All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
May 20, 2025 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
37:15
20250520_im-gonna-say-it-n-word-censorship-debate-with-stev
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Weaponizing Words in America 00:09:10
We are now dealing with the reaction and not with the action that has led to it.
When you're a white person in this country and it's, hey, you don't know the lived experience, but I know yours.
When it's, hey, if you move into an area, that's gentrification, but if you leave, it's white flight.
It's, hey, sit down and shut up and then it silences violence.
The only way to win is not to play.
And so people aren't even talking.
Here you are, to me, I say this respectfully, sounding like a paid up member of the woke right.
Let's talk real accountability for actions and not false accountability for words.
It's not the smoking gun that we think.
White people don't lie about using the N-word.
They lie about not using the N-word.
And the prescription is more dialogue and doing so in good faith rather than this word whack-a-mole that we're playing in this country.
When I challenged self-professed racist podcaster Lily Gaddis to show her true white supremacist colors during an uncensored debate a few weeks ago, it's fair to say it all kicked off.
I want to live in a country where people are allowed to say what they want unashamedly.
And you can, you will.
Well, go on, then say it.
Say the N-word.
You will not have to.
Go on, say, go on.
Say the N-word.
Go on.
No, no, no.
Don't invite.
No, I don't want you to invite this woman to say a racially harmful term in front of me because I'm the only one here.
So if she says it, I'm the victim of it.
Well, the fallout from that segment went viral, provoking debate from the big names online, including one, Stephen Crowder, who called me out for being completely disingenuous for my challenge to racist Gaddis.
Big difference.
So that challenge is not genuine.
I do think that people shouldn't lose their livelihood or be condemned to racist for the rest of their life because they use a word in a context where there is no hate.
That is not represented in the challenge of say it right now just because you want to say it to black people.
And then you have Mark Lamont Hill, who I've been on him with Reddy.
He was always very nice to me.
I mean, there's nothing more emasculating or self-emasculating than saying, someone will say a word and I will be the victim.
I thought it was only fair and useful to have this out with Mr. Crowder, man to man.
Of course, he agreed because he's a man.
In a moment, we'll get Mark Lamont Hill's response to it as well.
But first, Stephen Crowder.
All right, Stephen Crowder.
You're giving it to me.
I think I'm the innocent porn in the whole saga here.
I'm just the one sitting here listening to a very, very unpleasant young white woman being deliberately racist, unashamedly racist, wants us to think she's a racist, admits to being racist.
And when you talk about context of using the N-word, she is using it in that context.
She had no problem with it being used by Shiloh Hendricks.
She has no problem with saying it.
And my only point in challenging her to say it on air was, well, go on then.
If you're going to be that brazen, let's see if you're actually prepared to do it.
And it turned out she wasn't.
Over to you.
Well, first off, thank you for having me, Pierce.
I do appreciate it.
And I want to be really clear about one thing.
At no point in this conversation am I implying, insinuating in any way that you are racist, because I know how right, how much of a powder keg this can be.
Two very, two white people, in our case, especially with you, two very white people discussing this topic.
Look, the point that I was making, and I believe I said low down, dirty trick.
I don't think I just said disingenuous.
And it's not about you with that specific person.
It's about say the N-word.
Say the N-word.
And we've seen this used quite a bit.
And the issue that I have here is I don't want to live in a society.
Now, I'm not super familiar with this lady.
Okay.
If you say she's a racist, I'll take your word for it.
Well, she admitted it.
She admitted it.
Okay.
Okay.
But we live in a society where right now the racism issue and words are being thrown down as landmines.
As someone is walking in reverse.
And you can look at, for example, I think we're all adults, context and the level of affront, which is what I was addressing there with Dr. Mark Lamont Hill, who's been very much a gentleman with me.
And I'll determine the level of authenticity as to that offense.
I think we're adults and we can have context.
I don't think that there are boogeyman words.
I think context matters more.
I think that we as a society right now are canceling livelihoods over someone saying a word and permitting reprehensible behavior in the form of crime, in the form of the protests that we have seen in the last recent years.
