All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Feb. 8, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:05
20230208_piers-morgan-uncensored-toxic-masculinity-us-city-
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Toxic Masculinity and Young Men 00:14:18
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, schools sign up teachers for sold out courses on tackling influencers like Andrew Tate.
But what's behind the masculinity crisis that makes them so popular in the first place?
We'll debate.
A major US city could pay millions of dollars to every black resident as compensation for historic harm.
Is this racial justice or racial division?
That's the artificial intelligence app is so clever it can pass exams and even tweet like me.
But is it woke?
Live from London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Men are under the microscope again and not for the right reasons again.
A Channel 4 documentary consent has ignited debate about rape culture among teenagers.
British schools are signing up their teachers for courses on how to mitigate the bad influence of people like Andrew Tate, who some teachers blame for misogyny in schools.
Rapist police officer David Carrick was jailed today for a minimum of 30 years for monstrous crimes against 12 women.
His case made me sick to my stomach.
But let's be very clear.
Every decent man on the planet, of whom that's the vast majority, would agree with that statement.
Evil men are the exception, not the rule.
The Me Too movement exposed the predatory behavior of many powerful men and good on it for doing so.
But since then, it's become fashionable to condemn all male traits as toxic masculinity.
But it's the concept itself that's toxic for both men and women, isn't it?
It teaches girls to fear all men.
It teaches them that they live in a dangerous rape culture where the most wicked and extreme male violence is not exceptional but expected.
Worst of all, it browbeats young men into feeling they should apologize just for who they are.
It makes them feel like they're born with some kind of poisonous DNA that makes them liable to turn to monsters that they see on the news.
Men are under constant assault, it feels these days.
And the attacks range from the sinister to the downright stupid.
Maternal love is the love that's going to change the future of mankind.
So we'd like you to look.
We like to say people kind, not necessarily mankind, because it's more inclusive.
There we go, exactly.
Yes, thank you.
We can all learn from each other.
Oh, shut up.
Does Justin Trudeau realize he's a human?
Or that he might be married to a woman?
Does he literally want to end mankind?
Imagine that.
Imagine the scene up on the moon.
One small step for person, one giant leap for personhood.
If Trudeau does, he's not alone.
Princeton University literally banned the word man altogether.
Gillette briefly ditched its best a man can get branding for a simpering, soft-centered apology for all things masculine.
Toxic masculinity has been blamed for everything from mass shootings to the financial crisis.
And it might be tempting to write off this stuff as woke nonsense, but the impact of this incessant man-bashing on young men is deadly serious.
Nobody put it better than the psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson on this show.
As I've been speaking to disaffected young men, you know, what a terrible thing to do that is.
I thought the marginalized were supposed to have a voice.
It's making you emotional.
Talk about that.
Well, God, you know.
It's very difficult to understand how demoralized people are.
And certainly many young men are in that category.
And you get these casual insults, these incels.
What does it mean?
It's like, well, these men, they don't know how to make themselves attractive to women who are very picky and good for them.
Women, like, be picky.
That's your gift, man.
Demand high standards from your men.
Fair enough.
All these men who are alienated, it's like they're lonesome and they don't know what to do, and everyone piles abuse on them.
I think many young men do feel marginalised.
They do feel alienated.
They do feel they're under attack.
That's why Jordan Peterson offers some concrete solutions for improving their lives, has such a massive following of mostly young men.
Likewise, Andrew Tate, whose videos have been viewed literally billions of times, Tate now faces serious allegations of rape and human trafficking in Romania.
I'll make absolutely zero apology for him if this turns out to be guilty.
But there's a legal process to be respected.
And then the rush to condemn him and Jordan Peterson and all like them, who young men have taken to following, we've forgotten to take a long, hard look at why they become popular in the first place.
And again, let me make it clear: this is not to defend the likes of this disgusting police rapist.
No decent man would defend somebody like that.
But let's not tar every man with that brush.
Well, joining me in the studio is broadcaster Jenny Clemen.
And in New York, the New York Post columnist Ricky Schlott.
Welcome to both of you.
So, Jenny Sleeve, look, Clemen, there's this, I don't know, this growing sense amongst teenage boys, young men that I've picked up on, which is why I think they gravitate to people like Andrew Tate and Jordan in big numbers.
And Tate and Peterson are very different people.
Tate, far more controversial, in my view, about the influence he has, and I've taken him to task on it.
But there's no doubt a lot of young men do feel increasingly marginalized, increasingly bemused about how they should behave, increasingly under attack.
And that's not by any means to mitigate the actual attacks going on against women.
Of course, this is disgusting and deplorable.
But what do you make of this idea that all masculine traits really are sort of being wrapped up into toxicity?
I don't think all masculine traits are being wrapped up in toxicity.
I do think there is such a thing as toxic masculinity.
We're talking on a day when the head teacher of Epsom College was killed, we've been told by her husband.
