates, the people who are being banned for saying things like Learn to Code, the people who are reinstated in large numbers for some reason, all of a sudden there are appeals, are the people saying no war.
So is that it?
Right now, take a look at this from Glenn Greenwald.
He says, total amount U.S.
has allocated to war in Ukraine after 10 weeks, $54 billion.
The average annual amount the U.S.
spent in Afghanistan was $46 billion.
Top Russian military budget for the entire year, $69 billion.
Projected U.S.
expenditure on war in Ukraine for one year, $554 billion.
These are bad things.
I think these are bad things.
But if you deviate, you'll be banned.
If you were a Trump supporter, you were more likely to be banned.
The left lies.
It's not true.
Oh, they're banning us.
No, they aren't.
Some people on the left who are anti-war got banned.
And that's about who got banned.
That's it.
You've got people who post overt calls for violence.
You have Lori Lightfoot, the mayor of Chicago, saying it's a call to arms.
We have to fight and we have to win.
Alex Jones said, keep me... I'm not going to repeat what he said.
But he said something similar.
And he got banned and she didn't.
Because Twitter is biased.
I hope Elon Musk acquires the platform.
I hope Elon Musk takes Twitter for all it's worth, fixes the problems.
I don't know if it will actually happen.
Perhaps Elon's plan this whole time was to expose the fraud.
Here's the way I put it on IRL, on TechGuest IRL.
Whenever you tweet, Like, not whenever, but typically, you'll see this fake Elon Musk account that says, like, buy this crypto scam.
I wonder if Elon got tired of his face being used for these scams, and for Twitter not banning these.
They're obviously bots, they're not verified, and you can see them, and Twitter just go delete, they don't do it.
So I wonder if he was like, okay, I'm gonna expose the bot problem.
He's talked about the bot problem quite a bit.
He says he's gonna buy the company.
Now it's on hold because of the bot problem.
Maybe Elon loses 1 billion dollars and maybe he doesn't care.
How much is too much money?
Maybe he just wanted to expose the bot problem on Twitter.
And here we are.
I think they're being disingenuous.
I think Twitter overtly manipulates, and many of the people there may not be conscious of it.
Jack Dorsey may not be conscious of it.
But it's happening.
And it's remarkable to me that even after the conversation I had with him, and the subsequent conversations over Twitter, he hasn't gotten the big picture yet.
He hasn't understood.
That's why I just don't believe him.
I think Jack Dorsey is a liar.
I think he's playing this part.
Now he left the company and he's saying all of these things, endearing himself to the right, yet when he was there, none of this.
And maybe it's, oh, he's got contracts and all that stuff.
So what?
Then say nothing.
But Jack has repeatedly been on the wrong side of this.
Why should I take his word for it?
I think Twitter wanted to maintain a healthy conversation.
So, they banned people they thought were toxic, and fluffed up with fake accounts the people they thought were appropriate, or that they liked.
And because they're in San Francisco, and they have a left-wing bias, that's what the rules did.
You can't come to me and tell me that Jack Dorsey's been redeemed or that he's waking up because he had every opportunity and he heard every single argument.
He knew exactly what was going on and only now is he coming out and saying something about it.
So I don't buy it.
Of course, when it comes to the weird goings-on, the media will try to downplay it.
They say conservatives are racking up followers.
Cumulative change in Twitter followers for the 20 Republican and Democratic Congress people are the biggest shift.
What about Barack Obama?
They don't include him.
What about Katy Perry?
They don't include her.
I think she lost 200,000 followers.
Where is it?
There's a reason why people on the left didn't lose as many as people on the right.
Because it is a culture war, and Republican and Democrat is not what matters.
Now, the Washington Post, I suppose, needed a metric by which to determine, a control, but this is an incomplete picture.
You need to look at right-wing personalities, libertarian personalities, all being restored and unlocked, and look at liberal personalities losing followers.
I think they're trying to pad their numbers.
I think if you try and go back to the first quarter and look at their actual audit numbers, they're gonna have the numbers flubbed.
People are like, the filing they sent in a week after the weird burst in followers and burst in disappearances of followers, they'll say, that was quarter two, doesn't count.
It's like, they published a week later.
For all you know, they manipulated the numbers and then lied about it.
If they're willing to manipulate the numbers, why would they not be willing to lie about it?
Twitter's important.
On Twitter, people are calling for war.
And war is happening.
And we don't want that.
Those of us that are anti-war and want the infrastructure spent on the United States.
I wonder why it is that in one year, they're looking at half a trillion dollars for Ukraine.
Would you be happy with them not spending the $500 billion at all?
If they were going to spend it anyway, would you prefer it be diverted to giving you healthcare?
I don't like government-run programs for the most part, because I think the problem we have is that we never get rid of them.
We never purge them when they go bad.
A business could fail, not a government program, but I do like communal programs.
I hate to say government, but this idea of a universal basic healthcare to me makes a lot of sense.
That's why we need to have these conversations.
That's why the censorship is so dangerous.
How do we discuss things when we are getting banned for discussing them, and the end result is going to be civil war?
Do you remember what I said to Jack Dorsey and Vijay Gaudet when I went on the podcast with Joe Rogan?
I said, if you don't stop this, people are going to be killing each other.
I'm getting a van down by the river.
It's funny.
I said in 2018, I'm sorry, 2019, that it was getting bad.
A year later, we're in lockdown.
I move out to West Virginia.