And I think I'd like a society where we are hard on actions and forgiving on words and certainly in the context of adulthood, able to understand it.
Okay, so look, so look, a large part of what you've just said, I completely agree with.
I do think language has been weaponized.
I hate cancel culture.
I think it's the epitome of woke bullshit, et cetera, et cetera.
But rather like with free speech itself, when people say that free speech is unlimited, it's actually not unlimited.
I mean, you could say whatever you want right now, but it doesn't mean you won't be held accountable by others for what you say.
So everything has consequence, right?
I would never restrict your ability to say what the hell you like.
That's fine.
But there are limitations.
The First Amendment in the United States Constitution is one of the most protective shields to free speech anywhere in the world.
And yet it has a number, as you know, of exclusions of things that are not covered by the First Amendment.
So I think this kind of, so this whole kind of all when people say, well, anything goes, well, it actually doesn't anything go.
Well, so like what?
Well, like what exclusions?
Because I think we need to define it.
Like what exclusion?
Is it going to do the fire in a crowded theater thing?
No, no, no, it's going to do if you look up the First Amendment and look at the exclusions, you know, pedophilia, pornography, things like that are not covered by First Amendment pronunciation rights.
That's not speech.
That's not speech.
That's where you're conflating freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which many Democrats are saying.
No, no, I'm talking about exclusions to the First Amendment protection.
We were talking, sorry, we were just talking about freedom of speech.
Pedophilia has nothing to do with speech.
Defamation is not protected by the First Amendment.
Did you know that?
Well, actually, your ability to criticize someone is.
The ability to lie about someone knowingly to cause damage is not.
Again, this is an action.
It's not about speech that offends people.
And so I think we're largely.
Hang on.
Oh, that's an interesting point.
Hang on, Stephen.
Because look, if you lie, you're still exercising your right to free speech.
But if you deliberately, willfully lie about somebody and cause them harm and damage that can be established in a court of law and you are found guilty of defamation.
You can't use the First Amendment as protection.
We agree on that, right?
Of course, I understand that.
That's not speech.
That's not the point of the speech, right?
For example, if I say, and I'm not saying this, let's say Kanye West's recent single, right?
That's a problem.
It's offensive.
I think we would both agree that it's borderline, at least anti-Semitic.
Would we agree on that?
Sorry, to say that again.
I can be sure what you're saying.
Kanye West's recent song, right?
His recent banger.
We both agree it's at least on the line of anti-Semitic, right?
Do you think that anyone out there?
Yeah, listen, I think that a guy who has spent the last year bestowing the virtues of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, who's been selling sastika, you know, I think it's an important clarification.
I agree.
I agree.
I'll tell you why, because he would argue that the actual words of the record are not anti-Semitic, right?
And it's and it's, but the fact he's got millions of people running around chanting Heil Hitler clearly, to me, is an extreme form of anti-Semitism by a man who knows what he's doing.
I agree with you.
Okay.
I just wanted a yes or no because I wanted to say that.
But it's complicated.
It's complicated.
It's not complicated.
It is.
Well, it's complicated because the actual lyrics, he would argue, are not anti-Semitic.
He's trying to be clever, and I don't think we should give him the pass.
Okay, I'm trying.
I agree.
I'm trying to create a really, really blatant, obvious analogy here to make a point.
So we both agree that it's anti-Semitic.
I think it's bad.
I think saying, Hail Hitler is bad.
Okay.
That is not, however, a violation in any way.
Your First Amendment protects it.
Now, it's saying, I would like to, I am calling you to enact what Hitler has enacted.
That's a call to action.
Defamation requires damages.
And I want to get to this because this does matter.
Okay.
When we're talking about this new song, and as a comedian and as a linguist, I'm going to say the word here so that everybody knows, and that's what you're going to clip.
We're looking at words that are offensive, a song that is offensive, but one is a boogeyman word.
We have one noun, a verb, and a noun.
Okay, we have a noun by itself contextually.
That's bad.