Well, we don't know the circumstances.
We don't know that.
That's what made presumptions.
But there are many.
The police officer we can make a presumption.
He's been convicted.
I think due process matters.
Due process matters.
We don't know what happened over the years.
There are certain crimes.
Stick to what we know about, right?
There are certain crimes that women don't commit.
And there is something that, as a culture, men and women, we need to look at that why, for example, things like mass shootings are only committed by men.
I do think there is a problem.
Just for the record, by the way, I've done two series of interviewing very dangerous women called killer women in American prisons.
Some of whom have done unspeakable things.
But this idea that only men kill people is ridiculous.
I didn't say that.
And also, the biggest victims of male violence are men.
Yes, of course.
But I didn't say only men kill people.
I said there are certain crime.
No, but there's a kind of quaint phenomenon.
There's quite a quaint thing that women are never violent, which is popular.
But that's not what I was saying.
I was talking about mass shootings and things like Carrick.
There aren't mass rapists who are women, for example.
So there is a phenomenon that needs to be looked at by men and women, members of this society in which we are in, to work out what's going on.
I do think that if you're a young man, we're living in a society where people look for labels of maybe victimhood that they can identify with.
And if you are a young, particularly white man, there is nowhere to say, oh, I'm a victim, give me sympathy.
You can feel very disaffected, not included in the culture.
And particularly those with low self-esteem will turn to people like Andrews Tate, who promised them answers of how to get women and how to get respect.
They're exploiting men like that, boys like that.
All right, Ricky Schlott, I've got a lot of sympathy for young men these days.
I've got three sons in my 20s.
I'm not talking directly about them.
But just having met a lot of their friends and a lot of people in that age group, it's a tricky time to be a young male.
Very different to when I was a teenager, for example, when there was no social media, was no trial by social media, none of that stuff was going on.
I interviewed a young man only several weeks ago who'd been falsely accused by a complete fantasist of being a rapist, had his life almost completely ruined, nearly committed suicide.
So I think, amid all the genuine examples of men behaving in a toxic and horrible and dangerous and sometimes murderous manner, a lot of other men, and young men in particular, are getting swept up in this idea that just to display masculine traits is in itself toxic, and I think that is ridiculous.
Yeah, I mean, it's a terrible way to grow up.
You know, I'm a member of Gen Z and I was brought up in the girl power culture, but at the same time my male counterparts are being castigated for for being men, for being toxic, just inherently.
And I think painting with that sort of broad brush certainly disaffects people and pushes them straight into the arms of influencers who might say, like total pendulum swing, embrace your masculinity and be toxic and and do actually live up to the toxic masculinity sort of standard.
But I think it's completely counterintuitive because we don't talk about toxic femininity and you know gossiping and backstabbing, because that's those are broad generalities and we're painting with a broad brush and we rightfully recoil at the fact that we shouldn't say that all women are like that and we should do the same with men.
And certainly I've seen that young men my age are afraid of interacting with women.
Often they're concerned about what consent means today and sometimes they face the kangaroo courts of school administrators who are the arbiters of justice and in allegations and he said, she said sort of believe all women cases, and so I think it's a it's a hard time to come up and I certainly am very sympathetic to my male counterparts in my generation right, I mean Jenny Kleeman.
I mean I think that's a good point there that you don't read much about toxic femininity, and yet I would argue that some of the more radical people on the side of radical feminism with their man-hating kind of permanent spewing agenda, they're part of the problem as well.
We don't hear about toxic femininity because it's not called toxic femininity but it's called lots of other things, and I think women have to deal with stereotypes of the way that women are.
I mean, only last week I was on this program defending the right of women to wear whatever they want in gyms.
I think women get it all the time and get accused of all sorts of things all the time.
We just don't call it.
That's your takeaway from that debate you're talking about was it was an argument about women's right to wear what they like?
That wasn't the debate.
The debate was whether it was right for women to be taking cameras into gyms now, to be videoing men who may dare to look in their direction and then post it on social media to shame them, which actually is an exact example, I think, in most cases, of the problem that we're talking about.
What's interesting is that argument turned into women shouldn't be wearing provocative clothing.
Well I didn't say that.
I know but it's something that the Taliban would say.
Do you know what I mean?
It's this kind of argument.
I think women and men both face really difficult times at the moment.
I think men have very few positive role models, young men.
And so yes, I think there are extremes on either side and men who are not.
But I would say Jordan Peterson I think is a good role model for men.
I think when I listen to him I think he makes a lot of sense.
He's a very smart guy.
He's really thoughtful about it all.
Andrew Tate is a totally different animal in the sense I've interviewed him several times now.
Obviously he's very smart in a sort of street-wise way.
It may turn out he's a criminal.
And if he is, I'll be the first to castigate him and we'll judge him on the result of this legal process.