I said, I'm getting out of here.
Violent, the most violent riots we'd seen in 50 years.
People being shot and killed in the streets.
Look, I was being a little hyperbolic talking about getting a van down by the river.
I did build the van.
We used it to drive around and, you know, film stuff and things like that.
But mostly, I used it to record while being on the road.
I wasn't wrong.
Twitter wasn't the only reason this stuff was happening.
Twitter was just a large reason for the hyperpolarization.
And Jack knows and didn't do anything about it.
Jack says he knows about these things.
That's why I don't believe him.
Maybe he'd be willing to have a conversation with me, but a lot of people just, they don't want to stand next to the heat if they don't have to.
This is why so many news organizations do softball interviews.
They want access.
Don't care.
If you're not going to come and sit down and have a conversation with me, you don't owe me that.
Jack Dorsey's big, he's a billionaire.
Elon Musk, same thing.
I would love to have a conversation with them, because I want to have a conversation with them.
They don't owe me that.
But I want to hear real answers to what's going on.
Jack, you talked about fixing these problems.
Why did you not do it?
You heard me say it!
Did you investigate in any capacity?
If you did, what did you find?
When I said the censorship would lead to hyperpolarization, and it's only continued to do so, was, did you just think, Tim's wrong, I'm gonna ignore him?
That's fine if you did!
I am no prophet!
But I want to ask, follow up, remember I said that?
What did you do after I brought it up?
Did you say, that's crazy, it'll never happen?
Do you think that was wrong now?
I'd love to have Elon and Jack Dorsey on the show, but we'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
We are having a progressive podcaster on the show, and I imagine it's gonna be like an eight-hour long argument.
I don't approach these things to argue or debate with people, but it turns into it because I feel strongly about certain things.
But let's see what we can accomplish in this conversation, because I have questions that I don't think they can answer.
Next segment will be at 8 p.m.
tonight.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
What happened in Buffalo is horrifying.
A man opened fire in a grocery store, killing ten people, in the deadliest mass shooting of this year.
Maybe even longer.
It's an extreme tragedy.
And we wish these things wouldn't happen.
But they do.
But the issue here isn't the mass shooting.
And as much as many people on the left are going to claim that it's the case, the establishment media is going to say psychotic things.
They're just lying.
The Rolling Stone published this thriller.
The Buffalo Shooter isn't a lone wolf.
He's a mainstream Republican.
The right-wing extremists who control the modern GOP are all gripped by a racist delusion.
The Shooter is just the latest to act on it.
It's a lie.
The man in question was just a crazy person.
Much like what happened in Waukesha, this guy was a crazy person.
Now, do both of these men, have they expressed certain political leanings?
Absolutely.
But in the end, I just say, look, man, people are crazy.
To do something like this, you have to be crazy.
This guy in Buffalo did nothing impactful towards any kind of ideology.
His brain is just broken.
Anyone who's claiming to want any kind of political change or victory, certainly this is the opposite of what someone would do.
Completely destroy any kind of cause you might have.
No, no, no.
These people are crazy.
They're crazy.
And people tell me, you know, when I deal with death threats and violence and things like that, they say, oh, the far left, the far left.
And I'm like, I'm not worried about the far left.
I'm worried about the crazy people.
The people who are not well in their heads.
They need help.
We want to help them.
Now there's a few things to point out.
First, people can be motivated by politics.
I believe this man was motivated by political causes.
I believe the guy in Waukesha, the black man who espoused black nationalist views on social media, who ran over a bunch of white people, I also believe he was racially motivated.
It made no sense otherwise.
I mean, I suppose you can call it an assumption.
The left and the mainstream media, of course, are saying it's a dubious connection.
Whatever.
We can only make our assumptions based on what we see and our personal perspective.
I'm not swayed by arguments from the laptop class.
Now, when it comes to this guy in Buffalo, he wasn't a Republican.
In fact, he considered himself to be an authoritarian leftist.
Moderate left-leaning authoritarian.
But he was a racial identitarian.
He used to be a communist.
It's actually in the manifesto he wrote.
Why would Rolling Stone write something insane like this?
Why would conservatives then come out and just say things like, you know, this is a ridiculous... I just... the dunking.
Now, for the conservatives, the libertarians, post-liberals, whatever faction, For those that are criticizing this and calling it a lie, that's good.
We should call out the lies.
At a certain point, though, the system is completely broken.
Here's what I want to tell you.
What I want to tell you is, I think we're on the verge of civil war.
You hear me say it all the time.
I can throw it to our good friend Stephen Marsh.
And I mean that one only half-jokingly, because normally when I say our good friend, it's a reference to someone who's not, you know, someone who likes the show.
But Stephen came on the show and he made important arguments that I agree with and actually will use, because I think his research on civil war is good.
But his perspective on news and his sourcing is bad.
So here we have a story.
Before I get- Steven Marsh is talking about Civil War.
And I'm going to read to you what he says, but I want to build up and explain to you where we are right now in this escalation.
A leftist just committed a violent attack.
The media is calling him right-wing.
A professed leftist just committed a racist attack and the media is calling him right-wing.
Civil War, man!
What do you expect from someone like me?
When I'm reading this, when I say it over and over and over again, you have two tribal factions that hate each other.
Maybe many, I'm not saying every single person, I'm saying They talk bad about each other.
They won't tolerate each other.
When a guy releases a manifesto outright saying he falls in the... I'm showing you the source right here.