Shouldn't say it, but it's not imbued with any power outside of historical context.
The last noun, Hitler, is imbued with the power of the verb that precedes it.
Hail, to praise, to venerate.
That'll get clipped, even though I'm condemning the song as anti-Semitic.
And not one person here who would be the victim of a more severe call to action is going to say it's anti-Semitic.
I think we're in a silly point in this country when we're polling this clip to condemn the anti-Semitism here at the studio and people going, hey, can I get a second cut of that N-word, hail Hitler?
That's the point.
It's not genuine.
Would you have used the N-word in the way that you just did if you had a black guest with you?
Like Dr. Hill?
The Myth of Moral Equivalence 00:08:52
Sure.
You would?
Sure.
And here's the challenge again.
It's not a challenge.
That's the point.
I think you both are both for the country.
I think both you and Martin Monhill missed the point of what I was doing there.
There was no preconceived idea of mine to do that.
I just felt that she was being very cowardly.
I thought she was saying, of course, I would say it, but I very much doubted she would actually say it.
In other words, I thought a lot of it was performative racism.
She's an unashamed racist, openly admitted it too, but I didn't think she would actually go through and say it in the way she claimed she would say it.
But do you agree with me?
I thought she was a sniveling little coward.
So it was really calling out her cowardice was what I was trying to do.
But I accepted when Martin Monthill said, do not do that.
I thought about it very quickly and thought he's right.
He's right.
It looks too performative.
Do you agree with the point that I'm making, Pierce?
I just want to do you understand the point again as a linguist.
When you look at that, context matters.
And if someone is going to say, or try to, by the way, attribute any hatred or malice in someone's, it is incumbent upon them to prove it.
In your instance, I understand it.
In this one, okay, so what about, all right, listen.
So what about Shiloh Hendrix, who is caught on camera repeatedly using the N-word, says it to a five-year-old kid, right?
And is now getting hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions now, haven't checked, in charity donations backing her.
A, do you support what she did on that bit of footage?
Tax day has passed, but for millions of Americans, that's where the trouble begins.
The IRS is now ramping up enforcement for those who miss the April deadline or still owe back taxes.
Well, today's sponsor, Tax Network USA, can still help.
If your books are a mess, if you're self-employed, or if you're a business owner, Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track quickly.
They say the IRS is applying enforcement pressure at levels they've never seen before.
But even after the deadline, it's not too late to take control.
The consultation is completely free.
Acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate.
Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com/slash peers.
That's tnusa.com slash peers.
Let tax network USA make the next move, not the IRS.
I don't think that someone should scream the N-word at a child any more than I think a grown adult should call a child a piece shit.
Now, I do think that if you're talking about the money raise, we are now dealing with the reaction and not with the action that has led to it.
I was raised, and I want to be clear about this, and I know I'll be told that I don't know anything about the black experience, so I'm not saying from you, but people will watch this and say you couldn't possibly know.
In a post-racial America, by the way, largely Canada, the most recognizable faces on earth, Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson, I'll get, okay, that one's a half one.
The point is, our greatest export was culture in America, celebrated our black celebrities.
I didn't think about watching Fresh Prince or Urkel with my close black friends.
But today, when you look at this, this is a reaction to white people.
And this is important.
And if you want to know what the reaction is, look at Gen Z voting males, in particular, Hispanic males who we've been told, including by Dr. Hill, should be natural allies of the black community.
When you're a white person in this country and it's, hey, you don't know the lived experience, but I know yours.
When it's, hey, if you move into an area, that's gentrification.
But if you leave, it's white flight.
It's, hey, sit down and shut up and then it silences violence.
It's, hey, you can't use empirical in making an argument about neighborhoods regarding crime data, but you also can't say you have a black friend, which, by the way, is a completely legitimate defense against racism.
The only way to win is not to play.
And so people aren't even talking.
And I want to make one last point.
I do a segment on this show called Black and White and the Gray Issues, where I will, as Dr. Hill does, go into barbershops, go in the black neighborhoods and discuss these issues with them.