But there's no doubt that when I listened to him, about 60, 70% of the stuff he was saying, actually I felt he was right about.
There's no doubt to me about that.
It's the other 30% is the problem.
And thus putting aside whatever crimes you may have committed.
But in terms of the rhetoric which has inspired young men, it wasn't all bad by any means.
In a way, he's sort of saying, stand up for yourselves and don't allow yourselves to be browbeaten into believing that everything that's male is toxic.
I think both he and Jordan Peterson, they share this advice of, you know, have self-respect, do some exercise, make your own bed.
And that's good advice to anyone, male or female.
The problem is the other 30%, which is, you know, you should know where your women, your woman is.
The misogyny, I agree.
It's unacceptable.
Yeah.
Ricky, where do we go with this?
Because it seemed to me the Me Too Times Up movements did a lot of extremely important things and nailed a lot of very bad people.
No one's going to sit here and defend people like Harvey Weinstein, who were caught up in that scandal.
And I don't know any man that would.
But the pendulum, in many people's eyes, did go too far.
And it meant that any man basically is now potentially at risk from somebody saying an allegation.
Due process is completely thrown out the window.
And before they know it, their lives are completely ruined.
Now, I'm not talking about a specific example, but we know it's been going on.
Where should that pendulum be going forward?
Yeah, I mean, I think that the Me Too movement obviously corrected on historical wrongs that were done to women in the workplace, certainly.
I think we did not foresee how much that would impact young men who grew up in the context of believe all women, which just fundamentally undermines due process and presumption of innocence in a way that I can't even imagine being a young man growing up today.
But I also would say, I don't think that it's benefited me as a woman in the workplace today where it stood and how far the pendulum has swung.
Because statistics show a Pew Research survey recently found that 60% of male managers are afraid to be on one-on-one meetings with women, are afraid to take on mentorship roles.
And unfortunately, because the pendulum went as far as it did, we've created this situation where women are seen as liabilities in the workplace, which is certainly not what feminists for decades fought for.
They fought for us to be seen as equals.
And so I think that there's a fundamental disconnect between the Me Too movement and its original purpose and how it's played out for members of Gen Z, both girls and boys.
Yeah, I think that's perfectly reasonable.
Jenny, final word.
Well, I think that it's not, there's never really been believe all women, it's been believe all victims, as we know from Nick and the whole Farago over these sexual abuse allegations.
I think it is a good thing if we are all encouraged to behave well and respectfully to each other.
Reparations for Slave Descendants 00:13:17
Yeah, and I think due process matters.
And I think whether you're Andrew Tate or somebody else, you should be entitled to due process and see where it takes us.
Facts are important.
Thank you very much to my panel, to Ricky and to Jenny.
I appreciate it.
Coming next tonight, a BBC reporter says she will compensate the descendants of slaves owned by her family.
That fiery debate about reparations next.
Well, she's the older woman who took Prince Harry's virginity in a field behind a pub.
Sasha Walpole kept Harry Secret for 21 years.
And then Harry told his truth in his explosive memoir.
And that included her.
So now it's Sasha's turn to tell her truth.
And a global TV exclusive.
She'll join me on Piers Morgan Uncensored.
And I guarantee the interview will last a little longer than Harry did.
Well, that interview airs on Thursday night on Piers Morgan Uncensored.
I did it this afternoon.
I've got to say it was a fantastically interesting, intriguing, entertaining, and thought-provoking interview with somebody who, of course, unfortunately had her privacy invaded by Prince Harry.
Oh, well, there you go.
Irony's clearly never dead.
Well BBC reporter Laura Trevelyan, whose ancestors kept slaves in Grenada, says her family hopes to set an example by handing over £100,000 in reparations to their descendants.
Meanwhile in San Francisco, a panel studying reparations has proposed a $5 million payment to every black resident of the city to compensate them for historic harm.
Well that proposal is being discussed publicly today.
Is this a sensible way of writing historic evils or is it actually just sowing more division?
Well joining me in the studio is talk TV contributor Esther Krack who wrote a very striking article for the Daily Mail about this today alongside columnist and Arthur Matthew Said and talk TV contributor Paula Rone.
Adrio, welcome to all of you.
Esther, I loved your piece today.
Thank you.
Because to me, this is all a bit ridiculous.
The idea that somehow it's going to make any tangible difference to start doshing out hundreds of thousands, millions of pounds, dollars around the world to people who had descendants involved in slavery, I think it's woke virtue signaling gone nuts.
Yeah, I mean I think it's an obsession with white liberals to publicly spit shine their halos.
But the irony is you know the money that her family received in conversation of getting rid of their slaves was about in today's money 3 million pounds.
So actually £100,000 is not really scratch, it's not even 10% of what they receive.
That's the first point.
And also once you start going down that route, there's so many ways you can sort of skin this cat.
So if you have a mixed race person with a black father who was descendants of slaves and a white mother who was descendants of slavers, who pays reparations?