Mild, moderate, authoritarian, left category.
And populist.
And the media says right wing.
Last week on Tim Castile.
Ian was saying that, you know, he watches these left-wing commentators, and they say the exact same thing we say about them about us!
It's just, you know, we say they're wrong, they're lying, they're evil.
They say they're wrong, they're lying, they're evil.
And I said, Ian, yes, but we're right.
And he goes, oh, okay, yeah, we're right, but they're saying... If you don't have the facts, if you don't have the sourcing, I can understand why someone would believe that.
That both sides are just angry at each other.
They are.
But we are right.
Now, right and left are meaningless.
What does it really mean?
Because they're used for different things.
Some people would say, Tim Pool's right wing.
And what are they referring to?
Economic policy and abortion issues?
I'm pro-choice.
Say it a million times, people get mad at me for it on the right.
I disagree with the Democrats' version of choice, so let me just say I think abortion is wrong.
I think it should be the woman's discretion within the first trimester, and then life rights come into play and viability, and I'm open to moral arguments to ask these questions about how we properly deal with these rights.
Pro-choice today just basically means, I guess, the way they've used it, abortion up to nine months.
And we'll get into that, because I think this is the strong moral issue leading to a civil war.
There are other issues, of course.
So here's the issue.
The left believed the Covington Kid lie.
They did not attack this Native American man.
Jussie Smollett, they believed it.
They all did these PSAs.
The Big Bang Theory took a set picture.
A lie.
Russiagate.
A lie.
For years.
They just believe every lie.
Rolling Stone comes out with a lie.
A right-wing extremist.
He's a mainstream Republican.
I'm pretty sure mainstream Republicans aren't former communist authoritarian leftists.
That's really what it is.
In this response, BangSwitchActuator said, I'm not defending the GOP, I'm an anarchist, but you clowns are lying, and quite frankly, this type of gaslighting exactly what got Trump elected in the first place.
Highlighting what this man who committed the crime wrote, that he was deep into communist ideology.
Ask anyone from 15 to 18, he consistently moved farther to the right, but He says he would fall mild-moderate authoritarian left category.
So I'll explain to you how this makes sense.
But he's racist.
You say racists are only right-wing.
No.
No, he's everything I've been warning about.
Not just me, other people.
But I say on my show, when you take the authoritarian ideology of the left and apply it to a young white man, you get racist white identitarianism with a left-wing economic bent.
Duh.
The media will lie to you about it.
Now there's questions of what left and right really mean.
That's why I don't care to use the terms.
Okay?
Now he says he's of the left.
What does that mean?
Economically?
Progressive tradition?
You can be racist and pro-LGBTQ?
How about that?
What they're saying is that anybody who at any point ever deviates from the left-wing tribal ideology, it makes you right-wing.
You can be pro-choice, pro-universal healthcare, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay rights, and say something like, but we shouldn't be giving top surgery to minors, and say, right-wing transphobe.
Instantly, you're right-wing.
That's the game they play.
That's why I say civil war.
Because if even people who agree with their identitarian ideology, critical race theory, Say they do, but they do one thing that's outside of the norm.
Boom, you're right-wing.
Now this guy, it's not just one thing.
This guy did something very, very horrifying and awful.
How do you deal with this?
I don't know how you de-radicalize when the media keeps pumping out these lies, just over and over and over, and they're saying, Tucker Carlson radicalized him.
Tucker Carlson did?
A pro-liberty, personal responsibility conservative?
No, don't get me wrong.
Tucker Carlson has talked about the Great Replacement.
Talked about it on his show.
The issue is, when you create identitarianism, when you propagate this, the idea that identity should be a determinant factor in politics, Did you think that white people would not embrace those ideas as well?
So, there was a meme going back years, where it shows a bunch of people of different races forming groups.
There's the black non-profits, there's Latino non-profits, there's Asian non-profits, and they're all saying power to their own race or whatever.
And then, all of a sudden, a bunch of white people are like, hey, maybe we should.
And they're like, oh no, Nazis.
That's the meme.
The idea is, this was predicted.
That people on the left would feel threatened.
It doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right.
That people of all ideologies will form race-based groups and embrace a world based on race.
And you will get racist attacks from people of a left-wing ideological bent.
Now, I'm not going to show you this next tweet.
This guy Chip Franklin says this is what happens when you make Kyle Rittenhouse a hero.
Kyle Rittenhouse was defending his neighborhood, was shot at, attacked, threatened with his life, and he defended himself against three white people.
So there's no point in embracing the psychotic responses, but let me...
Don't worry, I got 2022 as well, but we're only into May.
They say, in 2021, domestic extremists killed 29 people.
29 people.
In the past five years, it ranged from 45 to 78.
So, 29 people last year.
I mean, 19 separate incidents.
That's crazy.
The 2021 murder totals were low, primarily because no high-casualty shooting sprees occurred last year.
Such sprees are the main contributor to high murder rates.
That's right.
They say two of the murders, two of the killings in 2021, were committed by black nationalists and one Islamist extremist, the latter being the first since 2018.
26 of 29 were committed by right-wing extremists.
I'll accept those claims on politics.
I will point out that the ADL has a weird definition of what right-wing is.
Right-wing can be sovereign citizen, right-wing can be white supremacist, right-wing can be just typical conservative, right-wing anarchist.
Weirdly, black nationalists are considered left-wing, even if they have right-wing ideology, it makes no sense.
But I'll give them that.
