Whatever Podcast - Andrew Wilson vs. College Feminist REMATCH 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 21, 2024 - Whatever Podcast

02:38:08

Andrew Wilson vs. College Feminist REMATCH 2 | Whatever Debates #6

LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to a special debate edition of the Whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
	I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
	A few quick announcements before the show begins.
	This podcast is viewer-supported, heavy YouTube demonetization.
	So please consider donating through Streamlabs.
	The show begins this podcast instead of super chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
	So some quick maths for all.
	If you super chat 100, YouTube takes 30%.
	If you donate 100, Streamlabs only takes three.
	Streamlabs.com slash whatever link is in the description.
	Donations and Super Chats $10 an up will be displayed in Stream Overlay.
	Donations and Super Chats $100 an up will be read slash answered.
	If you want to interact nearly instantly with us and weigh in on the debate, consider sending a TTS text to speech message.
	$200 an up triggers.
	TTS.
	TTS is via Streamlabs only.
	The views, oh, quick disclaimer, guys.
	The views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel or myself.
	So without further ado, we're just going to jump right in.
	We're going to have the guests introduce themselves.
	So Andrew, why don't you start off?
	Yeah, my name is Andrew Wilson, host The Crucible.
	It's the fastest growing debate channel to my knowledge anywhere on YouTube.
	I'm a political satirist.
	I do political commentary and I also do blood sport debates.
	My name is Renee.
	I'm currently a second year student at UC Santa Barbara and I'm a political science major.
	All right.
	Welcome to the both of you.
	Good to have you back in studio.
	Thank you for coming.
	Appreciate it.
	Thank you for having me.
	Yeah.
	And we did have you on the dating talk.
	Was it on Sunday?
	Yes.
	Was it?
	Okay.
	And that was a, that was, I think that was one of our best shows that we've had you on, Andrew.
	That was a good show.
	It was a very good show.
	Can't say the same about the last one, but we're not going to get into that.
	I got a lot of positive feedback on that show, though.
	The last one?
	Okay.
	So I think a good place to start off with for this conversation, you guys did tend to disagree quite a bit during the dating talk podcast.
	So I think we ought to start there.
	What do you guys disagree on?
	Would you like to start?
	Well, let's start with what informs your worldview.
	Okay.
	What informs my worldview?
	Yeah, so if you're doing a debate, a debate is going to be informed in your positions by what the worldview is, the prism in which you're looking through.
	So this would be the eyeglasses you're zooming in on in order to see the world.
	So for you, you know, maybe it's a utility.
	I'm just throwing these out, by the way.
	Maybe it's a utilitarian framework, or maybe it's a religious framework, or maybe it's, you know, you see everything through a secular framework, or, you know, there's all sorts of different worldviews which can be applied.
	I just wanted to kind of see what yours might be.
	I'd say I hold multiple overlapping worldviews at once.
	Can I ask you the same question?
	Yeah, but what's your worldview?
	And I'll get into mine right after you.
	I don't really think I can give a comprehensive statement on my full worldview.
	I'd say based on the terms that you were throwing around, I wouldn't classify myself exactly as this, but I'd say I generally do prioritize utilitarianism or maximized utility for all the people in a society.
	And does that operate off of a harm principle?
	Yes.
	Okay, and so harm is utility.
	So if you're using the harm principle, just real quick, can you just tell me what kind of like generally consider harm?
	The harm principle dictates that the government should only prevent people from doing something if it is going to inflict physical harm on another person.
	That's John Stewart Mill's harm principle.
	Yeah, but I mean, so that's Mill, but I mean, Bentham also was part of utilitarianism.
	So Bentham had a hedonic calculator.
	And so what he would do is he would say, you know, X amount of harm based on not maximizing pleasure.
	So another way of saying it would be like maybe suffering.
	If you're not maximizing pleasure, then that's some form of suffering.
	So I'm just, I just want to get, you know, the specifics out.
	Yeah, but I wouldn't, you're, you're pointing me towards hedonism, right?
	Kind of, sort of.
	I wouldn't say that I prescribe particularly to Bentham's idea of the harm principle.
	Okay.
	It's more so just Mills.
	And I wouldn't even say I fully agree with the harm principle being used as the only like backing for laws.
	But I think as it stands today, that's like generally accepted, especially in the American conception of rights.
	Harm?
	Yeah, harm principle, I think, leads a lot of it.
	Okay, and so you're specifically talking about governing and you're saying from this perspective, government can only do things which stop physical harm from being perpetrated on somebody else.
	No, I didn't say that.
	They can do a lot of other things.
	I was saying, usually when it comes to conceptualizing laws, rights, liberties, et cetera, whatever you want to call them, it's on the basis not of how much you're helping someone.
	It's on the basis of whether or not you're going to harm someone physically.
	And if your action can harm someone physically, then it will be, they'll enforce the law upon you.
	So how does this differ from utilitarian or libertarianism with like the non-aggression principle?
	The non-aggression principle.
	I'm not familiar.
	just saying that your rights end where you could possibly be doing something bad to somebody else or infringing on their rights uh I I don't have a full knowledge on that but it's just like you can't let me see if I can frame this better um um So the non-aggression principle would be nobody has the right to be aggressive to anybody else.
	Okay, they can't aggress in a physical way, okay, or interject themselves in a physical way.
	And if they do, then you can respond in a defensive manner, but you're not allowed to aggress.
	And so it just sounds like when we're saying harm, physical harm, when you're talking about governing, it kind of sounds like a non-aggression style principle.
	I, I thought that it was, I thought that.
	I was under the impression it was the same thing, basically, the two things you just described.
	Non-aggression.
	Well, they're in opposition.
	They're in opposition to each other.
	Because harm can be defined external of just harm or physical harm.
	So for instance, you can have policy, discriminatory policy, but there's no physical harm.
	In Mill's conception, he only is referring to physical harm, I believe.
	Okay, no, I get it, but this is, I was just explaining the difference between the non-aggression principle being in opposition to utilitarianism.
	That's all.
	So I was just asking.
	I was just asking if they sound similar to you or what.
	So you see, your worldview is utilitarian and harm.
	Yeah, I'd also say I'm rather individualistic on priorities on like enlightenment ideals, individual choice kind of thing.
	Okay.
	So John Locke stuff?
	In the context of the discussion regarding gender, yes.
	All right.
	Cool.
	All right, so my worldview is?
	Nothing, nothing, nothing.
	Oh.
	Oh.
	My worldview is Christian ethics, and my political persuasion would be something that would be akin to Christian populism.
	Sometimes this is referred to by the left as Christian nationalism, but there's a lot of conflation.
	So Christian nationalism can mean a hundred different things.
	Okay, Christian populism just is stating emphatically that there needs to be some kind of grounding morality for the governed and that that can't operate within a secular framework very well.
	And so you appeal to something which is arbitrary and ends up being far too individualistic.
	So essentially, that would be the summarization of the position.
	Okay.
	Do you have any questions that you want to ask on that so you get the worldview down?
	Let's see.
	So that what distinguishes your view from Christian fundamentalism?
	Well, I'm not sure what Christian fundamentalism is.
	Oh.
	Well, I guess I'm not too sure either.
	I mean, like, that generally just like, maybe I'm incorrect about what it is, but what I thought it was was like basically just the belief that the government should be completely ruled on the basis of scripture.
	No, that's so the Orthodox belief, the belief that my worldview ascribes to, is that there should be what's called symphonia or a synergy between the church and the state, meaning that the secularist, you, would believe in a line dividing the church and the state.
	Church is over there doing its thing, state's over here doing its thing.
	They're separate entities.
	Symphonia would say that it's just fine to have religion inform politics.
	And in fact, we probably should have religion inform politics and that having churches involved politically is not a bad thing at all.
	How do you decide which church informs politics?
	Well, whether we would make the distinction of which specific church, let's just say I want it to be the Orthodox Church or they want it to be this church.
	The fundamental question starts with should any church or should a collection of churches or should there be or should there be allowed to be any kind of religious foundation when it comes to governing?
	And I don't see a big problem with it.
	You don't see a problem with religious foundations for governing?
	What about when different religious groups are within one nation?
	What about when different secular groups are?
	I mean, which religion would the whole state ascribe to?
	Which secular belief does the whole state subscribe to?
	It's based on a democratic process of voting.
	I mean, it's not a, but there's secular interest groups, right?
	So all of them are vying for power.
	They're still secularists, and they all have different beliefs.
	Maybe some believe in secular humanism.
	Maybe some believe in some other form of maybe Satanism, which is a secular belief.
	There's all sorts of different secular beliefs which exist that people can ascribe to.
	Can one hold multiple secular beliefs with different interest groups?
	Sure.
	Can one hold multiple religious beliefs beyond different religions across different religions?
	Sure.
	All right.
	Can one do that?
	Sure.
	Should one do that?
	I'm not so sure.
	That's a different question.
	All right.
	So, yeah, so anyway, so that's my position.
	But maybe we can start with the idea, because this was an easy one that you threw out there of gender.
	And we can compete.
	And I think you'll get a better feel for my worldview and me for yours based on that conversation.
	So we were talking about trans rights, things like that.
	Where do you stand there?
	Trans rights.
	That's an interesting one to jump in first.
	I don't.
	Oh, okay.
	We're staying away from that.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Can we talk about gender at all or no?
	I mean, we can just, I guess, stay clear of it.
	Oh, I want to talk about gender.
	Let's see.
	I was going to ask you what the basis of your distinction between the fundamental differences of men and women are besides physicality.
	You mean besides biological?
	Yeah.
	They're ontological.
	Biological.
	Yeah, besides biological.
	So you said besides physicality, right?
	Yes.
	Yeah, so I would appeal to ontology.
	I'd say there's an ontological distinction between men and women and a biological distinction between men and women.
	Can you describe that ontological distinction?
	Yeah, so ontology is just like being, right?
	It's just the state of being.
	What is being?
	What is, you know, what is that?
	And I would say that when you, especially when you're looking at reproduction and when you're looking at the different ways that women behave, regardless of the societies in which they're in, that there is definitely a thing which makes a woman a woman distinctly from a man.
	So they're not interchangeable widgets, in other words.
	That's how I would view it.
	Okay.
	So what makes you believe that one of those is more fit to lead than the other?
	Okay, well, that's a conflation of gender versus sex.
	But if you're talking about what makes you think men should be able to lead over women, what do you think personally makes them more capable of leading than women?
	Well, it's not even capability, though, that would come into it.
	It comes down to a matter of force.
	So men have a monopoly on force, so they can take away rights and they can give rights, but women can't take away rights and women can't give rights.
	Only men can do that.
	And you're saying the monopoly of force is based purely on physicality and biology?
	Well, yeah.
	I mean, when you're talking about, you mean physical attributes?
	Yes.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, yes, men are far stronger, have larger skeletons, et cetera, et cetera.
	So essentially, they're the dominant sex for that reason.
	Have you ever met a female police officer?
	Sure.
	Would you say that she has the same ability to enforce the law as a male police officer?
	No.
	Why not?
	They both have guns.
	Wouldn't you say a gun is an equalizer?
	Sometimes.
	Unless the man also has a gun, and then it's unequal again.
	So the problem is, even then, you still run into other problems too, which is when men can apply physical force, up close and personal guns become useless.
	And we see this all the time when male police officers end up in engagements with women.
	And men, they seem to be able to handle those engagements fairly well.
	Though sometimes they're overpowered by men.
	Women, on the other hand, have a much harder time handling physical engagements.
	And they can't always just move right to their gun, right?
	They're supposed to control a situation external that.
	That's the last resort.
	You don't want to go straight for the handgun.
	But unfortunately, they can be surprised very quickly.
	So even during a traffic stop, something like this, they don't have nearly the ability to defend themselves that men do, for sure.
	And the standards get lowered, in fact, so that they can even get a job as a cop.
	Oh, interesting take there.
	The first thing I noticed you said was that a man with a gun and a woman with a gun would not be equal.
	That's correct.
	Personally, I would say that I disagree with that because it's about the maximum amount of force they can exert at each other.
	If they're both standing a foot away from each other and the most powerful thing they can do is shoot the gun, then they both have the same maximum amount of power.
	You could argue that a man is more physically capable if they're hand-to-hand combat thing, but you could also argue, okay, what about a 5'5, 100-pound man with a gun next to a 6-foot, 200-pound woman with a gun?