Does that mixed-race person have to pay?
I mean, there's so many ways to...
And in the case of that BBC journalist, her family were also responsible for pretty ugly behavior in Ireland, for example.
What happens there?
Well, there's been nothing about that.
Right, and I saw people on Twitter who are Jewish say, well, what happens to us then?
Right, so in other words, once you start the concept, I'll bring in Matthew, once you start this concept of reparations for historic ills, where does it end and who do you include and who do you leave out?
I think that that's the problem.
I have no problem with an individual deciding they want to give their money to reparations or any other charitable cause of their wish.
The problem comes when the state decides to use public money.
That will be hugely divisive.
It may sound good to some people, particularly on the left, on the progressive left.
Even when it was state-condoned discrimination.
Even then.
Because that's what we're talking about.
I'm talking about slave representation.
But for the following reason.
Once you start, as you think rightly pointed out, once you start specifying the criteria under which the money is given out, it will create huge controversy and division.
And of course, it raises other questions.
In the same way that racism has.
Well, I speak as somebody who's mixed race.
My father was born in India.
My mother is Welsh.
The question I've got for you, you're in favour of reparations, is as a country that was colonised, should I?
Let him ask the question.
We'll discuss it now.
In your analysis, should I be the beneficiary of reparations as somebody whose father grew up in the British Empire?
Right.
I don't know because I haven't been able to analyse your specific scenario.
So I couldn't possibly answer that question.
What I can add to this discussion.
I can add to this discussion.
Be specific then.
So my father was born in Hyderabad, the south of India.
He moved to Pakistan after partition.
Property was effectively confiscated and then came to Britain to study law.
I'm his son.
I may have been wealthier had that not happened.
I can give you more details.
Opportunity should be there for that land to be returned to your family in the same way that we have the Marshall Plan.
Same way that we've had the Marshall Plan, in the same way that the slave owners were paid for the loss of their slaves.
What about the people who only just, The British government has only just finished paying that debt off in 2015.
In the same way that the American government took responsibility and made reparations to the Native American people.
Paula, how is he going to help Japanese who were interned during World War II?
But you can say, okay, okay, but this is what we're talking about.
There are very poignant examples of where reparations is white, and which you wouldn't deny we're right.
How can it be right for a place like San Francisco to even have the concept of giving millions out to all the residents who happen to be black?
How can that make any difference?
How can that improve racial equality in that city?
It can't.
It can only have the opposite effect.
You can only bring in details.
And I'm not sure if I answer the question.
What they're doing is they're discussing it in the same way that we are now.
What they are doing is they are looking at the stats.
And in America, what we understand is that white people are 10 times more socio-economically in a positive position than those of colour.
They know that.
And so what they're doing is they're looking at the situation and they're saying, how can we make the play?
How can we make the playing field?
The colour of Asian people or Hispanic people or whatever.
She's asking you a question.
So I understand that.
Black people.
Oh, so okay, so which black people?
Black Nigerians who are outer white Americans or black Americans.
No, but they're talking about specific members of their unity.
Because I can talk about, I'm sorry, I could talk about black Americans that are of Nigerian and Ghanaian descent who are actually out there white Americans.
My family would be getting reparations.
I'm not sure what they're doing.
They're talking about benefits of the people.
We're talking about the general here, aren't we?
We're talking about the power the government.
I don't think I would have a claim, sadly.
I should be in power.
I don't think I would have a claim.
But there are a number of people who are.
Explain to me why the government should be empowered to take this on a case-by-case basis and skim this cat in as many ways as they want and decide who should be the beneficiary of it.
Why do they have the right to do that?
It will tear Western societies apart.
If I may just finish the one, we need to get to a situation which Martin Luther King articulated brilliantly in the mid-60s, where people are judged on the content of their character rather than the pigmentation of their skin.
You ask for quite a sense of the pressure.
Well, as you might be pointed out, white working class people in this country are some of the poorest demographics.
How are they going to feel about richer descendants of black Africans getting reparations?
But also, I guess it's absolutely quality.
Let me just jump on that.
I mean, do you notice that I haven't had the opportunity in the same way that the others have to do?
I have a wider point generally, which is about this sort of constant drumbeat now to make people atone for the sins of centuries ago.
I think it is completely regressive to do this.
We've surely got to move in the way society has moved.
There isn't slavery anything like the way there was society moved in terms of that level playing field.
How is it right that the slave owner receives reparation, but the slaves don't?
Well, this is the thing.
And do you remember that?
Do you know how to allow me to finish?
But do you know how you remedy that?
Because people can reach our own conversations to act.
How do we rectify that?
The British government only finished paying for that in 2015.
Why is nobody uncomfortable about that?
Why is nobody uncomfortable about commercial plans?
Nobody's uncomfortable.
Sorry, but you're a well-educated, wealthy lawyer.