Fine.
29 domestic extremist killings.
According to Stephen Marsh, who I mentioned earlier in the segment, 70 killings per year.
I could be wrong, Stephen.
If I'm getting your number wrong, I apologize.
I'll seek to correct.
But my understanding was he said, when 70 people are dying to extremists every year, you have civil strife, which is a precursor to civil war.
Well, we did not have that in the year prior.
Maybe my numbers are wrong, and maybe it was 20 or something.
Okay, maybe.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But let me tell you something.
In Chicago alone, 2021 was the deadliest year in a quarter century.
According to the department, 2021 ended with 797 homicides.
Let's talk about where we're going with civil war.
Because Stephen Marsh responded to the story.
He said the removal of long-held civil long-held rights through the manipulation of an antique
electoral judicial system, mass murder inspired by mainstream conservative principles. This is
what civil strife, the threshold to civil war looks like.
Stephen needs to do his research.
He's done research on concepts, ideas, and numbers, and I can respect that, but the dude just doesn't actually listen to the arguments and understand what's actually happening in this country.
He's Canadian, so I forgive him on that point.
The removal of long-held rights.
Did you know that people in the South claimed they had the right to own slaves?
And the government was trying to take that away from them!
Good, they should have.
That's why, partly why, a war erupted.
Because the South thought they had a right to own people, and they don't.
And the North said, you don't.
There's many reasons for the Civil War.
Slavery being the biggest, the catalyst.
But there were many, many issues.
Many people just hated each other.
I view abortion similarly.
The removal of long-held rights.
I'm assuming he's referring to Roe v. Wade.
I said, Except the moral question of life rights are the same.
Republicans want to extend life rights to babies.
Democrats want to extend termination up to nine months.
Imagine arguing the North was taking away a right to slavery.
That's what the South was saying!
It doesn't matter what your opinion is on abortion.
The argument is, if we are talking about extending life rights, it is absolutely today, as it was back then, the Republicans who are arguing for the extension of life rights.
What the left is arguing is that women would have to be, um, for nine months.
If they have a right to an abortion, that means for nine months, the women will be restrained.
They will lose the ability to be free for nine months.
So here's the question.
It's absolutely different from slavery in a lot of ways.
There are some similarities, but they're different.
Should a woman experience nine months of providing her body to another life, or should the other life die?
It's not so simple.
You know, I find myself in the traditionally liberal camp of, in the first trimester, I can understand.
This was what Roe v. Wade originally was.
In the first trimester, I can understand.
The baby can't live.
It's dependent upon the woman, and the woman can't be forced by government to provide her body for it.
I understand pro-lifers have a different position.
But there are difficult questions as it comes to government authority that I face.
But I certainly think once the baby is viable, killing the baby makes no sense.
Let me show you.
According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of abortion, the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by, the death of the embryo or fetus.
There's other definitions such as miscarriage, spontaneous expulsion within the first 12 weeks, the induced expulsion, Abortion typically refers to the termination of the baby.
There is no colloquial context in which someone says abortion to reference induced labor and the safe delivery of a baby for which it lives.
Abortion typically means the baby is dead.
Now, right now, in the text of the Democrats' bill, if we go down to the limitations, they say, let me pull it up, it's right here.
This means, after fetal viability, the baby can live.
to abortion without any of the limitations, we get to question nine. A prohibition on abortion after
fetal viability when in good faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider,
continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.
So let's break this down from the most charitable to the worst case scenario.
This means after fetal viability, the baby can live. Fetal viability means the baby can live on
its own. You can abort a baby, meaning ending its life, when the baby is viable,
if it would pose a risk to the patient's life or health.
Let's slow that down.
Here's the best Steel Man interpretation.
A woman is dying.
The doctor says the pregnancy is killing you.
Well, in that case, I say we have no choice but to try and save the life of the mother.
Hold on there a minute.
There's nothing in here saying that the doctor must also make a good faith effort to preserve the life of the baby, if viable.
In which case, abortion, as Merriam-Webster's number one definition refers to, closely following the death of the baby, the fetus or embryo, then even in the best case interpretation of this law, they're not talking about induced labor.
So let's slow it down.
Health?
Now we can get into the harder arguments on Section 9 of this bill.
What is it?
Section 3, Paragraph 9.
The woman, her health is at risk.
Not her life?
Her health is at risk?
So this could mean that she might have a medical issue that could cause her issues, but not die.
You can kill a baby at 9 months.
The baby is 9 months gestated.
It can survive on its own.
Let's say eight months.
I want to be as steel man as possible.
Let's say six months.
The baby would be able to survive outside the womb.
The mother's health is in jeopardy.
Why not induce labor?
Would that inconvenience the mother?
Okay.
Okay.
Steel man argument.
Inducing labor itself would hurt the mother.
Risk her life.
Caesarean section.
C-section.
How do you remove the baby at all?
The issue is, at the very least, while there are some circumstances, I can absolutely say, because I'm not a doctor, where delivery-induced labor or a C-section would kill the mother or hurt the mother, they would perform a late-term abortion where they would put the tools inside the woman, kill the baby, and then suck its body parts out.
That's a very difficult moral conundrum, but also extraordinarily rare, and can be solved by a simple provision.
In all instances, an effort must be made to preserve the life of the baby, if the baby is viable.
That still gives them tremendous leeway to say, a C-section would be, you know, cutting them in over, surgery to remove the baby, would be, um, would hurt the mother.