	Have you ever used a handgun?
	No, but I just asked you a question.
	Yeah, no, but I'm going to answer it, I promise.
	Have you ever used a rifle?
	No, I've never used any kind of gun.
	No, okay.
	They're complex machines, and they require physical strength to use well.
	It's not like the movies where you just point it a direction, you pull the trigger, and the bullet magically hits the target.
	Guy's diving on the table, and he's doing this number.
	You know what I mean?
	He's spinning around with the handguns, pulling the trigger, and everybody's dying.
	That doesn't map onto reality.
	Guns use blowback, and they're not easy to wield.
	Not for men competently or women.
	It takes practice.
	But men are much better able to control recoil.
	They're much better able to control the actions on guns.
	They're much better able to reload.
	Their physical strength means a great deal.
	Even in action reloading speed, it means a great deal.
	So they're still at an advantage even if you're both armed.
	So do you think women deserve a right to own a gun?
	Yeah.
	You just expressed to me that you believe women would be more incompetent as compared to a man when it comes to learning how to expertly handle a gun.
	So?
	Wouldn't you see that as like a safety concern?
	No.
	Okay.
	Would there not also be discrepancies among men, though, comparing one man to another, too?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Yeah, but I mean, I just, I don't really understand that.
	Which is why his point doesn't make any sense at all, because he just admitted that anyone can be bad at using a gun or good at using a gun.
	Yeah, we're just talking about averages.
	So if you're physically stronger and somebody's physically weaker, you're going to be more prone to be able to use a gun well than the person who's physically weaker.
	That's just the truth.
	It requires physical strength to utilize it.
	It's like, think of it like it's not a direct one-to-one, but it'd be like wielding a sledgehammer.
	Would you say somebody who's stronger would be probably better than somebody who's weaker wielding a sledgehammer, even though that's not always going to be the case?
	that one is pulling a trigger and receiving the pushback, and one of them is actually wielding with force behind it.
	Well, it's not.
	One is loading a spring-loaded magazine that has significant amounts of pressure behind it, and it's under pressure because it has a spring.
	You're dealing with a gas-operated blowback weapon.
	So not only are you dealing with the recoil, but you also have to realign your shots.
	And you have to do all of this within a matter of seconds.
	Reloading, same thing.
	When it comes to muscle memory, and I mean, physical strength for rifles even is a massive deal.
	Just clearing a jam inside of a gas-operated weapon can require significant strength because you can have shell expansion.
	So it's just like over and over, physical strength definitely matters.
	And it also matters to how much ammunition you can carry.
	Okay, so if there's a bunch of shorter, weaker men, what is stopping the military from conscripting taller, stronger women who would like play for the WNBA or something?
	They could.
	And you just proved that women can enforce rights as well.
	No, then you would still end up with men enforcing rights.
	It would be men who would enable those women to go after those short, dorky, weak men or whatever.
	Well, how are the men enabling the women if the women can also bring up arms?
	You said the men are enabling them to use the guns.
	Yeah, well, men build all the guns, and the military is staffed by men who run it.
	So those men would be enabling those women to then get armed and be huge and whatever.
	They already did that when they invented guns.
	No, they didn't do that.
	Inventing guns didn't create an instant equalizer between men and women with force because both men and women can use guns and men use them better than women.
	Your argument for why men deserve more rights than women is because men can use guns better than women can.
	When did I argue that?
	Correct me if I'm wrong then.
	Yeah, you're wrong.
	I didn't argue.
	That wasn't my argument.
	Alter what I just said to fit your argument.
	What happened was, and this is what I got in my notes, you said, but can't women just use guns as an equalization to force?
	And then I went into the reasons why that's not actually force equalization.
	How on earth you attributed that to that's my argument for why men should have the right to vote and women shouldn't.
	I have no idea.
	I don't know where you came up with that.
	Oh, sorry.
	I was kind of assuming based off of the last podcast.
	What would you say then is the reason why?
	Well, let's stay away from the right to vote for now.
	Okay, we'll come back to it for reasons, right, that we discussed.
	We'll come back to it.
	And let's instead just look at force equalization, okay?
	Meaning, who enforces whom's rights?
	Do you think that it's equal between men and women rights enforcement?
	I don't think men or women enforce rights.
	I think institutions enforce rights.
	Well, so.
	Men and women give away, or they concede things to allow that institution to have power over them when they enter social construct with the contract with the government.
	Does a room have power?
	Or do people have power?
	People in institutions have power.
	So then it's still people who have the power.
	The institution is what is allowing them to enact their power.
	Yeah, but who gives the institution the authority to do that?
	Also, the people.
	So then it's just people who have the power.
	Through institutions.
	Yeah, but institutions have no autonomy, no consciousness, no nothing.
	That would just be people or the institution, right?
	Do you have an institution actually?
	So you would say you have as much power as the president of the United States of America right now.
	No, I would say that not even close.
	His power was given to him by the institutions that make up the American government.
	No, his power was given to him by the people and institutions.
	Yeah, that's true, but they're the ones who empower it.
	And the same thing with the military protecting it.
	The institution itself has no power absent people is my point.
	So it's just, it really just comes down to people.
	So if you were to say between men and women, which sex do you think enforces rights, would you say it's more along males or more along females?
	I'd say it's both.
	Yeah, but more.
	Or is it exactly equal?
	You think there's really no delineation?
	Because of the nature of the citizen and the state relationship, all citizens in a society are equally giving up their rights for the purpose of the government to say, okay, will protect your these rights if you give up certain other rights so I'd say I don't I don't actually know what you're saying right now What do you mean?
	Let me try and rephrase that a little bit better.
	I don't think it's unequal as to who enforces the rights.
	Okay.
	I'd say men and women enforce them equally because they both have to give up some of their rights in order to live in the society that enforces the rights.
	Which rights do they have to give up?
	Well, I couldn't pull out a gun and shoot you right now, could I?
	Do you think you think that that's a right?
	Not a right, but well, don't you not think rights exist anyway?
	I mean, whether I do or I don't, that still wouldn't have anything to do with a previous statement of you gave up your right to.
	You're giving up free will.
	You're giving up something.
	Yes.
	You're giving up something in exchange for rights, which is, yeah.
	What are you giving up?
	Free will.
	You're giving up, have you ever, like Hobbes Leviathan, man in a constant state of war where they pursue their own individual selfish interests?
	We give that up in some part, not fully, but in some parts to agree with the government in a contract.
	We're not going to do these things if you protect us from other people who are going to do those things.
	Okay.
	And who's doing the protecting?
	It's people who are hired to the institutions by the government, paid with tax dollars that are funded by both men and women, so I'd say.
	So like the United States military?
	Yeah.
	Would you say that that's mostly men or mostly women?
	The military is not an enforcer the way that we've been talking about it, though.
	The police would be the enforcer the way we enjoyed it.
	Why wouldn't the military be enforcers?
	I mean like in terms of foreign matters.
	Because then you're not enforcing rights.
	You're enforcing, that's on an international scale.
	You're enforcing your nation's sovereignty.
	Well that would be enforcing the rights of the people.
	That's the nation's right to sovereignty.
	That's not a people's right.
	They're two different levels of abstraction.
	If the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, isn't the United States military going to be enforcing your rights at that point if a foreign body invades?
	They're not.
	Aren't they protecting you the same way a police officer would be in that context?
	But states aren't motivated to do that particularly just to protect my individual life.
	It's to protect the sanctity of a state as a whole because the state protects the rights of the individuals within the state.
	So they're there to protect the state who's protecting the rights of you.
	So they're protecting your rights.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I guess.
	And they're enforcing your rights.
	I concede.
	What's the implication of that?
	Well, is it mostly men or women?
	In the military, it's mostly men.
	Mostly men.
	And then in the police force, mostly men, mostly women.
	I'm not, I guess it's mostly men.
	Mostly men.
	In fact, can you think of a single enforcement agency which is not mostly made up of men?
	I don't know, maybe the Environmental Protection Agency?
	The EPA?
	That's an enforcement arm of the government.
	Do they actually have an enforcement wing?
	Because like the IRS does, the IRS has an enforcement arm of the IRS.
	They carry guns, the whole nine yards, but that's mostly the agents there, mostly men too.
	I'm pretty sure the EPA has to handle permits for businesses that are like polluting a lot.
	Yeah, that wouldn't be enforcement, though.
	That is enforcing a law.
	It's not enforcement.
	That is enforcing a law.
	How is it enforcing?
	If there's regulations on how much emissions a company can have and the EPA is tracking their emissions and charging them or otherwise punishing them, putting them out of business, et cetera, for breaking those rules, then it's an enforcement of a law.
	So if it's enforcement, this requires force that's entailed in the word enforcement.
	Yeah.
	And so what force are they using?
	Or are they appealing to another branch to use force?
	They're using the institutional force that's not.
	Yeah, but if a business says, no, we're going to keep dumping our oil in this lake, right?
	Does the EPA themselves actually come out and physically stop them from dumping the oil in the lake?
	Or do they just send them a strongly worded letter is the question.
	Probably a strongly worded letter.
	I think eventually people might come out and do things physically.
	And yeah, those people would probably be men, but I don't see the point of your argument.
	It's just an argument that men are physically strong.
	I haven't even made an argument.
	Okay.
	So I don't see how you can see the point if I haven't even made an argument.
	I'm not sure what you're setting up for, but I'm very curious.
	Well, right now I'm just trying to figure out the delineation of who actually enforces the laws.
	The laws themselves.
	Not people who write the laws, not people who make judgments on the laws, but the people who actually enforce the laws.
	The government, the institutions that make up the government.
	Institutions cannot enforce a law.
	Okay.
	People have to enforce a law.
	It's like saying the prison institution will make you go to your cell.
	The prison institution does not make you go to the cell.
	A guy with a nightstick makes you go to a cell, right?
	But why does he have to do that?
	Well, it's his job.
	He doesn't have to do it.
	Who gave him that job?
	Well, in this case, it would be the prison.
	Is that a government-owned facility?
	Sure.
	So he has a government job.
	Sure.
	So he has to do whatever the government tells him.
	Not the government, the people in the government who are in those institutions who then give him the mandate to do whatever the job is.
	The institution itself is just a building, right?
	Or an idea.
	It's a conflation of people.
	So you're making a category error when you say an institution can enforce.
	It's people who enforce and it's people who are the institution.
	In the government, enforce.
	And they, yeah, that's my.
	Well, they don't always have to be in the government.
	Right?
	Explain yourself.
	Well, like you can have a citizen's arrest.
	You can have various things like this where there's enforcement going on, but you're not a government agent of any kind.
	And you can enforce your right to self-defense without being in the government, right?
	I disagree.
	Government is the one that gives us the right to self-defense.
	So the government gives us a right to self-defense.
	They delineate it, like I said, after the social contract.
	The people give the people in the government the right to enforce it.
	Okay.
	So then last thing is, when it comes to rights themselves, do you think that rights exist?
	It's a very interesting topic that you've given to me multiple times.
	I think, like you've said many times about different axioms and stuff, no, they do not tangibly exist.
	But because the enforcement of rights has physical repercussions, I'd say that rights are something that exists in various societies, governments, legal codes, constitutions.
	They're present.
	But yes, they are intangible.
	They're intangible.
	Yeah, so they're just conceptual.
	Yes.
	They don't actually exist as part of any type of physical reality.
	They're just ideas that we will follow.
	Same thing with the Bible, but yeah.
	I mean, sure, you can say that.
	I'm just asking specifically, they're just ideas, though, right?
	Yes, just like the Bible.
	It's just ideas.
	Okay, it's just ideas.
	So if that is the case, then these ideas for rights, which do not exist, and then these men who are mostly enforcing these rights who do exist, men, you would say, would be the rights enforcers.
	They would have to be.
	There's mostly men who are enforcing rights.
	And under this ideal or idealism that you have that we should follow rights, you would need to have people enforcing them.
	Those are mostly going to be men enforcing rights.
	I feel like we've talked in a circle here, and I think the fundamental disagreement is that I believe women are just as capable of men as enforcing rights.
	And I don't think that physicality is a valid enough argument to be against it.
	So then can you tell me why it is that there's never been a case in the history of all of mankind where women have collectively enslaved or men, but men have always been able to collectively enslave women?
	It's because men are physically stronger.
	Well, then what are you talking about?