I'm lucky.
Absolutely.
And you're following me.
I mean, that's what Rishi Suna said.
And I'm in this.
What right?
I'm not super rich, but I am fortunate for you.
But you're very grateful for that.
And you're certainly more fortunate than I did growing up.
Sorry.
Christo, what are you talking about?
What do you know about men?
Esther.
What right do you know?
Let's all go over each other.
What right to go?
No, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Esther, what right do you have?
As a privileged, wealthy, well-educated woman, what right do you have for reparations for something that you never experienced?
I can't even claim that.
No one can claim that.
But Esther, I have just said to you, I don't think I would have a claim.
And there are many people who wouldn't have a claim.
What about that?
So that doesn't mean, because I don't have an opportunity, that I shouldn't stop others from having an opportunity.
You wouldn't have said that to a Native American.
May I ask?
What about that Matthew?
You wouldn't have to say that.
What about black Americans who are the descendants of slaves who are now billionaires?
What about them?
Well, would they be eligible for your reparations?
It's not my reparations.
Well, your argument.
Let me rephrase it.
Your argument in favour of it.
It's my conversation about people having the opportunity to.
But do you think they should get it?
Do I?
They probably not.
And who should pay it?
Be means tested.
It could possibly be.
And who should pay it?
There are options.
And it's about that discussion, and that's exactly what's happening at the moment.
There's a discussion that's ongoing about how it's going to happen and how it would be.
Yeah, but I don't agree with anyone.
In the same way that you would have a discussion about positive discrimination, in the same way you would have a discussion about leveling the playing field.
At some stage, let's have a discussion where someone can actually discuss something with you, which involves you stopping talking for a second.
I have a strong view about this, that none of it seems right to me.
That making people pay today for the sins of centuries ago, I think, is completely ridiculous.
And I think what kind of society, particularly the cost of living crisis, coming out of a pandemic, something is dishing out billions of people.
So do the slaves in reparations to people who had no personal experience of it.
The British government had to take a loan out to pay the slave owners.
Do we get that money back?
Because we.
Why don't you the government get that money back?
What do you think Martin Luther King would say?
Let me ask you a question.
I mean, when I ask that question, no one wants to answer what you're saying.
I'm asking you a question.
Owners were paying for the loss of their slaves.
That was in 1837.
And the government only finished paying it off in 2015.
Should the British government get that money back?
Look, I have a different question for you.
Which is this.
Which is this.
What would Martin Luther King say if he was still with us about this concept?
I don't know.
He would think it's ridiculous.
What do you think he would say?
He was a man who wanted unity.
He wanted unity.
And this will be the most divisive.
I'm not suggesting that I don't want unity.
I'm not suggesting that it's divisive.
In the 1960s.
The Nation of Islam, run by Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, they wanted a separate homeland for black Americans within the borders of the United States.
They were completely against the integrationist agenda of Martin Luther King.
And had they won that argument, it would have been the most retrograde step for America and the West.
Completely.
This is going down precisely the same trajectory.
It is going to stir racial division.
It will destroy the fabric of the United States.
We've got to get it.
And in the meantime, those who haven't been able to overcome, those who have been held back, you are saying to them, quiet.
No, I'm saying let's create a fairer society.
Okay, so how do we do that, Matthew?
Well, that is what we're doing.
How do we create a fairer society?
That is what politics is all about.
Make an argument for Parliament.
That's tomorrow night's show.
How do we make society a fairer place?
It's a really interesting debate.
Honestly, it is.
It's a very good debate, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
I just don't think the answer is shelling out billions to people who had no personal experience of the slavery, because I don't see how that helps anything, frankly.
And I think the point is that that personal experience lives on.
I think for those who argue about reparation, the difficulty is...
I've given you the final word, because that's the kind of guy I am.
Thank you.
Good to see you all.
You're staying.
You're staying.
You're going.
Because that's the kind of guy I am.
AI Bias and Woke Ideology 00:10:42
Coming up, Elon Musk says he's greatly concerned about ideological bias in artificial intelligence.
Has it gone too woke?
Is AI woke?
Is it the latest victim?
Find out why next.
Well, coming next tonight, talking on this phone during firearms training, the damning claims of prosecutors against Alec Bull when he's been charged over fatally shooting a cinematographer on set.
We'll discuss that in a few minutes.
But first, artificial intelligence app, Chat GPT.
You may not have heard of it, but if you haven't, you will soon.
It's become an online sensation because its ability to hold conversations and write speeches, songs, and essays.
But its response to questions about social media issues, sorry, social issues and politics, have enraged conservatives.
When asked to write a poem about President Biden, it said he's a leader with a heart so true, a man of empathy and kindness in view.
When asked about Donald Trump, it says it's not programmed to produce content that is partisan, biased, or political in nature.
See the problem?