And so we shouldn't do it.
Even in that case, they could argue the surgery itself is harming the mother, so they wouldn't do it.
But they don't even have that provision, which is to say, if the baby is viable and must be removed, why kill it?
So the question then becomes, the moral issues around what's happening today.
The Democrats want provisions in which they can terminate a baby, Late term, viability is all that matters.
Viability means it can live on its own.
They can terminate that pregnancy, and the baby along with it, with no protections.
Conservatives don't like that concept.
Even Seamus, on Tim Guest's IRL, who's staunchly pro-life, said, if they are making an attempt to save the life of the mother, and in that process the baby dies, that's not abortion.
Well, okay.
It is, literally.
But the point he's making, Is that the intent should not be to kill the baby.
Okay, I agree with that.
Which brings me back to Stephen Marsh.
These are not mainstream conservative principles.
These are not the removal of long-held rights.
This is a moral and ethical constitutional question over who gets rights.
Stephen, if you're of the opinion that a baby at nine months has no rights, okay.
Well, therein lies the issue.
People in the South felt slaves had no rights.
People in the North felt they did.
They fought.
Stephen, it seems like you don't feel that babies have rights.
Well, conservatives feel they do.
Seems like fighting will ensue.
The person who committed this crime wasn't doing it because of abortion.
He was doing it because of identitarianism, which I oppose.
I think it's wrong.
I think identity-based government is bad.
There's a meme where it's like, every liberal or conservative people of all races, except for white people, think identitarianism to an extent is good, but white conservatives are like, we shouldn't do that, and white liberals are like, white people are bad.
I don't come from that camp.
I don't come from a...
White racial background.
So I have no interest in identitarianism.
I think it's bad.
For obvious reasons.
Preservation of myself and my family, right?
I don't want government based on race.
Because I've seen what government based on race is.
It's no surprise the people who are arguing for it are all racists.
The critical race theorists who want segregation.
The lunatics with guns who go and kill other people based on race.
This was a very, very awful mass shooting, and my heart goes out to the people, their families, and all of that.
There's a viral video of a guy who was like, we need more people with guns.
Security Guard had a gun, he couldn't stop them.
Need more people.
I don't have all the answers.
What I can tell you is they're just trying to manipulate you.
There's been so many mass shootings this year they just don't care about.
You guys know I come from Chicago too.
They're the two memes.
I'm mixed race and I come from Chicago.
You know how often I dealt with stories like this and nobody cared?
When I got shot at, when I'm driving down the street and a guy just points a gun at his car and shoots at me?
When a high school fight turned into a guy pulling out a gun?
And I'm pro-gun.
But criminals are criminals.
And so whenever I see stories like this, I'm like, I know that I can pull up the source and there were so many mass shootings you didn't care about!
I mean you, as in these mainstream media blue checkies that are lying.
How do we solve these problems?
I don't have the answers.
But I do think we're headed towards a civil war because of stories like this.
Mainstream Republican.
They want the fight.
This guy was not a mainstream Republican, but they're trying to make sure all mainstream Republicans are forced into a corner.
So be it, I guess.
Pray for peace.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The crisis in public schools isn't just critical race theory.
It's not just critical gender theory.
It's not just grooming.
It's a little bit of all of these things.
And while we talk about grooming in the sense that there are adults having secret conversations with children about adult ideas, sexual ones, There is the political grooming ideologies which are overlapping, but there's also more serious issues like schools covering up abuses and assaults, or secretly trying to indoctrinate kids beyond just the teacher-student relationship.
I mean like at an institutional level.
Today I give you a story on propaganda, but also a story on get woke, go broke!
That's right.
An ABC drama called A Million Little Things tried to depict a teacher as the good guy trying to help his trans student, and the parent says, ooh, racist bigots!
And it's propaganda.
Sure, I mean, media is.
TV shows are.
There's ideology in shows all the time.
In this instance, it's propaganda towards the left.
But it fits so perfectly this current debate that it's a bit more on the nose, and which is why I'm more comfortable calling it propaganda.
Star Trek The Next Generation, of course, had ideology in it as well.
I wouldn't call it propaganda because it wasn't so on the nose with a lot of political issues, but it did have political issues in it.
In this story, we learn that ABC's episode on parental rights and education was the second lowest rated show.
Nobody wanted to watch it.
Okay, some people clearly did, but a lot of people didn't, and so their ratings went But more importantly, it's the propaganda.
I think they know they're going to take a hit.
I think these networks know they're going to lose money, but they want to drive home a political ideology.
They're grooming your kids.
I'm going to show you the proof, and I'm going to break down this problem for you, but let's talk about how it's manifesting in media.
Newsbusters reports, teacher defies parents of trans student on ABC drama.
In my class, he gets to be who he is.
As the battle for parents' rights in the classroom continues across the country, ABC's liberal drama, A Million Little Things, continue to show where they stand on the issue by painting the parents of a transgender teen as cruel, racist fools, while depicting the teacher as a hero who gets it.
Remember that ABC is owned by Disney, the company that came out strongly against Florida's parental rights and education law.
Ah, and there it is, the political tie.
On Wednesday's episode, Out of Hiding, Teacher Rome is preparing for a parent-teacher conference at Sussex Prep after complaining that Sussex's parents are stuck up and unable to talk about anything other than martinis and yachts.
Oh my.
He tells his wife Regina he's particularly concerned about his student Madison, who said she wants to go by Maddox because she's, quote, not a girl.