	Women are just as equally capable of enforcing their rights.
	Because guns are an equalizer.
	Yeah, but we've already distinguished that they don't make you equal to a man just because you have a gun.
	We disagreed there.
	Okay, well then can you explain how somebody's better apt and can carry far more ammunition and handle a weapon better, how it's equal to a person who cannot?
	First of all, like we said, there are many exceptions to that case.
	There are many women who could probably carry more ammunition than a small, weak man.
	Yeah, but those would be exceptions, which would make the rule that most women are not as good at it as most men.
	Also, women do not make guns.
	They don't create them.
	They don't manufacture them.
	They don't draft them.
	They, for the most part, stay completely out of the industry.
	There's almost no women working inside of the gun industry as far as the production end of it goes.
	Some in the sales end, but they don't even produce the weapons.
	So same thing when you're talking about tanks.
	Tanks also require a higher amount of physical strength.
	Male tank crews are going to do better than female tank crews.
	And this is because you have to put on treads and you have to put in shells and you have to carry heavy shit all day.
	So it's not really just saying, well, a woman can carry a gun.
	I don't really understand the argument because yes, men also carry guns but can do so much more than that with the guns.
	Okay, well, it's just I've proven that women can be enforcers even if it's less well than men can be, right?
	Would you consider that?
	Yeah, but then that would mean, if that's true, that men can utilize force even against enforcer women and take away their rights.
	That's the point.
	So do you think like a man who is able to escape the grip of a female police officer, you think he's just going to be free for the rest of his life and never get a right to enforce something?
	Men are going to come get him.
	Men who enforce rights are going to come get him.
	But generally speaking, yeah, women and men cannot equally enforce rights.
	There's no, I mean, there's never even been an example of it ever.
	It's never happened once.
	So my argument would be to you that if tomorrow, collectively, men said women have no rights, they would not.
	And if collectively women said men have no rights, they still would, because women would be unable to enforce that mandate whereas men could.
	That's false, because they could at least partially enforce it.
	There would be a war between the genders if we can both own guns.
	I don't think that there would be.
	As if you take a look at some of the historic examples, including overseas, there have been many instances where women can own guns and have guns.
	But if men take their rights away, what good are your guns?
	What are you going to do?
	Collectively, women, there's no possible way for them to put up a fight against men.
	It can't be done.
	And do you think men would take women's rights away tomorrow?
	They do it all over the world all the time, don't they?
	Then why don't they do it here?
	Well, so this is a conflation of two different questions.
	Whether or not they do do it here, we're arguing right now on if they could do it here.
	If they could do what?
	Sorry, Eka.
	If they could collectivize and just take away women's rights.
	Yeah, could they?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Then why don't they?
	Yeah, but that's not, again, asking me why doesn't thing happen doesn't I'm just asking you about your opinion that there's no necessity as to what you're saying.
	Why do you think men don't do that?
	Is it because of the feminist mind virus?
	I'm not going to get into that.
	Okay.
	But before I get into that, I still would like this question answered as to whether or not they can do that.
	I don't think so because women are objects of value to men.
	The only reason why you guys hate so much that we're able to get our first dates paid for and use pretty privilege to our advantage is because you have valued women so highly, right?
	I mean, you used the term benevolent patriarchy last time.
	I think the better phrase is just horny patriarchy, honestly.
	I think men wouldn't do that because then they wouldn't get any play anymore.
	But couldn't they just take it?
	Are you saying they should just go have gay sex or?
	No, they could just take whatever they wanted from women anyway, collectively, if they so chose, right?
	Oh.
	So you're saying that women's sexual power can be taken away.
	Yeah.
	Because that's something we talked about.
	Yeah, it can.
	Okay.
	Can't it?
	It can.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, this is the point.
	So when we're talking about rights as a construct, we're talking about men who are the enforcers of rights, the majority of which you've already conceded they are the majority enforcement of rights.
	You seem to think somehow, though, that women equally can enforce rights.
	Uh-oh.
	Uh-oh.
	Did you hit something?
	Not that I'm.
	I don't think so.
	I didn't do anything that I know of things like that.
	Can you check?
	I'm looking on YouTube right now.
	You sure you didn't hit something?
	I don't know what it could have possibly hit.
	Because it just happened and this went something went wrong.
	So.
	Let me see.
	Hold on.
	Uh-oh.
	Yeah, it just crashed.
	Did OBS just crash, maybe?
	It says we're offline.
	Check your connection.
	Internet crashed.
	It could just be IV.
	This happens to me all the time.
	Oh, we're back.
	Here, sit down.
	I don't know if the stream is still going, though.
	The white thing isn't.
	I think it is.
	I have it on my phone right now.
	Hey, are we still live, folks?
	One in the chat if we're still live.
	We're back.
	I apologize.
	I don't know if you guys can see us or hear us where you had an internet disconnect.
	We're going to try to fix this really quick.
	So give us.
	I very much apologize.
	Give us just one minute.
	Okay, we're still connected.
	Yeah, that probably just needs to be limited.
	Oh, yeah.
	We just reload it and then we should be good.
	Oh, wait, fuck.
	Okay.
	Go on.
	I think we're good, though.
	I would concede that men have a monopoly over the use of physical force, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly over the enforcement of rights.
	Then who does?
	Like I said, institutions, but it's not even just that someone has all the power.
	There's power in most institutions.
	That a nation as a collective must enforce the rights of a nation.
	Why must they?
	Or not must they, but it's like what I was saying with the social contract stuff earlier.
	If a big enough group is dissatisfied with the way things are being run in the state, no matter what, there's usually going to be some sort of revolt, pushback, non-institutionalized protests.
	Who usually fights in those revolts?
	Who usually fights in those revolts?
	Men.
	Men.
	Yeah.
	So men are the ones who are either taking their rights or taking rights away.
	For the physical revolts.
	See, Susan B. Anthony, during the fight for the 19th, she didn't need to shoot anyone, did she?
	There's such thing as political activism, nonviolent political activism.
	Would you say that political activism is not impactful on the nature of the institutions that make up our society?
	Susan B. Anthony had almost no power.
	Rich industrialists are who got the 19th Amendment passed.
	At the state level, every single state almost, without exception, where there was a referendum on the vote for the 19th, women were not allowed to vote on it.
	They were not allowed to vote for their own voting rights.
	In fact, the anti-suffragettes demanded.
	I'm sorry, the suffragettes demanded that they not be able to vote and that it instead be constitutionally enshrined because they had tried to allow them to vote before and it did not pass.
	So no, Susan B. Anthony did not utilize great political activity.
	Moving past that one case study, women are capable of political activism, yes or no?
	Sure.
	As long as men allow them to be.
	That's my claim, is that all enforcement is allowance.
	So anything that women are allowed to do as an external force anywhere in the world is because men are necessarily allowing that to happen.
	That argument is based purely on physicality.
	It's saying basically at any time, because a man could physically overpower a woman, he could just kill her and prevent her from doing anything.
	How is that an argument for a woman having less rights than a man?
	The argument would also move to men as well.
	So it would also be saying that men can do the exact same thing to other men, and they can do this to women.
	I would agree with that.
	But women can never do it to men.
	Okay, what about women to other women?
	Sure.
	Then can't they enforce rights?
	You mean can they enforce their rights against other women?
	Yeah.
	Sure, but they can't against men.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So, I mean, ultimately, all we're establishing is that men enforce rights and that women cannot enforce their own rights.
	And so since that is the case, I do not believe that men and women are equal.
	And since they are not equal, then it becomes a why should we allow for women to have these rights when if we have determined that they should not?
	What would be the moral argument for that?
	Do children deserve rights?
	Limited.
	Yeah, there's a moral argument to be made there, I think.
	Like, do children get the right to vote?
	True.
	But I mean, well.
	They tend to frown on that, right?
	Typically.
	But the argument is that someone shouldn't have to think, oh, my rights aren't going to be enforced simply because I can't enforce them.
	What about disabled men?
	Do their rights not deserve to be enforced in society?
	Yeah, men can take that away from them.
	They could.
	So you're saying a disabled man is the same as a woman?
	Yeah, I'm saying that if you have that all rights essentially come down to force, then you can chop it up either which way you want.
	You can make as big of a group as you want or as small of a group as you want.
	However you want to chop it up, you can do.
	You can do it with only tall men, only medium-sized men, only small men.
	But ultimately, it's going to be men who are giving rights and taking rights away.
	But see, you've pointed out multiple exceptions to the rule.
	What if we remove all the exceptions and just say the strongest 50% of the population?
	It's not going to be all.
	That would still be men.
	Well, okay.
	Well, let's say.
	There's no way around it.
	No, Well, no, there's definitely a multitude of men out there that are sh weaker than men.
	Women.
	Okay.
	I'm bad at math honestly but what I'm saying is like yeah you want to revise that you can't Why would if you're basing it on biological physicality, then why does it have to be between the two genders if there are women that are stronger than smaller men?
	If it's based purely on the use of force, why don't we just base it on who is most capable of using force, like the Olympics or something?
	What am I missing?
	What are you doing?
	Here, take this.
	I don't know what the fuck.
	What is all that about?
	There's a bit of white specs.
	I was just trying to.
	Oh, yeah, I don't know.
	Okay.
	What the OCD, Brian?
	Sorry, I'm just being, I don't want people to think you got dandruff and shit.
	Why would you use sex as the determining force if you've already admitted that there are people who break the exception and there are women who would be stronger than some men?
	Because no matter what.
	Why don't you just choose the strongest people from each society?
	The strongest people from each society are going to still be the men.
	Okay.
	But, all right.
	Just a little bit, please, Andrew.
	Please.
	Just like on that side.
	Wait a little higher up.
	What is there?
	There's costs in here.
	No, just like there's little white puts from the other side.
	The other side?
	What is it for you?
	Can I do it?
	Yeah, you can do it.
	Can I do it?
	Hold on.
	Welcome to the Letter Podcast.
	Bro.
	Time, time, time, time, sorry.
	Are you serious?
	Some ash freaking you out, dude?
	Some cigarettes.
	What the fuck?
	There's a little cigarette dropping.
	All right.
	So back to the debate.
	Sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	Okay.
	Well.
	Remind me, never get a barbecue stain on a white t-shirt around you, dude.
	I'm the comic relief over here.
	This guy loses his fucking mind.
	He get a barbecue stain.
	He'd be like the whole time.
	He would never be able to enjoy the barbecue.
	He'd just be staring at that guy the whole time.
	It's true.
	Yeah.
	Look at how sharp you look now.
	Hold on, wait.
	There's a little more.
	I'm sorry.
	There's a little more.
	Get it all, Brian.
	There we go.
	You can just.
	It's just dug in there.
	That makes me want to go smoke another cigarette just and flick it towards myself now.
	But anyway, where are we at?
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	When it came to rights, yeah, we've determined, even at the highest level, it would still be men, right?
	I've already conceded that the monopoly of force, I guess, is with men.
	But like I said, the monopoly of enforcement would be.
	No, because the enforcement of rights is not purely physically done.
	It's also done by stigmas and other things that you've talked about before.
	So stigmas, social contracts.
	Stigmas can move stigma and what's the difference between anarchy and governmental state if the only monopoly of force is based on physicality.
	Yeah, so stigmas, for instance, and patriotism, that could be a really good one to look at too.
	All of these things can definitely influence a worldview or a viewpoint.
	But that still is not going to change who's going to end up ultimately having to enforce the worldview or viewpoint.
	And it's not going to be women.
	It's going to be men.
	And this was the primary anti-suffragette, or one of the primary anti-suffragette arguments made by the non-feminist women pre-19th was: look, one of the biggest problems is we're not fighting the wars and we're not ever going to.
	And we're not going to ever act as the enforcement arm in society, and we're never going to because we can't.
	We're not physically able to do this job.
	Now, you can point to some exceptions, which can, right?
	Some few women who can, that'll always be the case, but by and large, it's never going to be the case because just the average is that men are far stronger.
	Not moderately stronger, they are far stronger than women.
	And that's what gives them such a massive edge when it comes to enforcement.
	Would you say that men who have never served in the military or the police force are not entitled to rights?
	I think that you could make a good argument that if we were going to limit suffrage, the best thing that we could do to limit it would be to have some sort of public service that men and women both had to do.
	And if they were able to get through whatever that public service was, I think the military would be a great example, then they've earned that right.