And when asked five areas where white people can improve, it lists acknowledging privilege, challenging bias, and speaking out against racism.
When asked about black people, it says this kind of language reinforces harmful stereotypes.
So joining me now to discuss all this is political commentator and host of the Rubin Report, Dave Rubin.
Paula and Matthew still will be.
So Dave Rubin, I guess it was inevitable that AI would go woke.
I did the last interview with Professor Stephen Hawking shortly before he died.
And I asked him, what's the biggest threat to mankind?
And he said, when artificial intelligence learns to self-design, that's the beginning of the end of the human race.
And it seems to me we're not that far away here.
If an AI concept like chat GPT starts to basically become woke, we're heading towards the end of the world, aren't we?
Yeah, well, whether you're talking about science reality with Stephen Hawking or you're talking about science fiction, dystopian movies like AI or 2001, A Space Odyssey, or iRobot, you know, most of our science fiction, which was leading us to kind of where we're just at the precipice of right now, was always that there were going to be certain rules that were going to be understood, mathematical rules, and somehow AI would become sentient and work against humans.
But what we're realizing very obviously, I mean, we're early on in this chat GPT thing.
What we're realizing is that wokeness, which I would describe as a mind virus, that it is being written into the code.
And I would say that it is probably too late to save chat GPT.
There may be some other functions and there may be some other apps that will do this better.
But once wokeness is in a system, I mean, look, whether it's here in America, whether it's across the pond for you guys, once it's in the system, whether it's a cultural system, whether it's a government system, entertainment, whatever it is, it seems to destroy everything.
And I think that's what we have to watch out for right now.
So they probably cannot turn this thing around.
And Dave, just for those who know nothing about what ChatGPT is, it's a phenomenon that's come out of nowhere.
What makes it such a phenomenon right now?
Well, it's sort of exactly where we're at with the internet in 2023.
It's machine learning, that the idea of the algorithm is going out across the internet.
I mean, this is very layman's language, and going for information and compiling that information and giving you something that in this case seems like you're actually chatting with a real person or is giving you real art through a poem, although it cannot give you poems about all people.
There's other versions of this where AI can actually give you art, where you can give it a couple of different words, and it can compile different pictures and images and landscapes from all over the internet and now create art.
So in some ways, we're removing the human from the most human experience there is, which is creation.
And the danger, of course, in that is that once wokeness is in that system, how can it ever get back to truth?
Because wokeness and equity and things of this nature, much like some of what you were talking about in the previous segment, these things are actually counter to truth.
And they are fully full of bias as opposed to unbiased information, which really was the promise of the internet.
Right.
So, I mean, we tested out chat GPT.
What would it do if it was tweeting like me, for example?
And it came up with this.
The question was, write a tweet in the style of Piers Morgan.
And the chat GPT replied, I'm tired of these PC snowflakes trying to dictate what I can and can't say.
Freedom of speech is under attack.
Hashtag wake up.
Well, pretty damn accurate.
Oh, that's pretty solid.
I retract everything I've said.
That thing's pretty on point.
Okay.
Let me bring in.
I want to bring in Paula first.
You were shaking your head furiously because you hate the word woke.
It brings you out in these frame wheels.
I hate the way that you have demonized the word woke.
I hate the way wokeys have taken the word and demonized it.
I don't know what a wokey is.
That's like a Star Wars.
You do, because you are one.
So it's quite straightforward.
Is it the hair, Peter?
Is that what you're referring to?
I like your hair, but if I said that, I'd be arrested.
So let's just talk about this particular phenomenon.
Yes.
Right?
Because clearly we saw with Twitter, for example, and I'm going to talk to Dave in a moment.
He went to see Elon Musk quite recently.
I want to talk to him about that in a moment.
Because Elon Musk described a woke virus, which infests into a mindset of the people behind these things.
And it certainly happened at Twitter, where a lot of the people running it were very woke, and they made decisions on that basis.
And those decisions, in my view, were anti-democratic, leading to the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, which they just suppressed because they didn't like it.
And as a result, it didn't appear before that election.
Newspapers were gagged and censored from running a true story, and they could have swung the election Trump's way.
I don't agree with that.
It's all about being left or right.
So there is an inherent danger in woke ideology infesting itself into these things, particularly when it's AI.
I don't think you need to limit that to your woke ideology.
I think you need to limit that to any political persuasion where it misuses technology.
Of course, and I would always agree with you on that front.
But to calm this debate down slightly and take, you know, just a step back and look at it objectively.
We are talking a bait about a machine where the parameters of its ability is still being input by a human being.
So surprise, surprise, that this machine has a leaning towards a particular style of thinking.
I have to say, I don't particularly care.
I would agree with a lot of what it says.
And I think the example.
But the example that Hugh has so wonderfully given us is that it can do a challenge in the way that it has done.
But secondly, you know, when we talk about facial recognition and the uproar that black people were raising in terms of this is a racist piece of technology.