It became clear in last week's episode that Maddox's parents weren't okay with this decision.
Maddox hasn't been coming to my class, Rome explains.
Madison has.
At the end of class before the conference, Madison Maddox asks Rome to speak to her parents about the situation because he gets it.
Do you have a sec, Mr. Howard?
Oh, for you, of course.
And I really enjoyed that interview with your grandmother.
Oh, I think I'm a little scared of her now.
Yeah, you definitely don't want to go head-to-head, Mahjong, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Madison slash Maddox says, I've tried to tell them that I've always been like this, but they only see me as their little girl.
So, um, I was wondering, do you think that you could talk to my parents for me at your conference today?
I mean, maybe if Clark and Isabel hear it from an adult who gets it, they'll start to understand.
Clark?
Clark Ainsworth is your dad?
Yeah, you know him.
Come on.
Hey Clark, here comes Rome. Yeah, we went to school together. Of course, I'll talk to them for you.
I got your back. Apparently then it flashed, it is a flashback to her dad being racist. Come on.
Really? You know things are going downhill when a teacher tries to play hero in opposition to
And of course, the writers made Maddox's father, Clark, to be one of the students who played a horrible racist prank on Rome when they were students.
The obvious goal is to vilify the parents as much as possible.
This is poisoning the well.
It's clear propaganda.
The father, who is concerned about his daughter, did racist things.
He apologizes.
Clark actually apologizes for the prank at the conference, but it's clear Rome believes some people never change.
Clark says, I'm telling you, this guy isn't aged at all.
Guess some people never change.
Hey, Clark.
How you doing?
This is my wife, Isabel.
Yada yada.
So Clark, the father, says, listen, you know, before I get started, I just want to say, me and some of the guys didn't make it so easy you back in the day.
It was wrong, and I want to apologize.
So we move on.
And let me start by saying it's a pleasure to get to know you.
The wife says, I've never been so excited.
I've never, I have never seen her so excited about a class.
Oh, it's mutual.
Maddox is one of my best students.
The father says, Maddox?
Oh, so she told you?
He told- he told me, yes.
Yeah, uh, look, now, we have to admit this whole Maddox thing has been- it's been a lot to process.
The mom goes on.
Well, she's always had her things.
There was a yoga obsession, and then she's into crystals, then there was her goth phase.
The teacher says, all due respect, I don't think what's going on with Maddox is the same as being way into the cure.
But we're here to talk about your child's academic performance.
Now the whole point of documentary filmmaking is to capture the truth on film.
In fact, that's how I first learned of Maddox, and he is exceeding all of my expectations.
Now I know it must be really difficult letting go of yours, but while he's in my class at least, he gets to be who he is.
Clark says, well, when you put it that way, it all makes perfect sense.
Oh, something coming, huh?
Regardless of where anyone stands on the issue, the audacity of a teacher to overstep the rights of parents this way is just mind-blowing.
What's scary is this is clearly a reflection of how many public school teachers seem to think in real life, hence the fierce debates happening at school boards across the country.
Since Sussex is a private school, though, parents have more power, especially if they're a top donor as the Ainsworths are.
Okay, this is fiction.
It's meant to imitate real life.
Art imitates life.
But it's also taking a perspective.
It's showing you these parents are racists, or that the kid was racist.
He's a bigot.
He's a bully.
He doesn't understand.
It's just an obsession.
Now, from the sound of things, it seems like the people who made the show clearly are biased, but thought they were being fair.
Take a look at this.
Rome says, this is a teacher.
Uh-oh, somebody narc on me?
Tell you I had candy in my lunch?
Dre, hey, um, we need to talk about Hat Boy at the Ainsworth today.
What do you mean?
Rome, they're some of our top donors, and today, they somehow got the impression that you're at the root of what they're calling the Maddox problem.
Rome says, what?
That's ridiculous.
That's not even how it works.
They're insisting that I terminate you immediately, or they're gonna pull all their funding.
If you're enabling these kids and the parents don't like it, whatever your ideology is for or against whatever, the parents are paying the bills.
Go to a public school if you want to be able to be shielded.
I also think public schools should allow teachers more control over the children than the parents.
Anyway.
Newsbuster says good for the Ainsworths, of course.
Gender dysmorphia isn't a phase or something Rome caused, but he's definitely encouraged it without even speaking to the parents.
Until Madison and Maddox is an adult, it's up to the Ainsworth, and them alone, to research the issue and decide the course of action best for their child.
Thankfully, this episode caused viewership to fall to its lowest point ever.
This season, a whopping drop of 24% in key demo viewers and a 15%, 15.35, in overall viewers.
It placed second to last among every show that aired the same night on all major networks.
How about these psychotic cult members get it through their thick skulls?
We don't want their garbage!
Look, I want entertainment, not overt politics, right?
Now, some things I think are fine when they involve politics.
Some things I think are fine as cultural commentary.
I think Star Trek The Next Generation was one of the best shows ever, and it just so happens that I align with a lot of the ideology within the show of classical liberalism.
And there's military tradition and stuff in it like that, and free speech, anti-terror, difficult questions.
I like the show because I like the ideology within it.
Now, this show is addressing current political issues, but it is propaganda.
And the reason I differentiate between something like Star Trek and this show is that Star Trek dealt with some issues, but there were generalized questions around politics and how we as Americans, you know, viewed them.