And not once, not once has anyone accused me of a whiff of racism.
What white people are afraid of in this country, and the reason they're not having a dialogue, is the game of telephone and someone in the media telling a community that they should be experiencing an affront.
And that leads to more racial division.
It does anywhere good.
Okay, but it means accountability.
It's false outcomes.
Yeah, but yeah, if you don't mind me saying, you're being slightly distracting from the actual story, which to me should be an open and shut case.
Whether you're on the left or the right, it should not be difficult to watch footage of a white woman repeatedly using the N-word at an adult black male and then using it at a five-year-old black child.
Obviously, any human being, it seems to me, with any understanding of the history of the United States of America, should be able to say that is completely unacceptable and not go into some long speech about this, this, this, and this.
It just is wrong.
Didn't I say you shouldn't say it?
Right.
So I think we have to agree it.
So let's not ask how we got here.
So certain parameters.
And we just say that is completely wrong.
Right.
And then we move on to, is it right that she's now had hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to support her?
I say again, that is completely ridiculous and outrageous.
And it's been whipped up by a fake kind of moral equivalence.
Well, you know what?
People are racist about white people.
So of course we should support her.
No, just take a line in the sand and say, if you use the N-word against black people, you are being racist.
If you're white, you know you're being racist.
You shouldn't do it.
And you should face consequences when you do it.
And your first reaction, if you're somebody else involved who's white looking at that story, shouldn't be, here's some of my money to help you, you poor victim.
She wasn't the victim.
The victim was the five-year-old black child that she racially abused and the adult black person she racially abused.
We should all be able to say, yes, that is what happened there.
There's no equivalence.
There's no ambiguity.
There's no, you know what, maybe this, this story, this, the, no, let's just have a clear line in the sand and say, that is wrong.
That is racism.
End, surely?
No.
Now, do you want to know which part I disagree with?
Yes.
Certainly not the part that I already agreed with.
Shouldn't yell the N-word at a black person five years old or 50 years old?
But the reason for the GoFundMe amount, you can simply dismiss it and say those people are racist.
Or I am telling you that you are seeing a statistical reality emerge where, by and large, the rejection of countries like where you and I are from, the policing of speech and the out-of-context use of boogeymen words to try and destroy people's livelihoods where white people are going, yeah, yeah.
The conversation, though, isn't that you shouldn't do that.
We all know that.
The conversation is, I can lose my job if I sing along to my favorite hip-hop album, whether Enter the Wu-Tang or Kanye's College dropout.
That's the conversation.
And you have people who are tired of it being used as a cudgel.
You know what you're sounding like, Stephen?
You know what you're sounding like?
You're sounding like that.
Sounding like the woke right, a phenomenon I didn't even know existed, but then I've been reading and writing about it.
You've been labeled the woke right.
And here you are, to me, I say this respectfully, sounding like a paid up member of the woke right.
Because what you're trying to do is define it for me.
There is some equivalence.
I remember a sonority girl who had been singing along to a Kanye record, which included the N-word.
And she was caught on camera at a party singing the chorus, which was the N-word.
And she sang it.
And she then got into all sorts of trouble and got suspended and so on and so on.
To me, there is absolutely, you talk about context.
There is no similarity between what happened there, which was ridiculous, and what happened in that playground with that woman deliberately and malevolently racially abusing black people.
There's no similarity there.
They are completely different things and should be treated completely differently.
I think anyone, white or black, should look at the white girl at college who is caught on camera singing a chorus to a number one hit record, which happens to include the N-word.
She should not be punished for that.
She might have somebody explain to her, you know what, blah, blah, blah.
Okay.
But there's no equivalence between that and what happened in that playground.
Because you talk about context.
The context of the one in the playground was to be deliberately racist.
Well, the context of the playground was that her child was having another child steal from her child's bag and she was upset.
And again, it still doesn't make it right, but let's also provide some context.
A Weird Point in This Country 00:10:53
The point that I was addressing was you labeling everyone who gave to the give, send, go.
By the way, I've also never been labeled woke right.