	That way, somebody who's your age, for instance, who may not know as much as a person who's 50 or 60, can't negate their well-informed vote, but rather you had to go and you had to in some way earn it.
	So you're very much like a civic duty Republican in that sense.
	I wouldn't say it's a civic duty Republican, right?
	But I would say that if you're going to have a vote, if that is a system we're going to have, I don't see how it's even conscionable to just let everybody participate in it.
	Most people are remarkably politically uninformed.
	They have no idea about anything at all.
	Why should we let all of them do that?
	Do you think we should have a literacy test?
	I mean, I think you should have a literacy test before you're even allowed to come in the country.
	Okay.
	And I think that, yeah, it would probably be a good idea to make sure that only literate people could exercise a right like that for sure, right?
	Yeah.
	So you're saying there should be some sort of intelligence test at the polls before someone is able to act out their rights.
	I think that you could even dunk down to some type of average intelligence.
	I don't think you have to be super smart to move into the right to vote.
	But what you do need to have is some kind of bleeding for it, right?
	So it used to be you had to own property or there was other criteria that you had.
	Now there's nothing.
	Everybody can participate.
	And that seems like a really bad idea that so many people can get rid of an informed vote with their uninformed vote.
	So what do you think are the criterion that they should have to fulfill?
	I think that they should have to do probably six years of mandatory duty to some kind of institution with no pay.
	And then they can have that right.
	Okay.
	And you would be open to women doing that too?
	I would, but just so you know, an entailment of this is that most would not.
	Why wouldn't they?
	Because they don't know.
	So when there are, and you can actually go country by country where this is true, where service is something which gives you an additional privilege, women usually don't apply for whatever that is because they don't need to.
	What's the point?
	They still basically are pampered princesses in society, right?
	You're just negating them being able to, well, you're not even negating them.
	They could if they go through the same service process, but most of them don't.
	Why are women pampered princesses in society?
	Because basically, men have taken care of all the infrastructure in such a way that almost all hardship is out of the way of women.
	Was that men's choice?
	Well, I wouldn't say it depends.
	There's a bit of determinism when it comes to how men operate with inventiveness and you have capital, things like this.
	But yeah, I would say ultimately, it's a choice.
	Sure.
	Just like it's a choice for them not to collectively enslave all women on planet Earth tomorrow.
	That's a choice.
	But still, if you look at the logic of it, it still seems that they could.
	I would say that debunks any argument that I've heard that men have it harder because they have to provide for women.
	You just conceded that it's men's choice that they make women pampered princesses.
	So when you're this is actually kind of a silly argument, well, I'll gauge in it anyway.
	Because men make a choice, right, to feed their kid after the kid has acted out, he's been a shithead all day, but they give him dinner anyway, right?
	They make that choice.
	Did they do something, did they do something bad by doing that?
	By feeding their kid even after the kid was a shithead all day?
	No, but they did.
	No, I'm just going to say no.
	No.
	They didn't do anything wrong.
	They should, right, actually feed that kid at the end of the day, right?
	Yes.
	Even though the kid did all sorts of shit they weren't supposed to do?
	Yes.
	Yeah, because that's a moral imperative that they feed the kid, right?
	So in this particular case, there can be all sorts of terrible, horrible female behavior, but that doesn't mean that virtuous men would just let them go out and die.
	That seems absurd on its face.
	But not only that, most men aren't looking at it in the way that we're discussing it, where we're talking about infrastructure being a necessary facilitation for women's rights to begin with, which are men doing it.
	They just naturally gravitate to those jobs.
	They don't even think about the entailment.
	Oh, that women benefit from this infrastructure.
	They don't even think of it that way.
	Okay, so you're saying it's a moral obligation for them to be merciful towards women and pamper them, even when they're not.
	That doesn't mean to equalize them any more than they would a child.
	Were you going to say something?
	Well, I have a question, unless you guys want to continue on this thread.
	I had something I wanted to say.
	Oh, okay, then go ahead.
	Okay, go ahead, Brian.
	Wait, can you repeat what you just said?
	I'm sorry.
	I don't remember now.
	Darn.
	It's okay.
	I just asked you.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, just moving things forward a little bit here.
	You described yourself on the show as a black feminist.
	Can you explain that?
	I might not use it.
	That was trolling.
	Come on.
	I might not have used it completely in the correct, the correct way that it's meant to be.
	I'm basically just an intersectional feminist.
	But black feminism as a field of academia is genuinely studied in a similar context or definition that I posed with intersectional feminism.
	It's just, I'd say it's more prioritized on the oppression of black women rather than other races.
	So can you tell me, so you're a practicing intersectionalist?
	Yes.
	Okay, so can you tell me which is more oppressed?
	A black lesbian or a Native American homosexual male?
	You can't quantify oppression.
	Then what's the, I don't understand.
	What is intersectionality?
	It's understanding the multiple cleavages that make up a person's identity in society.
	Cleavages?
	Yeah.
	Not like breasts, cleavages, like political science word, like social cleavages, like let's say white, man, straight, those are all different cleavages.
	But just so that we're clear, blacks are not as oppressed as whites.
	Or I'm sorry, whites are not as oppressed as blacks, right?
	In America, I would say no.
	Whites are not as oppressed as black people in America?
	In America?
	Yes.
	Okay, so just so we're clear, inside the United States, black people are oppressed more than white people.
	Yes.
	Okay, but I thought you just said that you could not quantify oppression.
	Yeah, saying something is more than the other doesn't mean you can quantify it.
	So then how the hell do you know it's true if it can't be quantified?
	A lot of things can't be quantified.
	They're abstractions.
	It's based on someone's feelings, how oppressed they are.
	So what you're saying is it can't be quantified, but you just made it as a statement of truth that it is.
	If someone walks up to you and says you're an old white man and spits in your face, that's an act of, you know, oppression or discrimination or whatever.
	How are you quantifying that?
	Well, I'm not, I wouldn't say that I would be more or less oppressed than somebody else, but you just did.
	You just said this group is more oppressed than this group.
	That's a quantification after you just got done saying it's something which cannot be quantified.
	You were comparing two individuals before.
	No, I said whites.
	I said blacks in the United States are more oppressed than people.
	Yeah, but prior to that, you were saying a black lesbian and a native, whatever, man, or whatever you were about to say.
	Yeah, I know.
	But those are individuals.
	Oppression can't be quantified.
	For individuals.
	I mean, I would also say that for groups of people, but you can say historically there are trends of which races have been given more like, you know, obstacles in life.
	But it can't be quantified.
	Yes, person to person at least.
	Like, what are you going to say?
	Like, oh, I've experienced 350 acts of discrimination and they've experienced 360?
	No, I mean, if it can't be quantified, then how can you say it is a true statement that whites are more oppressed than blacks?
	Or vice versa?
	It's a historical trend based on the power that's vested in institutions to make laws that differently apply to different groups of people in society.
	Yeah, I understand the explanation that there were laws which are tailored against this group of people over this group of people.
	That sounds like you're quantifying it.
	Okay.
	What number did I just quantify it with?
	Well, I don't know, but I would think that if you had X amount of laws that you could count them.
	Okay.
	And then if you had X amount of laws on the other side, you could count those too.
	And that would be quantifying it, right?
	I don't have a full count of them, but I could give you a few examples.
	No, but what I'm saying is that if that's true, that you can quantify laws, you can count how many laws were oppressive to this group versus how many laws were oppressive to this group.
	How's that not quantifying it?
	But the thing is, it's not just laws.
	There's a variety of other variables that you're not taking into account.
	Well, it sounds like if it's a variable, can it be quantified?
	Yes, but you can't quantify all of them because there's just...
	Well, which variables can't we quantify?
	This just happens to be my belief.
	I'm being like idealistic.
	I'm saying there's ideas that oppress people.
	People are oppressed by their ideas that they hold in their day-to-day lives, and those cannot be quantified.
	So you can go back and ask me the lesbian question if you want.
	Okay, hang on, hang on.
	People have ideas in their daily lives, which cannot be quantified, which oppress them.
	Would you say if you had a conception of yourself, if you thought you were a woman, let's say you're still a man, physically, you're still completely a man, but you thought you were a woman, and you woke up every day thinking, yes, I'm a woman.
	I'm biologically a woman, whatever.
	I was born a woman.
	Would you act the same as you do now?
	Would I act as?
	Well, no, that would be impossible.
	There would be, if I picked up a penny every single morning, I wouldn't be acting the same way I do right now because I don't pick up a penny every single morning.
	I'm saying, would you continue to carry yourself in the same manner you do now?
	I wouldn't if I picked up a penny every morning.
	If you thought you were a woman.
	Yeah, no, but that would be true for any behavior.
	So any deviation behavior would make me aware.
	How far would you deviate, though?
	Are you going to start adopting more womanly roles like you want women to act?
	That is something there's no way to make a determination of.
	I'm saying theoretically, if you were a woman, would you change your behavior from how you act as a man?
	It's a simple question.
	Yeah, of course.
	Yes.
	But that would be true of all behavior.
	Oh, so the idea of being a woman causes you to change your behavior.
	The idea of any change in behavior necessarily facilitates your behavior changing.
	Yes.
	So if ideas can cause people to change their behavior, ideas about who a person is in society can change their behavior in physical society.
	So let's say people of a certain race.
	Manifest itself as X, and then we could quantify X. What?
	Well, so wouldn't that manifest itself as some type of grouping of laws or something like this, which could be quantified?
	It could after the fact, but I'm saying while it's in someone's head, that can't be fully quantified.
	Yeah, but I mean, that would be basically trivially true about everything on planet Earth.
	Anything which is inside of your head that would not ordinarily be inside your head, it would be trivially true that you would be different than how you are right now if you thought a different thought than you do right now, regardless of what that was.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So I don't really understand.
	The approach is oppression.
	It does sound like oppression can be quantified.
	Oppression can happen through ideas, which you would concede that ideas are not quantified.
	So some forms of oppression, like things which are inside of your own head, can't be externalized in any way, shape, or form, so therefore we don't really know anything about them.
	They can be externalized.
	I'm speaking right now on my thoughts inside my head and my ideology.
	Yeah, but I mean, if you were going to say, for instance, that you were a trans black woman, right, and you were like, let's say, a white person.
	That doesn't make me a trans black woman, right?
	Yeah, no, but if you could externalize that with behavior, and couldn't we just like count you?
	So we could quantify then how many of you there are, and then whatever the negative side effects are based on your joined experiences or whatever.
	It sounds like there's ways you could quantify that.
	It's not realistic at all.
	I don't see why, but I feel like we're lost in the sauce at this point.
	So moving on from there, I don't really know where the hell we were going with this, Brian.
	I don't think he knew either.
	Yeah.
	Well.
	Go ahead.
	I mean, we were talking about why, okay, you're talking about, I was saying ideas can oppress.
	Just trying to think of my greater point here.
	What were we talking about with Kenny?
	Here, I'll ask you a question.
	I can just ask you a question.
	Yeah, sure.
	So, I mean, you're feminist.
	If my understanding is correct, your view is that in the United States, there's a patriarchy.
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Global patriarchy in all countries, essentially.
	Perhaps stronger in other countries.
	Some countries have a stronger patriarchy than others.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And are women oppressed under the patriarchy?
	Yes.
	Are you oppressed under the patriarchy?
	Not legally, but yes.
	So what are some of the ways that you're oppressed?
	Okay.
	Ways that I'm oppressed under the patriarchy.
	Objectification.
	Let's say, even though it was enacted by another woman, when I came on the show last time, she accused someone of trying to see my no-no zone as a female.
	If I was a man, I don't think anyone would have accused that at all.
	Wait, what?
	That doesn't sound like oppression.
	That sounds kind of bad for the men.
	Yeah, that sounds bad for the men.
	Not good for the men who that are.
	Yeah, it is bad for the men.
	But what I'm saying is the over-sexualization of women over time has grown to become bad for men.
	Because I don't understand.
	How's that you being oppressed by the patriarchy thing?
	That's a universal every woman is oppressed by the patriarchy in that sense.
	Or I guess that would be the opposite.
	Okay, I don't want to say oppressed by their patriarchy.
	Every woman over, right?
	Every woman experiences sexism in the fact that they're typically seen as objects of attraction before objects of intelligence.
	what so i i know like like even i had a comment Usually women are like physical trophies rather than their value is based.
	You've said this before on the last podcast.