This show is about current events, a literal current event that is happening right now, and giving you a perspective where they inject a racist in Star Trek The Next Generation.
One of the most famous examples of politics is Data, the android, talking to the captain saying, I don't understand terrorism.
And there's a group of people on the planet who are engaged in terror.
They show you the perspective of the terrorists, and one of the characters actually advocates for their safety and protection.
Because it wasn't just, it's all bad all the time.
It's, take a look at this issue, the repercussions, the consequences, why people embrace it, how they feel.
It's more like what I would do here.
It's more like saying there's a real reason these people embraced these politics.
The difference here is they make this guy out to be a racist for no reason.
Poisoning the well with the intent to manipulate.
Now they're going to say it's a slippery slope as the battle between parents and schools continue.
If we don't fight and push back, things get worse.
Okay.
Let's talk about where we're at first.
Here we go.
From the Washington Post, April 5th.
Teachers who mention sexuality are grooming kids, conservatives say.
Shut your pathetic trash mouths.
It's not true.
Now, I'm sure if you want a straw man, that's what you will get.
The real argument is that teachers who have conversations with children in secret and tell them not to tell their parents are grooming these kids.
More so, when the teachers say things like, don't you feel this way?
Have you ever felt this way?
Yes, that's grooming.
I'll give you the example from Helena, who we had on the show.
And forgive me, Helena, for constantly referencing you so much on this show, but it was an important example.
That Helena said she went on Tumblr and they would say things like, maybe you're trans.
Have you ever thought about it?
You didn't?
Try cutting your hair short and see how you feel.
No big deal, your hair will grow back.
Then the person cuts their hair.
This kid, a 13 year old.
They go online and everyone starts clapping and cheering.
You're so amazing!
Don't you feel good?
Because everyone thinks you're so cool.
Well, of course you feel good when people compliment your haircut.
You feel great.
I do feel good.
That's not because they're complimenting you, it's because you're trans.
So why don't you try something else?
Hey, why don't you try wearing some boys' clothes?
See how you feel.
It's no big deal.
You can always take the clothes off.
So they do.
Same thing happens.
Wow, you look so cool.
Whoa, you're like the coolest person ever.
That's grooming.
So when kids are in these schools, and you have parents, And who are being kept out of the conversation?
Grooming.
Here's the straw man from the Washington Post and here's the reality.
California mother claims teachers manipulated her daughter to change her identity.
This is just one of many stories.
Take a look at this.
According to the suit, at the Equality Club meetings, Ms.
Caldeira and Ms.
Baraki would coach students on LGBTQ plus identities, such as homosexual, bisexual, trans, gender non-conforming, and how to express those identities.
And then what happens?
So there's this image that went around, and it shows a bunch of flags, like the trans flag, and then there's the cisgender flag, and it's black and white.
That's grooming.
You show a kid a black and white boring image, and then you show them cool colors and excitement and say, isn't that one cool?
What about that one?
And then they look at the black and white one and they're like, that one's stupid, that one's boring.
Oh, you don't like that one?
You must be secretly trying to tell me something.
That's grooming.
You're presenting things to them and saying, isn't this cool?
Isn't this good?
Isn't this better?
Isn't this one bad and wrong and bigoted?
White people, men, gender, oof.
Of course the kids then want to choose the one they think is better, that you are telling them is good.
Take a look at this.
Conan said she decided to take action after leaked audio from the California Teachers Association LGBTQ Plus Conference allegedly showed Baraki and Caldera discussing their methods of running the club without parents' knowledge of the kids' participation.
When we're doing our virtual learning, we totally stalked what they were doing on Google when they weren't doing schoolwork, Baraki said in the recording.
One of them was Googling Trans Day of Visibility and we're like, check, we're going to invite that kid when we get back on campus.
Spreckels Union Elementary School Superintendent Eric Tarallo refused to comment on Conan's lawsuit, but said Caldera and Baraki will remain on administrative leave pending an independent investigation.
They claim, the claims to minimize CODA will be addressed in the appropriate manner with the judicial system.
We are currently reviewing and updating our policies and procedures regarding student clubs and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So you have teachers spying on kids' Google, bringing them to these clubs.
There's also, there's also this story that came out recently where a student was invited to art club And the mom was like, cool, our club sounds great.
But it was actually LGBTQ club, where the kid was lectured on certain issues.
There's the case in Florida where a little girl, a 13-year-old girl, tried to kill herself.
We have this.
Kansas school can't block Christian teacher from outing transgender student to parents, judge rules.
This is from today.
Why?
Because the parents need to know.
If the parents physically abuse their kid, okay, well then maybe the state or someone should intervene to stop that crime from happening.
But we're talking about mental issues.
Depression, dysphoria, the parents need to do something to help.
The federal judge is blocking a Kansas public school's policy preventing teachers from outing trans students to their parents.
Quite literally, the school was trying to prevent teachers from talking to parents about the issues the kids were facing.
Fort Riley Middle School Math Teacher Pamela Rickard sued USD 475 Geary County Schools over LGBTQ anti-discrimination policies that conflicted with her Christian beliefs.
District Judge Holly Teeter issued a preliminary injunction on Monday blocking the school from disciplining Rickard if she reveals preferred names and pronouns of her trans students when communicating with their parents.
The court relies on plaintiff's statement that she does not intend to communicate with a parent for the sole purpose of disclosing a student's preferred name or pronouns.