That's very, very silly.
$782,000, I believe.
Give or take, maybe it's $882,000.
But hold on a second.
You say that every single person who is giving to that is the equivalent of the person yelling the N-word at a five-year-old.
I didn't say that.
You say the same thing.
No, no, I didn't.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
No, I didn't say that.
That's the interruption.
I'll be done in 20 seconds.
20 seconds.
Would we also say then that the people giving to Anthony, Carmelo Anthony, support the wanton stabbing of white kids who die in their twin brothers' arms?
What I'm saying is there is a reaction to people being told to sit down and shut up and silence as violence and words being used to end their livelihoods.
And that is the conversation that is taking place in this country.
And most people are refusing to have it.
Of course, you shouldn't yell the N-word at a five-year-old.
You got it.
But there's no segment if that's where we end it.
Let's discuss why you have tens of thousands of people giving money for something they never would have donated to a mere 10, 15 years ago.
Don't we think it would have been better before we got to the point of the Holocaust for someone to say, hey, wait a second, how did we end up here believing that only Jews carry these communicable diseases?
How did we end up here, all of us accepting these negatives?
Hey, wait, how did we end up here othering these group of these groups of people?
I think the how you've gotten there matters.
And I think the prescription for it is important.
And that's what I'm trying to focus on.
The prescription is more dialogue and doing so in good faith rather than this word whack-a-mole that we're playing in this country.
Dry skin, deeper wrinkles, and crepiness are just a few of the visible signs of aging.
Well, so I'm told.
Fortunately, today's show is sponsored by One Skin, their topical supplements, are designed to help your skin feel and behave as if it's younger.
A bit like this.
Founded by an all-female team of scientists, OneSkin is the first and only skin longevity company to target cellular skin aging with their proprietary OS1 peptide.
It's scientifically proven to decrease lines and wrinkles, boost hydration, and help with thinning skin.
More than 4,000 people have given five-star reviews for their full line of face, body, sun, and travel-size products.
One Skin believes that skincare is not just to improve how you look, but how to optimize skin biology at a cellular level.
Well, we've teamed up to give you a 15% discount with the code PEERS, P-I-E-R-S, at checkout.
Just go to oneskin.co.
That's co with no M, oneskin.co.
Okay, Martin Monhill, welcome back to Uncensored.
I saw your reaction in another podcast I think you did, where you were pretty aggrieved at what you thought I was trying to do there.
And just to reiterate to you, in the moment, I was trying to expose her cowardice.
And I listened to your impassioned immediate response to my challenge.
And I immediately realized this would not be a smart thing to do.
So it certainly wasn't premeditated.
It certainly wasn't from anything other than a place of, you are an unashamed racist who says you say this word all the time, including to black people.
I bet you don't.
And he'll do the same as to be performative.
Let's see if I'm right.
And, you know, with hindsight, it was a little ill-advised, but it wasn't me trying to be theatrical or get a moment, a viral moment, just to reassure you, because you and I go back a long way.
I wouldn't want to deliberately put you in that position.
And you very quickly responded and made me immediately realize the peril of potentially doing what I was trying to do.
But in relation to what Stephen Crowder says, look, a lot of what Stephen says, I agree with.
I do think we've got to a weird place in society where words and language have been ridiculously over-weaponized and used to cancel people and ruin their lives and so on.
I agree with that.
But I also think there are certain things and words and phrases which have been accepted by society for quite some time now to be completely unacceptable.
And one of them is the N-word, particularly when it's used against black people by white people, right?
And this woman, the way this Lily Gaddis sort of proudly giggled her way talking about how proud she is to say it and so on, I found completely repellent and disgusting.
But in terms of what Stephen said about, you know, this is heading to a dangerous area if you weaponize words generally, is he right?
In the abstract, sure.
I mean, I think if you weaponize a bunch of words and people don't have the safe space to say what they want or say what they believe, it could be a very dangerous space because what I find to be offensive, you may not.
What I find to be extreme, you may find to be moderate.
What I may see as outside the proverbial Overton window, you may not.