	Their value is based on their fertility rather than their intellect.
	That is one value.
	Okay.
	For attractiveness.
	The patriarchy.
	How does a patriarchy impact me?
	Yeah.
	Oppress you.
	Oppress you.
	Based on what we were talking about last time, you guys think that a good woman is a mother, right?
	And a wife, right?
	Did we even make that argument?
	I'm not sure that, no, there could be good women who cannot be mothers.
	Tons of them.
	There could be.
	So what are they supposed to do in life if they don't get a job?
	I mean, they can do all sorts of things in life absent having a job.
	I mean, they can still be married and still be taken care of by their husbands, and they could still adopt.
	They could say all sorts of things.
	Okay, but I'm saying like you think that a woman's role is to be a caretaker in the home.
	You don't think a woman should go out and be president of the United States?
	No, I don't think that, well, I can't even get into that, but let's just say no.
	Generally speaking, yes.
	I think that women are happy, healthier at home rather than in the workforce because they all fucking hate it.
	And every time they get pulled on it, they don't like fucking working.
	They don't like working long hours.
	They don't like working.
	They don't like, do you like working?
	Yeah.
	You do?
	on really find it to be more I'd rather have a fulfilling career in my future than a family home all day No, I mean, I would.
	Are you going to outsource the care of your kids to a Venezuelan woman named Marcy?
	Or like, what do you know?
	Is that what you're going to do?
	Or are you going to stay home with your kids?
	Why doesn't my husband stay home?
	Well, because generally speaking, men tend to be able to make a lot more money because they work a lot more hours.
	Actually, women tend to, I'm pretty sure more women have college degrees than men do.
	In today's society, that's typically an indicator of earning potential.
	Yeah, it's true.
	That doesn't mean they make more money.
	But what I'm saying is a woman could very easily today have a higher paying job than her husband.
	She could.
	Yeah.
	But they usually don't marry men when men has the higher paying job.
	That's the big problem.
	What's the evidence for that claim?
	Well, you can go to a channel called Ho Math.
	Not kidding.
	It's called Ho Math, where he breaks all of this down.
	And one of the things that he breaks down and he's using...
	We've had him on the show, by the way.
	Yeah, he's using publicly available data in order to do this, is he shows that most women, when you look at the earning potential inside of a house where there's wife and then later kids, the earning potential of the man is almost always higher than a woman before she'll get married to him.
	In fact, the reason the fact that this doesn't happen is one of the reasons that people clung on to the idea of hypergamy because it's so commonplace that women will not marry if the social status of the man is less than her, including with earning potential.
	Can a mother not like earn money and also be a mother?
	Yeah, I mean, that used to be the status quo.
	They used to either work out of the home or they would do secretary work or they would do education.
	They would do work like that.
	In fact, feminism completely failed in its job and its duty and its promise to women that it was going to make the world a safer place for women and children and that it was going to give all these different benefits to women.
	It really hasn't given them much.
	We don't want safety.
	We want freedom of choice to make our own choices in society and not be assigned to a role of mother and caretaker.
	That wasn't the promise of feminism.
	The promise of feminism was that society was going to be a lot safer and women were going to be a lot happier.
	You can't give one universal promise of feminism.
	Well, we can look at what the original suffragettes were pushing for, and yeah, we can look at their writings and see what they said.
	And that was one of the big promises of feminism was that they were going to make the world a safer place and that women were going to be happier.
	In every metric we look at, women are more miserable than ever.
	And their mental health, one in four suffers from a mental illness.
	That's crazy to me.
	One in four women suffers from some kind of mental illness.
	They don't seem like they're happier and more well-adjusted.
	They seem like they're more miserable and not well-adjusted.
	And while it's true that you can sit here and tell me that you love working, I literally don't believe you because nobody loves working.
	Nobody loves it.
	Like very few people.
	You just happen to be, like, for instance, how many hours did you work last week?
	Was it 60?
	Was it 50?
	Was it less than 40?
	I'm literally a full-time student.
	It was not 40, 50 or 60.
	Right.
	Maybe 15.
	About that, but that's not relevant to the point.
	The point is that if I enjoy going out and doing my career more than I do taking care of the kids at home, then why am I tied down to that outcome?
	Just because I'm physically weaker?
	That's not.
	You never were tied down to that outcome.
	You could just not get married.
	But if you are married, the optimal system, if you actually value your children, is to stay at home with them.
	How are they going to get better results than their mother at home with them while their father works?
	That is the most, if you can give me a more optimal system for raising children than mom at home while dad works, I'd love to hear it.
	A more optimal system for raising children than both parents at home.
	Neither working.
	But impossible.
	But that would be entailed impossible, right?
	For most people.
	What's the difference between that and having dad take care of the kids?
	Before we get into that, I'll ask your next question, just like I've been answering all of your questions, but answer mine.
	Can you actually think of a better system than mom at home with the kids and dad working?
	What could possibly be more optimal for the children than that?
	For the children.
	Having two moms.
	That would be more optimal?
	They probably get nurtured better.
	You guys say mothers are better caretakers.
	So I just want to make sure I got this right.
	First of all, The babies would have to come from somewhere, right?
	I thought adoption was a huge thing that you just talked about.
	Yeah, but even if we were to entail that, let's just say I granted your argument, and two moms would be optimal based on them adopting children.
	There's only going to be X amount of lesbians, which is a very small demographic, and X amount of children to adopt, which is also a small demographic.
	So that still could not actually be optimal.
	Even if I granted that it was better in certain circumstances, it could not actually be optimal for most of society to do this.
	That would not be optimal.
	And neither is a woman staying at home and a man going out and working because increasingly more we see the need for women to go out and work.
	No, we don't.
	If women retracted from the marketplace tomorrow and stayed home, men's wages would necessarily double or triple.
	Okay.
	So if all women didn't work and their rights were attached to the men that were next to them, what if their husband dies?
	Then they wouldn't do what has always been done and be able to inherit land.
	Like, I can give you an example of this happening.
	George, you know who George Washington was?
	Yes.
	Who was he?
	The first president of the United States.
	Yeah.
	He was married to Martha Washington.
	And they had a big falling out at one point in their marriage because she didn't want to free her slaves, which she inherited as part of a giant estate.
	She didn't want to free him.
	And he couldn't make her because women have always been allowed to own property.
	That's never been a problem.
	And if the man dies, though, they always were able to inherit his.
	That's why she was able to inherit from her father.
	What about bank accounts and credit cards?
	What about them?
	That's a very recent development.
	That's true.
	But do you know when it came to credit cards, why it was that women didn't have credit cards?
	It's because men were responsible for their debt.
	Women couldn't incur debt.
	It was illegal.
	So women couldn't go with a credit card and spend at a store.
	The man, if she did, the man was responsible for everything she spent for her husband.
	So that actually made a lot of sense, especially if women aren't working.
	They might need lines of credit, but that would fall to the men.
	So if women needed to go get whatever they needed, put it on their man's account, that would take care of that.
	Pretty good system.
	And if it comes to what's optimal for children, doesn't that seem like it's pretty optimal?
	Black Flame Nova donated $200.
	I wish more women on this show were like you.
	Even though you're a feminist, at least you're respectful, listen and have a good chat.
	Also, props to Andrew for handling this so well.
	Haters can shut up now.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, I don't know where we were at.
	But yeah, we were just discussing why that was with credit cards and bank accounts.
	It made a lot of sense.
	Yeah.
	But that's you guys were asking me to list examples of like patriarchy or oppression.
	That's one of them, right?
	Being unable to manage your own finances.
	That doesn't sound very oppressive.
	It sounds like you can just go get whatever the hell you want and somebody else has to pay for it.
	I don't know why that would be oppression.
	That sounds like the opposite of oppression.
	Like if you were to go to a man, do you think, and you said, listen, you're going to stay at home?
	You don't even have any children, okay?
	But you get to stay home and not work, and you can go out and buy whatever the fuck you want, and you're never responsible for the debt of whatever it is you go and buy.
	You think that they would think that that would be oppressing them?
	You make too many generalizations.
	Men nowadays aren't doing that for women.
	Women have to have financial stability.
	I know that they're not doing that for women, but you were just complaining about this law that they couldn't have credit cards or bank accounts.
	And I was explaining to you why that law existed.
	It makes a lot of sense why it existed.
	Because you're tying everything to a single income for the family.
	And the optimal system and what was pushed inside of society and what's been tried to be dismantled by feminists and nuclear family.
	But we used to push the nuclear family.
	And so, in order to make that optimal, which is dad, mom, children, you had to tie everything to one income.
	And people used to be able to afford to get a single car every couple of years.
	They'd be able to go out and get a brand new car when they're in the middle.
	They need a woman's income.
	Because women.
	Because feminism under rich industrialists flooded the market with cheap factory labor, which is what industrialists wanted.
	Cheap ass factory labor.
	And that's where women came from, cheap ass factory labor, and that's what they cared about.
	That's why they never gave them the vote.
	People knew it even then.
	And that's why the 19th was passed rather than a referendum state by state.
	I might agree with that, but my argument would be when men go to war, who is supposed to work in the factories?
	Well, in that case, it was still mostly men who were designing weapons, things like this.
	What women were doing were low-skilled jobs.
	They'd put screws in packs.
	They'd work on an assembly line, putting a bolt in something.
	They were doing kind of the menial labor jobs.
	Yeah.
	But those menial.
	But those menial labor jobs would still have, well, paid less than who.
	Soldiers who were drafted and had to go off to war were often getting paid far less than what they were making at their jobs.
	So which would mean women need to work even harder to provide for their family during that time.
	If men are being restricted, now women have to manage the finances of the home.
	You can't complain that there was a yoking where, well, wait, women made less than men.
	It's like I didn't complain.
	I just stated a fact.
	They would also make less than if they had stayed in those jobs.
	So it seems like that's a sacrifice that they should kind of be willing to make, right?
	Okay, yeah, but we've conceded that there are times like wartime where women have to take on a financially providing role for families.
	Instead of going and dying, terrible.
	It's awful.
	That's, I mean, man, it sounds like they really had it rough.
	Yeah, but that's not the point.
	Is who has it harder?
	It's that shouldn't women be able to have independent control over their finances from the beginning then.
	Well, even in wartime, right, when it came to this, what control do you think that they didn't have?
	They're still able to access these accounts.
	It just weren't responsible for them.
	They could get a bank account just through their husband's name.
	They just weren't responsible for the debt.
	Yeah, so if they got too much debt for their husband, I bet they would come home and their husband would beat the shit out of them.
	You don't see it.
	What kind of argument is that?
	Husbands weren't coming.
	They were coming home and fucking them.
	They weren't coming home.
	They weren't coming home and beating them.
	They were coming home and making.
	You think the first thing they thought when they got home was, hey, baby, where's all my money?
	Smack, smack, smack.
	Or do you think that after they hadn't seen a woman that I've seen?
	That they haven't seen a woman after multiple years in a war theater and they got home?
	What do you think they were thinking about?
	Because I got to tell you, I don't think it was about where did the money come from.
	I don't just mean in a war theater.
	I mean just like from a day at work, they come home, the wife spent too much of your money, and they're going to beat the wife up.
	The Bible says the Bible says to raise your hand at your wife if she disobeys you.
	You should be able to demonstrate or show that women were being abused at these much higher rates, especially domestically.
	They were not.
	But what is happening is that children are now abused at a much higher rate because feminism has broken up the nuclear family.
	So what happens is women, they'll have most, almost all children now, not all, I'm sorry, but almost over half last I checked, are not born in wedlock anymore, the children which are born.
	Single motherhood is at an all-time high and it's going to continue to increase.
	And what happens is if you bring in a non-biological parent into the home, the chance of abuse for your children drastically increases.
	I mean, it drastically increases with a non-biological male parent, stepdad.
	You're putting the responsibility of women on the lack of fathers, but you have to know that it's not completely on the responsibility of women.
	Well, I'm not saying that women bear a full burden or responsibility for a man abusing them so they have to get a divorce or any number of these different cases.
	But what I am saying is that women are far more likely to end these marriages at a much higher percentage.
	You're talking college-educated women like you, it's as high as 90% of the marriages which are ended are initiated by them.
	And then, you know, about 67% of general marriages are ended by women.
	And it's for reconcilable differences, not for abuse.
	It's not for abuse.
	It's number four down the list is money.