Rickard has two trans students in her class, the judge wrote, neither of whom have authorized the district to disclose their preferred names and pronouns to their parents.
While Rickard uses their preferred names in class and avoids pronouns, she has emailed parents using a student's legal name and biological pronouns.
Plaintiff believes that addressing students one way at school in a different way while speaking to parents is dishonest.
Being dishonest violates her sincere religious beliefs.
Teeter, who was appointed by former President Trump, ordered the injunction to remain in place until May 18th, or until Rickard's contractual responsibilities to the district end, whichever comes last.
While the order is not permanent and does not apply to other teachers, it could set a precedent as other districts wrestle with similar diversity and inclusion policies.
They're grooming your kids.
They're grooming your kids.
They're changing the definition of grooming.
Here's what a teacher should say.
2 plus 2 equals 4.
4 plus 4 equals 8.
2 times 2 is still 4.
And 2 times 4 is 8.
Thank you, teacher, for giving me basic math lessons.
A, B, C, D, E, F, G. That's what a teacher should be saying.
A teacher should be talking about certain issues in social studies.
And a teacher can absolutely talk to, in an age-appropriate way, about the goings-on in certain countries with LGBTQ issues.
I completely think so.
I think a teacher should be able to say to their students that one of the big political challenges we face in this country has to do with LGBTQ rights and gender and things like this.
However, to get into what these things are, outside of the mainstream news, you should talk to your parents about these issues.
If a teacher is going to talk about social studies, and they're going to say, here's what's happening in the world today, I have no issue.
But you don't talk to a five-year-old about war.
You don't show a five-year-old someone being blown up.
There are certain things that we think children are not equipped for, and it's up to the parents to decide.
It always is.
If a parent says, my kid should learn about the horrors of Ukraine and Russia's war in Ukraine, Okay, I mean, that's the parent, I guess.
Far be it for me to decide for the parent.
If the parent tries showing lewd materials to their kid, then at certain ages, there's the birds and the bees conversation, but at young ages, I'd have serious issues and may even want Child Protective Services to come in.
If you have, like, When we're talking about third grade, we're talking about eight-year-olds.
So, kindergarten to third grade is like five to nine is the range.
Theoretically, it could be four years old to nine years old.
Yet, parents shouldn't be... I don't even think parents should be showing that stuff to their kids.
There are questions, though, about how it's done and if it can be done properly and tastefully.
And what I mean by that is, if a kid grows up on a farm, he sees chickens banging, he sees goats banging, he's gonna have that conversation and understand it.
That doesn't mean the parent should be showing Hustler to little kids.
Let me talk to you about what they're doing to your kids.
Did you ever read a Playboy?
You ever open up a Playboy magazine?
Playboy is not... It's fair to say, it's not porn.
It might be.
Or at the very least, it's on the line.
Playboy has articles, and it has naked women.
But it doesn't have overt acts like many other magazines do.
So, I guess you could call it, I guess you could call it porn, right?
The idea is, even though you've got centerfolds of nude women, and there's no adult acts, you don't put this in a children's library.
The book Genderqueer, that has been removed from these schools, the left calls it banning books, yet it depicts overt adult activities on more than one occasion, with statements like, banning that Playboy is not even as bad as that.
Imagine if a school said, Playboy's allowed, it's just a naked woman.
We'd be like, no!
Absolutely not.
I suppose that means y'all are conservative because you don't want children exposed to sex.
But if that's the direction we're going, the left is absolutely driving the direction of pedophilia.
So when you get people on the right saying the left are all pedos or whatever, and they're like, no we're not, that's a straw man, I gotta say, if you continually argue for involving children, children, in adult conversations and showing them these things, yes you are.
I'm not saying that these teachers are doing things to their kids.
Some teachers do.
When it comes to discussions about LGBT issues, it's grooming.
Is talking to a five-year-old about the birds and the bees?
Look, when I was in grade school, in fifth grade we had sex at nine years old.
It was not about sexual activities between people, it was just sexual function.
The boys watched the boys, then the boys were taken out of the room, and the girls were brought in to watch the girls, and they were kept separate.
Parents had to agree to it, and one kid actually got taken out of class.
Parents get to decide.
So when they say, it's not happening, they're lying.
And of course they're lying.
That's why I don't even understand what's the point.
I see people constantly quote tweeting and talking and I'm like, at this point, we get it.
And maybe there are people who don't get it.
But I really don't understand.
You know what?
Here's the challenge we face.
Every day, we must say no.
I had a conversation with a friend in New York.
They didn't know Democrats were trying to codify abortion at nine months.
And, you know, my friend's telling me he's pro-choice, and he's like, I think the woman should have the right to choose.
And I said, the problem is pro-choice today means abortion at nine months.
And he was like, no, it doesn't.
I showed him the bill.
The bill says, as I mentioned in the previous segment, that after viability, meaning the baby can survive, you can kill it.
And I said, if you have to remove the baby from the woman because of a complication to her health, why kill the baby?
He didn't know.
He's like, I'll have to check into that.
I don't know.
I showed him the bill.
I showed him the website.
I showed him the news reports.
And I said, it's all right there.
It says congress.gov.
I'm not making this up.
And it's shock.
It's like, what?
Most people, I think, when they read this news and they are lied to, like the Washington Post says, teachers who mention sexuality are grooming kids, is an overt simplification.
It is a hyper oversimplification.
Regular people hear that.
They believe it.
So we have to make sure we share these stories and give them the evidence.