And so you never want to get into a place to use Stephen's language where we're just doing the linguistic whack-a-mole.
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
But I don't think that's what's at issue here.
I think there are a few things.
You all said a bunch of interesting things that I want to get at.
The first thing is, I guess to Stephen's initial point about my self-emasculation.
At the thought, I wasn't melting down, as someone on the right have said, because I was afraid that this boogeyman N-word was going to pop out of her mouth and I was going to fall away.
That wasn't the point at all.
I think you actually characterized it properly, Piers.
I was frustrated not at the looming threat of the N-word coming out of her mouth.
It was at the spectacle that I felt like in that moment was being created that was wholly unnecessary.
And again, I don't think you were doing it intentionally at my expense, but we're all hosts.
There's a moment where you got somebody on the ropes, and we know it's a good moment.
We know it's a big moment.
And getting a white person to say the N-word, it's like a few good men.
It's like, did you order?
You know, it's a Jack Nicholson moment, right?
If you get them to do that, that's a big moment.
And I get that.
I guess my point at the time was: it's not the smoking gun that we think.
White people don't lie about using the N-word.
They lie about not using the N-word.
If she, she already said, I use the N-word in private.
So no one pretends to use the N-word when they don't.
So I actually didn't think that we needed that confession out of her.
For me, as far as the other point here, I don't accept Stephen's analysis here of the donations to the campaign.
Even if he is right that people were donating out of some political reaction to our hypersensitivity as a society, that's the wrong person to do it to.
Do it to the person that's getting doxxed because they made a mistake 10 years ago.
Do it to the person who wrapped the N-word, you know, on Gold Digger and suddenly has lost their ability to go to college.
There's all kinds of people who we might say, even if we don't agree fully on the context, who we could say, hey, is a better example of the cause.
But as you said, Piers, this is somebody who was using the word in the exact context that we're afraid of, or not afraid of, in the exact context that we're frustrated about, in the exact context that we think it's being used in.
And so to dump money, almost $800,000 into her coffers is ultimately rewards her for using that language.
Imagine if an arsonist were to set a building on fire and all three of us agreed that arson should not get the death penalty.
I think we probably all agree on that.
But if we were to then take a million dollars and dump it in there, GoFundMe, to fund the arsonist and legal defense, and now they get off, is that the right way to do it?
Is that the right cause?
There might be other ways to do it than to fund the person who's doing this.
Mr. Crowder has very politely raised his right hand to speak, which I think is a rare example of good manners on this program.
So, Stephen, your response.
Well, it's the Canadian.
I mean, actually, you know, Dr. Hill and I have go a while back on Fox News.
And like I said, he's always been a gentleman.
And I do accept his, I saw him on a podcast later explaining that he didn't know who the guest was going to be.
This is after the fact.
And I have a much greater understanding now.
I also get it.
I will say, great, now do stabbing.
And I think I know what the answer is going to be.
Can we both, if we want to find common ground here, agree that, yeah, we really find ourselves at a weird point in this country when a bunch of people are giving to a lady who yells the N-word at a five-year-old and a bunch of people are giving to someone who is famous for no other reason than allegedly stabbing an innocent person?
I know that we'll say it's because innocent until proven guilty, but this is the information that we have on both of these scenarios at this point in time.
And what I am discussing is the prescription moving forward.
And one final thing, one final thing.
Pierce, the point that I was making that you didn't show in that clip too was saying that it's racist for someone to say they would prefer to live in a predominantly white neighborhood or they would prefer to live in their neighborhood, which is not black, I believe is what they said.
And I don't believe it was necessarily her.
I believe there was a man on the panel who said that, but you do.
And I'm not going to attribute racism in your heart because only 4% of the population where you're placed in Los Angeles is black.
I think when you stop attributing and imbuing hatred, I think we need to stop empowering them.
But we do find ourselves at a point in this country where neither of these give, send, goes would have blown up if it existed 10 years ago.
Why?
How'd we get here?
I actually, well, Mark, I'll get you to respond.