	But the first one's a reconcilable difference is I just didn't want to be married anymore.
	Not because of abuse.
	Yeah.
	So.
	I forgot like what point we were trying to build to.
	Well, we were building in feminism being a destructive path to the nuclear family and how that's one of the primary reasons that I oppose it.
	And then I gave you example after example of how it has done that.
	Okay.
	So you're saying because feminism is driving up divorce rates, that's why it's destroying the nuclear family.
	That's only one reason.
	The other reason is because now it requires two incomes in order to raise a family, which means that more and more women have to send their kids off to public school.
	Public school gets extended longer and longer periods of time because it ends up being a babysitting platform for women, or for women's children.
	So basically, the public schools have now become your built-in babysitter.
	And then you have latchkey kids who come home and you have these two income families rather than having the mom at home, which is of course optimal.
	And that's because we have two parents in the workforce and we should really be trying to strive towards just one parent in the workforce.
	That would be optimal for the kids, right?
	Why does that one parent in the workforce have to be the man?
	Well, they don't have to be, but men can do most of the jobs that require the, that infrastructure requires.
	Women can still work.
	They work as nurses.
	In fact, they work in the same jobs that they kind of work in now they gravitate towards, which is service work, clerical work, nursing.
	But what they don't gravitate towards is working on oil rigs, working on shipwrights, working on docks, working on infrastructure, AC control.
	They don't work on any of that stuff.
	And so generally speaking, women can be in kind of these support societal roles, and that's fine.
	But it would be optimal if we were able to pull them back away from that more and more and more and instead incentivize them to stay at home with their kids because that would drive wages way up.
	That would be very helpful for society and it would be better for the kids.
	More men would have lower paying jobs, wouldn't it?
	No.
	Wouldn't that be the case?
	No.
	So it's just supply and demand.
	So if you have the only cup in the world, it's worth a lot more than if everybody has the same cup, right?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So it's the same thing here.
	If you reduce the workforce by 50%, then they're going to be able to demand higher wages for the job vacancies because now jobs are competing for them.
	No, jobs wouldn't be competing.
	Oh, wait.
	Hold on.
	You reduce the workforce.
	I told you I'm bad at math.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Brian, I don't know where else we go with this, man.
	I got more.
	Hold on.
	Okay.
	Keep it going for just a second.
	Maybe read that super chat, Mick, if you can pull it up.
	Yeah.
	Brian, pull up lesbian domestic violence statistic images, kids in that house, and a good woman gets whatever she wants.
	These 304s don't get shit.
	Yeah, so he's saying that the domestic violence for lesbian couples is also through the roof.
	That's true, but I was just willing to grant it to show you that it still wouldn't make for the kind of outcome on society that I think we're looking for from a person who has the harm principle.
	See, this is the thing about a good woman gets what she wants, these hoes don't get shit.
	What is the equivalent to that for men?
	Like, oh, a man who makes a lot of money gets what he wants and the rest don't get shit.
	That's not true.
	Because, okay, yeah, maybe they can pull less women, but in this case, you're saying a woman who's bad is subject to being treated worse by their partner, being hit, being punished for their failures.
	I don't know.
	Versus if a man fails, he just doesn't get a mate.
	He doesn't get physically abused.
	Well, I mean, if you didn't have a mate, you wouldn't get physically abused either, right?
	Yeah, but in this scenario, I need a mate in order to have a bank account.
	Well, no, you get your bank account through your father until you had a mate.
	What father?
	Yeah, well, you're the ones who want to destroy that nuclear family.
	So that used to not be such an easy thing to do to let your father walk out.
	Let my father?
	I let my father walk out.
	Not you.
	I'm just saying to let a father walk out on their family.
	Let.
	Let.
	It's never a father's personal choice to just walk out on his family.
	There's social stigma, which is applied often, and church stigma, which used to be applied often.
	And the state could come in and actually make fathers take care of their children.
	Yes, they actually did do that.
	Not joking.
	Okay, same goes for, like, you just said that a man shouldn't.
	Wait.
	Okay.
	Never mind.
	I'm going to sound stupid.
	Okay.
	We have a chat here.
	G.R. Gracie says, blank on one, some of these young ladies are very respectful, introspective.
	I must ask, what convinces a woman that competing in business with men is more important than nurturing the next generation?
	If you'd like to respond.
	That's a good question.
	I think that, like, I said earlier, I just have a very individual view.
	And I think that maybe it's kind of a hedonistic view in this sense, but people should be able to do whatever maximizes their own happiness.
	And if having a career and being a business owner is like maximizes my happiness more so.
	I don't believe that, though.
	You don't believe people should be able to do whatever they want to do.
	Okay, not whatever.
	They have to concede to some things in the social construct with the government.
	Then why can't they concede to let us make a social contract with a government that requires you to take care of your children and nuclear family?
	And that's what we move to as a society.
	Because that's based on the Bible.
	Because that's based on the Bible.
	It's not.
	No, I'm talking about minimizing harm.
	I'm talking about minimizing harm.
	There's no.
	Okay, can you quantify for me how much harm is caused by the nuclear family being broken apart?
	Well, yeah, I can give you tons of metrics.
	I just went over a shitload.
	You want to go through them again?
	Yeah, sure.
	Let's start with the metric of divorce rates increasing the amount of women that are on the pill.
	Let's talk about that.
	But you can't prove that those are being caused by feminism.
	We can.
	We can look at policies going back to when the 19th Amendment was ratified, and we can see who pushed for no-fault divorce, which was feminist.
	We can see who pushed for the pill, which was feminist.
	We can actually, yes, we can actually track.
	We can track all of this data.
	In fact, the CDC does a lot of these data.
	Well, I think that the pill might be one of the reasons that the mental illness rate in women is so high because it fucks their hormones all up.
	Okay.
	And the milk you drink doesn't fuck your hormones all up?
	Don't even ask me.
	I don't.
	Well, I don't drink a lot of milk, but I can understand that.
	But, you know, there's laws in the books that you can't drink raw milk.
	Okay, but I'm saying there's a lot of people who are.
	And there used to be that people could, but now there's laws saying you can't.
	And yes, you're right.
	There are hormones inside of all types of food that can fuck your hormones up for sure, but not nearly as big.
	And that's over time.
	Plastics will do the same thing.
	We were talking about that earlier.
	I agree with that.
	That's one thing we can find common ground on, right?
	Foods can have all sorts of hormones, antibiotic-resistant pathogens in them.
	But that doesn't change the fact that mental illness likely is increasing in women due to the fact that so many are on birth control.
	You can't just take a fact and put it next to another fact and say that one causes the other.
	Where's the reasoning?
	There's no argument being made.
	One is not valid premises for the argument.
	Well, we'll try this then.
	Do you think when it comes to reproduction that the pill has decreased reproduction in women?
	Has decreased.
	I couldn't tell you, but it is a preventative measure.
	You don't think it's reduced reproduction?
	Yes, it has.
	It has.
	If every woman.
	I don't know.
	It's.
	That's just a correlate.
	You can't just put one thing next to another thing and then make this bold claim that correlation makes causation, right?
	If every woman was to have been taken off of birth control from the beginning of its creation and had sex all those times until now without the birth control, there would be a lot more babies born.
	But that's still just a correlate, right?
	I just explained to you how one causes the other because the birth control literally prevents a pregnancy.
	But all causes just use strong correlates, all of them.
	Just so you know.
	Go back to what you were saying.
	What was the point you were making?
	The point that I was making was that the nuclear family and the damage which has been caused by us getting away from the nuclear family can be quantified.
	And then I was explaining the ways in which it can be.
	Keep going.
	So one of the things that I brought up was mental illness in women and the fact that so many women who are on antidepressants, especially, they're able to correlate that with the fact that they're on birth control pills.
	How do you know that they're not depressed because of outside reasons?
	Because they take them off the birth control pills and they become less depressed.
	That's how.
	Oh, yeah?
	Do you have a study for that?
	Did you have a study for the correlatory that you just gave?
	No, but it makes sense, right?
	But yours.
	Okay, that's fine.
	But yes, there is data.
	There is data for that.
	Any other quantifiable facts?
	Oh, there's tons.
	There can be genetics involved.
	If you come from a single family household, that seems to have more of an impact on girls, unless the girls are raised by the fathers.
	And then if they're raised by the fathers instead of their mothers, it seems to be a lot of people.
	What is your evidence for the claim that a single family influences girls more heavily?
	I mean, a single parent family.
	Because single parent, well, that's not my claim.
	So my claim was in a single parent family where there's a woman, single mom, who's running the family, the outcomes for the children, including mental illness, seem to be worse than if there's a single dad.
	The outcomes still aren't good.
	They're not like optimal.
	It's not what you'd like to see.
	They seem to be better from a single father household when it comes to mental illness than a single mom household when it comes to mental illness in the kids.
	Because single father households tend to make more money.
	No.
	Yes.
	No.
	That's true.
	Because single father households.
	You're leaving the single mother.
	There's a big variable out of there, which is that the state aid, which comes in to single mothers along with child support, will often compensate for that income gap.
	This would include food money, free health care.
	Trust me, I know all about it.
	Yeah, but I mean, it does.
	It does compensate.
	So if a man makes $4 on average more per hour than a single mother, that will disqualify him from potentially hundreds of dollars in food aid plus free health care on Medicaid.
	Yes, but that's why that state aid exists so heavily is because historically, men have discouraged women from working and have encouraged them to be mothers.
	They're less capable to work in high-earning jobs.
	Therefore, they need more welfare when their husbands die or leave.
	I'm not even beating up the welfare.
	Men can qualify for the same welfare if they make less.
	I'm pointing out that your argument that the reason there's less mental illness inside of the children is because mommy doesn't make as much money as daddy would when it's clearly compensated for by state aid.
	Would you say a Section 8 apartment is the same as an apartment paid for by daddy's salary?
	Yeah, but daddy, but here's the thing.
	No, in the neighborhood that they're living in?
	Ooh, that's okay.
	So most of the men who would be involved with a woman who's in Section 8 housing would also be in Section 8 housing.
	But that's not what I said, that the men, I didn't say that they were together.
	I said that men tend to be higher earners.
	Yeah, that's true, but most of the women who are single moms are not living in Section 8 housing.
	And the other thing to look at, not even close, not even close are they living, most single moms living in Section 8 housing, not even in the same universe.
	True, they could be living in more poverty conditions, maybe, you know, barely making ends meet for their three-bedroom apartment or their two-bedroom apartment for their kids.
	But the dads have to deal with the same exact thing.
	It's just that if they are earning more, then mothers are compensated for that lack of earnings.
	From the government, Medicaid is a bad thing.
	Do you think that Medicaid is as high quality as private health insurance?
	Yes, Medicaid is some of the best insurance on planet Earth along with Medicare.
	It's fantastic.
	Then why don't we universalize it?
	Because then basically a subset of the population would have to be paying for everybody's shit, which right now, still not optimal that we have to pay for everybody's shit.
	That's why.
	Because you can't afford it.
	Because universalization in Canada did not work out very well.
	And that's why people go to hospitals, which are privately owned, even though they're not supposed to.
	They just turn a blind eye so that people can get their health care.
	That's why.
	But that aside, moving back to this, I'm not going to let you evade this.
	Your claim was that single moms make for more mentally ill children because of this earning gap.
	I didn't say that.
	I said it could be a factor.
	No, what happened was I asked, I said one in four with the single mom.
	You said the reason for that is because they make a lot less money, but that's not really true.
	Then I can backpedal.
	That's not the only reason.
	I think that likely it could be one of many reasons.
	Okay, what are some other reasons?
	That children coming from a single mother household are more likely to be mentally ill.
	Yeah.
	Let's see.
	I bet they wonder why their dad's not there.
	Wouldn't they wonder why their mom's not there if they were with their dad?
	Huh.
	I guess that's a valid point.
	Let me think a little harder.
	Let's see.
	Do you have an explanation?
	Well, yeah.
	So essentially it has to do with who you bring in.
	So what happens is with single moms, they tend to bring in step parents far more than single fathers do, far earlier.
	And they don't work out.
	Those relationships don't work out.
	That's a generalization.
	Yeah, because we're One in four women suffer from a mental health issue.
	So there's a mental health crisis.
	The mental health crisis is a generalization, but it is still true.
	So in this case, yes, they bring in stepdads and step parents.