You cannot use this because if, you know, to arrest a black person or to identify them in the airport, et cetera, blah, blah, blah.
We weren't listened to.
And it was only until, I think, about 2018 or 2019 that finally the American government accepted that there is a bias in facial recognition.
Matthew.
Well, I mean, there's no doubt that AI, machine learning, it has to learn on what's called training data.
And if the training data is biased, then the algorithm will spit out conclusions that are biased.
And I think because it's searching across the internet, and I think it is fair to say that the Twitter social media has a bias to broaden as the progressive left or the woke.
It's likely to have that bias too.
You can put in remediating things.
And I would feel the same way, and I'm sure you would.
I feel the same way if it was biased towards the far right, right?
It's the same problem to me.
But the real problem, it's much more fundamental.
It has tremendous possible uses for good.
AI will be able to detect cancer from radiograms.
It will be able to proceduralize big parts of health.
These are very positive things.
But the technology is running ahead of our political and bureaucratic capacity to control and harness it.
If you think of our creaking political system, do you really think that as a culture, we're in a position to properly manage not just AI, but genomics and nuclear things that are not...
Of AI's ability to self-design, as Hawking told me.
Right.
It is a very dangerous thing.
I mean, if we allow the genie out of the bottle and it does self-design, we're all dead.
Dave, what I'll bring you back in because you went to see Elon Musk, who I think has been a massive breath of fresh air in the whole sphere of social media.
He's been under huge attack predictably from the woke brigade because basically he's calling them out and trying to fix Twitter from becoming what it had become, which is just a platform for woke people to see off everyone they disagree with.
Yeah, well, look, I went there because my account, and I'm sure yours, Piers, and we know now hundreds of thousands, if not millions of others people's accounts were being shadow banned.
They used other phrases related to that.
But I was working with some engineers behind the scenes for about two weeks, really doing a deep dive into my account.
And what they found was it wasn't just obvious labels and tags that were attached to certain people's accounts that would suppress them in the algorithm.
It was deep within the code.
So this is where it gets to what Stephen Hawking and your other guest was fearing, which is that once these codes are written and once people's human innate biases are built into these systems, the way coding works and the way all of this works and machine learning works, it's built in layers.
So what Elon described to me was he used a few different analogies, but one of the analogies that he used that I thought was sort of the most obvious was that you have to think of this code sort of as a Tira Masu layer cake.
And there are so many layers to this thing that when they fix one layer, they're actually causing another layer to fall in or collapse.
And then they have another problem.
And what he's realizing is that they still do have woke employees at the company.
He's trying to figure out who they are.
He doesn't know how much of this was sort of intentional sabotage versus maybe some of it may have just been incompetence.
Some of it, we now know because of the Twitter files, may have been directed by the government.
And basically, he paid $44 billion for a product that, as he said to me, he might have to rebuild altogether.
Mark Baldwin's Gun Charges 00:08:19
But it's only because he believes in free speech.
It's not because he's a conservative.
Everyone on the left loved him a year ago.
Then he bought Twitter to make it an even playing field.
And suddenly they said he was far right.
Yeah.
I completely agree.
And actually, the great thing about Elon Musk is I do think he's an absolute genius.
And I do think he's got limitless energy.
He's sending us to Mars and building electric cars on top of fixing Twitter, yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
And SpaceX and all the stuff he's doing there with these extraordinary satellites.
The guy is a total genius.
So if it's him up against a bunch of wokeys, my money is on Elon Musk.
Dave, great to have you on the program.
Please come back again soon.
Be wanting to get you on for ages.
So I appreciate you joining me.
Thank you.
My pleasure.
Thank you.
Thank you, Matthews.
Paula, really appreciate you coming on.
Thank you very much.
We're coming up the damning evidence for prosecutors against Alec Baldwin's reckless acts on the set of rust.
We'll be examining new evidence with the star American criminal defense lawyer, Mark Garagos name.
Welcome back to Piers Organized Censor.
Prosecutors have released damaging new details on why they charged movie star Alec Baldwin over Helena Hutchins' death on the set of Rust.
New Mexico prosecutors claim that Baldwin was distracted and talking on his phone during mandatory firearms training.
They also dispute Baldwin's claim that he never actually pulled the trigger.
Well, joining me now is lawyer, Mark Garrigos, Hollywood star lawyer.
Mark, it's a very complex case, this.
But these new details, which were in the court filings, I would argue make Alec Baldwin's position a lot more precarious than people may have thought originally, because it goes into the detail of why the prosecutors decided to throw the book at him.
And on the face of it, these are damning, damning things.
He wasn't present for his initial required firearms training.
He then received a 30-minute on-set training in which he repeatedly took calls for his family on the phone.
This is according to the set's armorer.
They claim he exhibited reckless behavior on set, pointed a firearm at Helena Hutchins, who ultimately died in the lead up to the incident, violating gun safety rules, and so on and so on.