I have to say, in a way, completely different scenario.
But how we got here, I think the same blame can be attached to how we got here, to what is going on with the reaction to Joe Biden's health news.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcast.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
I made a point last night on X when that story broke.
I was staggered by the instantaneous mockery, abuse, glee, ecstasy, desire for him to die that poured out in response to my tweet revealing this news about him having aggressive advanced stage four prostate cancer metastasizing to his to his bones, which is clearly an incredibly serious situation for a man of his age.
I just made the point.
The guy's served his country for 50 years, whatever you think of it.
This is a moment just to wish him well, isn't it?
The answer was no, and it's carried on being no for the for the next 24 hours in the most stunningly abusive, horrific, ghastly manner, totally inhumane to me.
Social Media's Instant Mockery 00:07:36
And I think the common theme, Stephen, of the two things is social media.
Social media has, I think, inflamed social and racial tensions to a point where people just don't think the normal rules of society apply.
They can be as disgusting and inhumane and racist and sexist and whatever they want to be as they like with no accountability in almost every case.
And we've become almost neutralized to that kind of thing.
And part of the problem is that when people like you and me and Mark, I'm sure, you know, launch staunch defenses of the right to free speech, the wrong ears take it as the right to be openly racist and all these other things with no accountability.
They misunderstand what free speech actually entails.
It doesn't mean you're never going to be held accountable for what you say.
When Shiloh Hendrix said that she said the N-word, whatever, you know, this was her right to free speech.
Yeah, but everybody else has a right to hold you accountable for it.
And it's the second part of that equation, which is, I think, important.
So, Stephen, your response to my thesis.
Yeah.
Yes, I disagree.
I think social media is a part of it, but I also don't think that we're dealing with an accountability culture as far as the country.
I think we're dealing with a false accountability culture as far as the media and those in the establishment.
You have myself, for example, who was demonetized, throttled on YouTube for simply using the term lispy queer.
Someone who referred to themselves as a lispy queer.
It was a quote.
Then moved over to Rumble.
And after the exodus, Diageo, in charge of 80% of the world's advertising, told Rumble that it wasn't enough to demonetize myself, but that they wouldn't spend a dollar of advertising on the entire platform, an alternative platform to YouTube, unless I was removed.
You've had entire governments try and remove platforms for freedom of speech.
This is not the accountability that people in the streets are calling for.
What is being called for, for example, from people in the media is a lie.
They would rather hear a lie than the truth.
And so you have people checking out.
For example, someone's afraid to say, could be my black neighbors, but it's anecdotal.
I'm not supposed to say the black friend thing.
Move to the same neighborhood I have because it's safer and there's a stronger sense of community.
But if you want me to lie to you and say, I picked that neighborhood and it just so happens to be more mixed or more white, but my neighbor is a former Dallas cowboy, you can demand a lie, but the media is demanding the lie, not the American people.
I am in no way concerned going down to a black neighborhood because I do it to the tune of hours, hundreds of hours of footage and hundreds of millions of views discussing these issues.
The challenge I run into is when someone else, a third party, wants to play a game of telephone and tell them that it's racist.
You can go and watch.
I had not one, not two, but 10 people in this installment say, yeah, I think all lives matter.
I think anyone who says that's white supremacy is out of their mind.
They don't speak for us, the black community.
I'd never know that unless I had that conversation with them.
Very few people are doing it.
You're demanding a lie of people.
Okay, Mark, your response.
Lots of things.
Again, first, I think, Stephen is, and I don't assign to you any ill intent, but you're comparing apples and oranges here when we talk about the Carmelo Anthony and the racist woman, I can't think of her name, video.
Lily Gaddis.
I think, as you pointed out, Shiloh Hendrix.
No, not Lily Gaddis, but Shiloh Hendrix, yeah.
Yeah.
Shiloh Hendrix, yes.
When you talk about context, I think we have to look at context in the context, even of these GoFundMes, right?
The people who are funding Carmelo Anthony, you can tell this from the comments.
This isn't my guess.
They're not saying, good job.