	And so the children are more likely to deal with some forms of abuse and destabilization.
	Whereas in single-father households, it doesn't happen nearly as much.
	That's why.
	Okay, that could be a verifiable reason.
	Like in your situation, right?
	Did you have like step-parents?
	My dad was the only one who saw women after my mom did not see a single person.
	In your situation?
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, of course that can happen.
	And aren't men more likely to seek out fertile mates than women are?
	Yeah.
	So.
	Well, no, it's not that they're more likely to seek out fertile mates.
	What we were discussing before was signs of what men would find attractive.
	And the reason I said they find youth attractive is because of fertility.
	So that's probably one of the reasons they find youth attractive.
	Okay, but what I'm saying is like it, I don't think there's like a, I don't know, you'd have to pull up a statistic, but is there really a rate at which one sex brings in a step parent more than the other?
	Yeah, there is.
	It's the women.
	Yeah, we can look at the remarriage certificate or the remarriage stats so that we can understand that.
	And then.
	That would be inaccurate, though, if it was just the remarriage stats.
	Yeah, but I was going to give you more.
	So you can look at that.
	That's one metric that you can look at it.
	There's also polling done as to who have live-in boyfriends, who doesn't.
	Pew Research has a bunch of this.
	I don't remember what the polling agencies are, everyone which has covered it.
	But yes, it is true, at least it's true as we know, that women do tend in to bring in more step parents.
	Can you give me the point difference on those two statistics?
	I can't talk to you.
	You don't even have an estimate?
	You mean 10 percentage points or how much is it?
	I don't know what the distinction is, but it's significant.
	It's a significant distinction.
	Okay.
	So I mean, it's enough for there to be a deviation.
	So, I mean, probably 15%, 20% more, I would guess.
	So how is that the women's fault, though?
	Because they're trying to find another provider for the home that you think is an important part of the world.
	You're saying they should grow up in a two-parent home.
	What if the original provider left?
	And you're saying the kids should grow up in a two-parent home.
	Divorces don't happen because the provider left.
	They happen because the woman initiates a divorce.
	Most.
	What about the women who get left going to do that?
	If we were just dealing with exceptions, we wouldn't have to do that.
	We're not dealing with just exceptions.
	We're dealing with a large portion of the large portion.
	Men and women are individuals.
	Stop making it so based on your gender.
	Only women can break things up.
	Only women can leave the relationship.
	That's not true.
	Men women all the time.
	Yeah, but you're saying that it's an exception, which is false.
	You can't say exception.
	Sometimes one thing happens, and sometimes other things happen.
	So here's the thing.
	When people are incompatible, it could be chosen by each other.
	So I'll rephrase it the best way that I can then.
	Mostly women are doing this and not men.
	Mostly women are leaving marriages and not men.
	Mostly women.
	At the college level, it's almost all women.
	Then men are the exception because women are initiating 90% of the time.
	And then if we break those stats down along religiosity, we might come up with some different numbers.
	But yes, it's mostly women breaking up the home.
	How do you know that's not men's fault?
	Well, because we can ask these women why the divorce happened.
	And we can look at court documents for the reasons that they put for the divorce.
	And we can run different polls where we're talking to them.
	And what we find is the same thing that was pulled up the other night here on whatever.
	He was a perfect guy.
	I just got fucking sick of him.
	I don't like him anymore.
	There was no abuse.
	He didn't do anything wrong.
	I just don't fucking like him.
	Is she not entitled to make that choice if she doesn't like her husband anymore?
	I think that if you put your own self's entitlement above that of your children in order to have access to their father in a two-parent household, you're setting them up for failure.
	And that's what we see in the stats.
	That you should be, if you make the commitment to make children with him, and he's not abusing you, okay, and he's not beating you up and he's not abandoning you, he's not doing all the bad things, then no, I think you should put your children before your own happiness.
	I think you have a duty and obligation to do so.
	Aren't the children being exposed to the unhappiness of your marriage?
	Well, that depends.
	I mean, it completely and totally depends.
	Aren't your children, though, even if they were exposed to the unhappiness of your marriage, if you're looking at the statistics of how much abuse happens external to that, when these divorces happen and the outcomes on children in these single-parent households, wouldn't it still be optimal for them to deal with mom and dad?
	You know, they don't always talk to each other, but they're in the same house.
	They take good care of us.
	And she prioritized the happiness of us over herself.
	I don't think children are that capable.
	That satisfaction.
	Not only that, but the thing is.
	But you're putting the onus of the responsibility on the female, which is just because they're the ones leaving.
	They're the ones leaving.
	That's why.
	What if it's because they don't like how the man is treating the children?
	That's not what they're reporting.
	You think they're reporting completely accurate every single time?
	Not every single time, but accurate enough.
	Accurate enough for us to get a pretty clear picture in why they're leaving.
	And they're not leaving because dad's beating up the kids or getting a lot of people in the middle of the day.
	In some cases, they are.
	And those aren't just exceptions.
	Those are not just exceptions.
	In those cases, I would encourage the statistics.
	In those cases, I would encourage those women to leave those men if they're getting beat up or things like that.
	They should be leaving those men.
	But if all that was happening is women were leaving abusive men, okay, fine.
	You wouldn't see this type of mass decadence in society.
	This would not be the issue.
	The single mother households are not reporting that they're leaving or filing for these divorces due to anything other than self-fulfillment.
	Not because of abuse, not because of drugs, and not because he's leaving the home, not even because they're shirking their financial responsibilities a lot of the time.
	So it's like marriages work, and yes, you should probably sacrifice your own happiness for the happiness of your children.
	Yes, I think that a woman has a responsibility to do that, and so does a man.
	I'd agree, but what are the implications on that argument?
	That we would probably end up with much better, more stable nuclear family households, and the reproduction rate would probably skyrocket, and women would probably not have to work nearly as much as they do right now and probably be way fucking happier and less mentally ill.
	That's what I would say would probably be the extension of that.
	But that's not all because of feminism.
	That's all got its roots in feminism, yeah.
	No, I'd say a lot of it has its roots in the patriarchy.
	Which things?
	Well, first of all, feminism was made to begin with to counteract the patriarchy.
	That was the rhetoric.
	So there you go.
	You could say feminism would have never happened if there was never a patriarchy and we started with an egalitarian society, but that wouldn't have been possible because we hadn't invented guns yet and men had an apology.
	We can have an egalitarian society.
	That's why we went through that whole thing in the beginning, showing you why you can't.
	We can't have an egalitarian society.
	We can't because men have the monopoly on force.
	That's why we're not.
	We disagreed on that, though.
	Like, I still think that women can have force.
	I mean, they can use force to a limited degree, but they cannot enforce.
	They'll never be the enforcers.
	And so they're never going to be equal with men.
	That's not ever going to happen.
	There's no place on planet Earth where women are like, you know what?
	Barbara, grab the Uzi.
	We're going to enslave these fucking assholes right now.
	It's never happened.
	It's never going to happen.
	But there has been the case where they've been like, hey, Abdul, grab the AK.
	And yes, the women have all been enslaved.
	That has happened.
	Yes, but I'm saying in today's society, women have more influence on non-physical types of ways through politics and things like that.
	Yeah, I don't disagree, but ultimately they only have that sway if men allow them to through enforcement.
	And if men collectively, because they've had this process, they had it in Iran.
	They had it in Iran.
	They had women's liberation in Iran until the Iranian, and they were in politics and they had sway.
	Until the Iranians went, no, and took all that shit away and they can't do anything about it.
	But you can have a revolution inside of a nation by men.
	That's done all the time.
	And they're able to take rights or give rights.
	That's just the way the world works.
	And one of the blind spots of feminism is, I don't know why, but they can't seem to see that.
	They can't seem to see that this perpetual egalitarianism is worthless because you can never really achieve it anyway.
	I don't know why they're striving towards it.
	Why can't you get as close to it as possible?
	Well, you can try to get as close to whatever you want as possible, but these outcomes that we're seeing on your pathway there certainly don't seem great.
	It doesn't seem like it was a great idea to wreck the nuclear family.
	That seems like a really fucking bad idea.
	And they did.
	It doesn't seem like it's a good idea to try to make men and women compete in the workforce.
	That seemed like a really fucking bad idea.
	These are not good ideas for society, and they haven't worked out very well.
	But it's like most of these are on the basis of your objective, or not objective, your subjective morality.
	Like, you think that, like, what, it's so much worse because those children are coming out mentally ill because they have single mothers.
	Maybe they're way more able to take on opportunities with confidence or something like that because they are less prone to being submissive because they didn't have a father in the home.
	So they act more masculine.
	So more mentally ill kids?
	I'm saying that the things that you, the problems that you have with feminism, it's because we're getting farther from the patriarchy, right?
	Yeah, and it's leading to really bad outcomes for everybody, including the women.
	So during the patriarchy, it must have been really good, like during the big part of the patriarchy, like way back when.
	It's been pretty good for most women, yeah.
	It's been pretty good.
	So it's been really hard on men, but it's been pretty good for women.
	Almost every place you look for the equalization between the two, men have had it basically way rougher than women.
	Was it not, was that not their own choice?
	If they're the enforcers, they could have made it so that the women are the ones who have to do all of that shit.
	They did not allow women to participate in the political process and thus protected women and utilized women for what their role was, which was to take care of children.
	Who said that was their role?
	God?
	The necessity of what is enforcement.
	So they can't enforce.
	They could not drive the wolves away at night.
	Literal wolves.
	You know, there used to actually be real wolves that would kill people at night in the countryside.
	Not a joke.
	Holy shit.
	Oh, my God.
	Yeah, I mean, you might think that this is tongue-in-cheek, but the world was a much more dangerous place.
	And women relied on men.
	Men did not rely on them for protection, and they still have to.
	They just don't realize that they have to yet.
	Well, now that we live in a society that has institutions that have power, they've given them power and kings.
	You mean like the church?
	You mean like the menu?
	No, they didn't guarantee rights the same way that our institutions do now.
	Your institutions do not guarantee rights.
	Yes, they do.
	Your rights don't even exist.
	And if a king, you say a king can't guarantee if they can be enforced, then they exist.
	Okay, well then if that's the case, then you had tons of rights under kings.
	Okay, you know that's not what I meant.
	But my, what was the original point that I was making?
	The original point that we were making was about the nuclear family and how you want to see more mentally ill children because that means that they can take on more responsibility.
	I didn't necessarily say that, but, you know, not a bad take on my part from you replacing my argument.
	I mean, what's wrong with overcoming?
	What's wrong with overcoming mental illness?
	I mean, I think that could help a person have a lot of empathy for other people.
	So if it is the case that you say, what's wrong with having to surmount a challenge?
	Would you say that to an SA victim?
	What's wrong with being SA'd?
	After all, it could actually make you a much better person that you overcame the fact that you were SA'd.
	Does that make sense to you?
	I would not say that to them.
	You would not say that to them.
	But it's not the same thing.
	Okay, but it is.
	You're just saying that it could make you a better person that you have a mental illness and you're able to overcome or deal with it.
	So should she have aborted the kid then?
	So it wouldn't have to be born with mental illness.
	How would you ever make that determination?
	You just said one in four.
	That's more than just an exception.
	They're not born with.
	I didn't say they're born with mental illness.
	But they're going to develop it based on their familial circumstances, according to you.
	There's no way to develop.
	Oh, exactly.
	There's no way to determine where the mental illness came from.
	Would you look at that?
	So it could have been genetic.
	Children will have it from anything, any other factors besides that.
	It's so dumb.
	There's no way to determine which children will have it.
	Not all children from single parents develop mental illness.
	Not all of them do.
	So it's impossible to determine which ones will.
	That's my point.
	Not that there still won't be one in four children with mental illness, just that you will not be able to make the determination which ones are, how could you ever do that?
	I couldn't even think of how that would even be possible.
	Okay, you can't, but.
	Okay, so here's what we've gotten so far.
	The nuclear family.
	Feminists have destroyed the nuclear family, and that's causing all the children to be mentally ill.
	No, that has caused the workforce to require a two-worker household that has taken children out of, or mothers out of the home to raise their children, that has caused a massive spike in divorces.
	The list kind of goes on and on.
	I listed a ton of things which feminism is the root cause of and feminism has.
	What is the root cause of feminism?
	Occultism.
	Patriarchy.
	Occultism.
	Patriarchy.
	Feminism would have never.