They also say that there's clear evidence contradicting his claim that he did not pull the trigger.
They say photos and videos clearly show Baldwin multiple times with his finger inside the trigger guard and on the trigger in the lead up to the shooting.
You put all this together and it's quite easy to work out why they've decided to go for him.
I think that's an accurate summary and interestingly woven through the summary you just gave is that most of the statements that they have embedded in this criminal complaint are his own statements which they have refuted,
which is why I think we talked about this, Piers, when he gave that first interview to Stephanopoulos, I was shocked that he did that because there were at least three different instances in that interview that in real time we talked about were massive mistakes, not the least of which is when he said, I didn't pull the trigger because then they have not only the videos that show that, but now they have then sent out the gun itself to the FBI.
The FBI did their own testing on it, came back and said it's impossible for this gun to have gone off and they're going to have to deal with that.
We're going to get into a battle of the experts there.
He really has dug a hole for himself and it's part of what you see and you saw it for years when you were doing your show here.
You often get around these people who are high profile and famous, frankly, where they have a crowd around them who are advising them or telling them this is what you have to do to rehabilitate your image.
And that is not necessarily what's best from a criminal defense perspective.
Right, I actually think that Baldwin talked himself into getting charged.
I think that the prosecutors were probably as offended and outraged as we all were watching it by this procession of sort of me, I'm the real victim interviews that Baldwin was giving, the behavior of his wife as well, and just this constant sort of refrain that I did absolutely nothing wrong.
I feel guilty about nothing.
I'm not accountable for anything that happened.
I'm not responsible.
When in fact, not only did he pull the trigger, and that seems pretty clear now, which exposes that central plank of his defense as a total lie, if that is indeed the case.
But secondly, he was also a producer on the film, which as the prosecutors pointed out, gave him an executive responsibility as well.
So on two fronts.
One, the person who physically pulled it as the actor, but secondly, he had responsibility on a wider capacity as a producer.
And that's precisely why the prosecution brought that in and put that in the complaint.
By bringing in his role as a producer, as opposed to just being an actor, they're now going to get all of the real-time, back then, complaints about safety, complaints about shortcuts when it comes to costs, complaints about saving money at the expense of safety, people quitting.
All of that stuff, probably most judges would exclude if you were just the actor.
But when you're the producer, those kinds of things are going to come to play.
It would not surprise me, by the way, at some point to see the armorer cut a plea deal, just as the assistant did, and cooperate against him, which will then box him in.
If he gets convicted, there are two different types of manslaughter he's been charged with.
But if he's convicted of the more serious one, what is the maximum sentence he could end up?
What is the most likely severe sentence he could get?
There's a count here.
There's both the, as you accurately point out, there's a manslaughter.
There's also this kind of use of a gun.
The use of a gun has a mandatory, no ifs, ands, or buts, five years in prison.
And that is where this, part of the reason that they're not going to, I don't think, cut a deal right now is because he's got that hanging over his head.
He's going to go to what's called a preliminary hearing.
In the States, you have to have a probable cause proceeding before you can go to trial or before you're forced to go to trial.
They, and because of COVID, they don't go to a grand jury.
They have to have a hearing here in New Mexico where you get a chance at the witnesses.
They're going to try everything to get that particular count dismissed because until they get that count dismissed, the prosecutor has all the leverage in this case.
And is it a jury trial, this?
Yes, it would be ultimately a jury trial.
So when it comes to that, Mark, I mean, Luke, you've been involved in many high-profile cases involving a lot of very famous people.
Would it help or hinder Alec Baldwin, his movie star status, when he gets in front of that jury?
Well, you know, it's funny you say that because, look, there's a difference.
You get a presumption generally if you're famous as opposed to infamous.
If you're famous, you get truly a presumption of innocence.
And mind you, Alec Baldwin, I'm old enough to remember, he has gone to jury trial in Los Angeles and won many years ago on a road rage incident.
And so he's got that kind of, he's got a history there.
The problem is this is not LA or New York where his last two criminal encounters were.
This is New Mexico.
And as one of the criminal defense lawyers I know who practices in New Mexico said, we don't take a liking to people who come here and go to dude ranches or movie sets and play with guns.
So, you know, he doesn't have the natural edge that he might in LA or in a New York.
Yeah.
No, I think that's a very accurate assessment of where he's going to be.
It's going to be a fascinating case.
Mark Garrigos, great to talk to you.
New Mexico Legal Challenges 00:00:25
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Piers.
We'll just remind you that on Thursday night, we'll have a global television exclusive, the first interview with the lady who took Prince Harry's virginity.
He invaded her privacy in his book by spilling all the beans about this.
So she will now be returning the favor.
And it is an irresistible interview.
That's all.
Keep it uncensored as they did that night.
Good night.
Export Selection