They're saying, we don't believe that you're guilty.
We don't believe that you've gotten a fair legal process.
And so we're sending money to make sure that you get a proper legal defense because we don't believe that you are guilty of this crime.
That is what they're saying.
Now, you and I may look at the evidence and come to the same conclusion or a different conclusion, but they're not attempting to reward the behavior.
They're attempting to challenge a system that they feel like is misrepresenting the behavior.
In the case of the N-word and this woman, right, Charlotte, what's happening is quite different.
They're not saying, hey, we feel like she's taken such a loss from her free exercise of free speech that we want to reimburse her for that.
That would be a different argument.
I still wouldn't want to do it, but that would at least be logically and morally consistent.
When you look in the comments and when you talk to people who are funding that campaign, they are literally shouting the N-word.
They are literally echoing the racial epithet.
And that is different.
That's why I say if this is really going to be a First Amendment cause, again, and not the lie that you're talking about, then let's invest in actual First Amendment causes and not this.
And to your second point, I agree.
And then I got you wholeheartedly.
I mean, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making decisions about where you want to live.
But there's a huge difference between saying, I want to live in a statistically safe neighborhood or I want to live in a historically safe neighborhood and I don't want to live around black people under any circumstances.
And again, the latter is what came out in our conversation on the show the last time.
And we're melding those two things as if they are the same and then acting as a person.
Came out from Muhammad Ali too.
Or a black person for that matter to exercise any radical honesty about where they want to live.
I ain't met a person yet that doesn't want to live in a safe neighborhood.
I want to live in a safe neighborhood.
I also want to live around black people.
People can make their own choices, but let's not pretend they're the same thing.
Okay, we've got to end it there.
I would say, in answer to your question, Stephen, I would say in both the GoFundMe cases, I think he's wrong.
I think the intentions are...
Stabbing is worse than a word.
I think the intentions on both sides are actually malevolent and wrong.
They're not doing it out of any great sense of social justice or anything.
They're doing it because they're taking a side based on skin color in both those stories, I think.
So I think murder is worse than yelling.
Yeah, listen.
I think.
Allegedly stabbing someone to death is worse than getting and getting held accountable for using the N-word.
No, no, no.
But it's important.
Stephen's point is the one is worse than the other.
I think we can end this on this.
Pierce, I can take 30 seconds here for talking about the legal level.
But the legal issue is that we're pretending.
But how about that?
So are you against cash and release?
That framing suggests that the money is going for the menu.
You're against the discount under $1,000 or less where a shopkeeper has to close down because of the name of systemic restorative justice.
Are you against cash in release?
Are you against cash bail?
Are you against the idea that people can shoplift and not be held accountable for their actions?
Let's talk real accountability for actions and not false accountability for words.
I believe that stabbing someone is worse than saying a word.
Both are bad.
Me, Mr. Traditional.
You know what?
Let me respond to that.
Let me respond to that.
Because again, that is a disingenuous framing.
No one is arguing that stabbing someone is better than using the word.
My point is our response as a community to the stabbing is not to say, great job.
Our response is, this was awful, but let's find out what really happened.
No one is saying on the other side of this issue, that N-word thing is awful, but let's hold this woman accountable, but let's not go too far.
And if they are, I'm okay with that.
But it's not apples and oranges.
No one is saying what that woman did is worse than that kid getting stabbed.
They're saying that the story of the stabbing hasn't been told well or properly, and we want justice for everybody.
And to answer your cash bail, yes, gentlemen.
I don't believe that, but I don't believe that that's the only way to hold people accountable.
You can't hold people accountable without cash bail.
I've got to leave it there, not least, Mark, because I'm worried about what you're doing to your era at the moment.
There's clearly an issue, a malfunction.
Accountability Without Censorship 00:00:41
My microphone fell out.
And it looks like you're basically gouging your own era in horror of what's happening on screen.
Which I know is not what you're doing, but it's a worrying optic for the viewers.
Guys, I've really enjoyed that debate.
Thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censor media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.
Export Selection