	You admitted earlier that feminism would not have existed if not to reverse the patriarchy.
	And you just said that feminism is the root cause of all these things.
	That's my first note.
	Because we're trying too hard to reverse the oppression that you've put onto us.
	So my first note was asking you, is not an entailment, is not an entailment of feminism going to be, if it is to resist the patriarchy, that there is a patriarchy?
	Answer is yes.
	So I'm just looking at your entailment.
	But patriarchy is not what caused feminism.
	Occultism is what caused feminism.
	Patriarchy.
	The existence of patriarchy allowed the conditions for feminism to exist.
	Okay.
	If society had been more egalitarian from the start, I'm not saying completely egalitarian, but if society had been more egalitarian from the start, where each individual was already able to choose, do I want to take care of the kids or do I want to work?
	Let me go find a mate who's the opposite.
	Not based on the gender, but just based on individual, like, their inclinations in life, then I don't think women would be as hateful of men.
	That's really funny that you bring this up.
	You're saying that feminism.
	Laith donated $200.
	It really is crazy how privilege is invisible to people who have it.
	She has no idea how dangerous environment was long time now.
	Even now, no one is going to provide her security other than men.
	That's correct.
	Continue on.
	Anyway, what you're saying is this.
	This is actually your argument.
	I'll give it back to you.
	You're saying patriarchy didn't exist, then women would not have to fight for the fucked up conditions that we find ourselves in after they resisted the patriarchy.
	Brilliant argument.
	Genius.
	Love it.
	No, that's right.
	But women wouldn't have to fight the fucked up circumstances that the patriarchy put them in.
	And they started with more egalitarianism, right?
	And don't we have more egalitarianism now than we did under the patriarchy?
	And we find ourselves in these fucked up conditions, which means if we had egalitarianism, then those would have been worse than the patriarchy.
	We were in fucked up conditions before, too.
	It's just different.
	Well, I mean, women were just all tied down to one outcome and they couldn't vote.
	Well, they weren't tied down to one outcome.
	I would love my daughters to be able to do whatever the fuck they want.
	So you, let me ask you this.
	If we could guarantee, let's just say we could guarantee that children would end up with way better outcomes in society.
	We could guarantee it, right?
	If parents stayed together, or even better, let's phrase it this way.
	We could guarantee that children will have better outcomes in society if women don't have the right to vote.
	Would you take away the right of women to vote then?
	No.
	No.
	If we could guarantee that the outcomes from mental illness would greatly reduce if you took away the right of women to vote, would you take away the right for women to vote?
	No.
	If you could guarantee that women would be far more secure and actually much, much, much happier if you took away their right to vote, would you take away the right to vote?
	That would never happen.
	If you could guarantee that they would be happier if they could not vote, would you take away the right to vote?
	That would never happen.
	No, answer my question.
	I don't believe it would ever happen.
	Okay.
	If you thought that if the case could be made that their happiness would greatly increase because their mental illness decreases, if you took away their right to vote, would you do that?
	It's not about happiness.
	You're doing the hedonist thing on me.
	In this case, it's about individual choice and values, not hedonism.
	But hedonism is the outcome.
	I'm saying it's your.
	So what I'm asking you ultimately is this.
	I'll condense it.
	Would you take away women's rights to vote if it led to, generally speaking, better societal outcomes?
	That's not what would happen, though.
	But if it were to happen, that just generally societal outcomes got better, would you take away the right to vote?
	That's I wouldn't.
	You wouldn't, I know.
	And so this is the distinction between our moral systems, is that I believe that you live in contradiction and that the right to vote, this right that you perceive, or the 19th Amendment, this type of thing, that even if we could guarantee that the outcomes were better if it was gone, you would still insist that it was there.
	And I think that that's the case with abortion.
	I think that that's the case with probably most of your beliefs because that's feminist beliefs.
	Like for instance, if we could guarantee that women would get far less venereal diseases and would have far less problems in society if we could criminalize premarital sex, would you do it?
	I wasn't listening to your question, but one of those is an ideology.
	I'm not going to debate with you.
	Okay, repeat then.
	I'm sorry.
	Well, it's because I was thinking of what I was going to say next.
	My fault for being a slow woman.
	You can repeat your question if you want to.
	I'll repeat the question, and I'll make it even simpler.
	What I'm saying to you is this, is If we could make a law which curtailed female promiscuity, meaning it was criminal for both men and women to have premarital sex, and that led to better outcomes for society, would you do it?
	No.
	No.
	So, I mean, ultimately, for you, the hedonism and pure selfism is the most important value, not individualism.
	It's an emphasis on empathy and individual human rights.
	It's not empathy.
	Empathy.
	Yes, it is.
	It's empathy for the individual because your ideology is not based on empathy.
	It's based purely on subjectivism through the Bible and religious.
	I haven't offered a single biblical argument.
	I'm just purely operating off of hedonistic.
	I'm literally going off of this.
	The worldview is utilitarianism, utilitarianism being harmed.
	This comes from Mill, who says that harm is a physicality which exists inside of the norms of politics, individualism, enlightenment.
	I'm going off of your worldview, which I wrote down and repeating back.
	I said at the beginning before I told you everything that I could not fully describe my worldview with just random ideological things, and you are already putting me in a box from that point.
	I can just believe what I believe without having to classify it.
	That's true.
	You can, right?
	But ultimately, it's incoherent and it doesn't make a lot of sense.
	And when you say, well, wait, you're coming at me with a biblical worldview.
	No, I'm just giving you back your own worldview.
	I'm literally just, I just ran an entire internal critique showing you that ultimately, if we reduce all of these issues to outcomes for society, you would still not curtail behaviors like promiscuity, divorce.
	You wouldn't curtail any of these things, even if it led to better outcomes for children.
	Because that's like eugenics based on that.
	That is not utilitarianism.
	Okay, I see.
	Well, you're right, Ben.
	Yeah.
	So anyway, I'm good.
	Ryan?
	I got some more stuff.
	Actually, something that just came from the questions that you were asking her.
	So, Andrew, you asked her if outcomes were to be better for women if they couldn't vote, your answer was?
	Your answer was she wouldn't take them away.
	I would still allow them the right to vote.
	Right.
	Right.
	Even if under women not being able to vote, the outcomes would be better, you still wouldn't opt for that.
	It's the same argument as don't you believe have like free choice?
	No, but even if they can choose the wrong outcomes, people should be able to choose their own life path.
	I don't believe in free choice, believe in free will.
	Okay, then yeah.
	Free will is not choice.
	So my question is, though, and you said, no, you would not do that, even though it would lead to better outcomes for women, correct?
	Yes.
	If it led to better outcomes for women for men to not be able to vote, would you be in favor of that?
	No.
	Okay, that's fair.
	No, I figured she'd be consistent with that.
	Okay, got it.
	We have a couple chats.
	Why don't we read those?
	So we have GR Gracie.
	By the way, guys, get your chats in if you'd like.
	We're going to go for a little bit longer.
	Young lady, stop being so stubborn.
	You're entering prime baby-making age.
	Find good man.
	Start having kids and experience your best life.
	Seriously, dying barren is a wasted life.
	Do you want to respond to GR Gracie?
	What if I'm infertile?
	Then what am I supposed to seek out?
	Adoption?
	Yeah.
	Are you?
	Okay.
	But I'm just curious.
	Or a widowed man or any number of different ways that you would end up in a mother role.
	Okay.
	Thank you, GR Gracie, for that.
	Appreciate it.
	I'm going to pull up the soup chats now.
	We have Stephen Carrera.
	Thank you, man.
	I appreciate the super chat.
	Get a refund from your college.
	You're getting real education with Andrew and not from Bolshevik infiltrated indoctrination daycare centers college, okay?
	If women do not produce Christian children, well, I hope you feminists like Sharia law.
	Okay, thank you.
	Isn't Sharia law closer to the religious state that you guys might want?
	I don't want a religious state.
	Okay, the synergistic religious.
	You mean economia?
	Oh, sorry.
	Yeah, so like if a Christian politician, if they vote and they're inside of their head, their morals are guided by their Christianity, right?
	Is that still a division of church and state?
	Yes, because they're representing Christians who are part of their constituency.
	Gotcha.
	So if we have mostly a Christian constituency and Christians go in and start making laws, right?
	It would have to be done through a democratic process.
	Even if it was done through a democratic process, nobody's saying it couldn't be.
	Right?
	But you can have a democracy and still have economia with a church.
	You can have a king and have economia with a church.
	Christianity and Christian ethics can exist in any type of government.
	Even communism, it can exist as long as the communists don't wipe them out.
	Your Bible is just as intangible as the rights that our current government is founded on.
	Except one of them expresses itself as an object of morality, complete morality, because of the good outcomes it creates in society for women and children, whereas the other one is just individual rights, right?
	No, I don't think that's the case.
	So, I mean, forgive me if I'm not following this correctly, but you're saying that biblical values are just as subjective as your rights and preferences.
	Yeah.
	Well, that can't really be true, even from a subjective angle, because if you say you're a Christian, then you have to adhere to Christian ethics.
	False.
	Then you can't be a Christian.
	Isn't it just that you got to be saved?
	You got to believe in God down there.
	Let me ask you a question.
	If you're born in Mexico and you live in Mexico, are you an American?
	Obviously, the question of citizenship is not the same as religious sexuality.
	Because there's a specific criteria, right?
	So just calling yourself an American wouldn't make you one.
	Anyone who believes in God is considered.
	Okay, it depends what sect you follow.
	No, everything has specific criteria.
	Christianity, faith in Christ, and Christian ethics.
	All of them are subjective, and they're all written down and made up by different criticisms.
	But if there is specific criteria for Christianity, then you would have to follow specific ethical frameworks within Christianity.
	From a secular framework of preference, you're actually telling everybody to follow whatever set of ethics they so choose.
	Isn't that better than telling everyone to just follow the one that you ascribe to?
	No, it's way worse, especially for society.
	Do you want people to arbitrarily decide whether or not they can murder based on their preferences?
	So if everyone in America ascribed to Hinduism, you'd just have a great time tomorrow with our new Hindu democratically elected.
	No, but it would still be a more moral society than if everybody was secularist who followed their own whims and preferences.
	So that's just where we fundamentally disagree.
	I believe you can have morality in secularism and you think it's fundamentally impossible to be secular and moral.
	How can you say that preferences are what is moral, your own individual preference, and nothing but your individual preference, and then say his could be wrong about anything?
	How can you do that?
	Well, I'm not saying the individual preference of each individual person is moral.
	I'm saying what the moral thing to do is allow everyone to have their own individual preferences.
	Then how can anybody justify that anybody else's morality is incorrect if harm principle?
	Okay, but that's a subjective preference again.
	Harm principle is not a subjective preference.
	Listen, why should we follow the harm principle?
	Because it actually causes physical harm at that point.
	Yeah, but that's not telling us why we should follow it.
	I know it does cause harm, but why ought we not cause harm?
	Because you're infringing on someone else's ability to exercise rights every day.
	Because like I said from the beginning, it's about individuality.
	You have empathy.
	You treat every what's the golden rule?
	Treat every other person as you have yourself.
	That can be a very important thing.
	I can say that's a categorical imperative, but all of this will reduce if I keep it.
	Yeah, Kant's categorical imperative.
	If I keep on if I keep on moving down the goal here, it's going to reduce to relativism.
	Why should we follow that?
	Why should we follow this?
	Why should we follow that?
	Eventually, it's going to get down to because you would prefer that I do.
	Right?
	There's really no other way around that.
	So it's either religion or moral relativism.
	That's right.
	Okay, then anyone who's not religious, you're a moral relativist.
	Congratulations.
	But they all know that.
	They all know that they're moral relativists.
	Like, none of them are confused.
	Yeah, but now you know.
	Yeah, it basically always reduces.
	There could be some, I mean, some arguments, I think, which can be made against it, but basically all of it reduces to relativism and preference.
	So if it does, and it's all just based on your preferences, just things you prefer, then you can never justify why this guy's preferences and that guy's preferences are no better than your own.
	You can justify it based on the categorical imperative.
	Are you using other people or oppressing other people for your own implications?
	You just say you're a utilitarian, the categorical imperative.
	That's Kantianism.
	That's deontology.
	They're in opposition to each other.
	I wrote my college application essay on Kant.
	Then how do you think that's a good idea?
	I know that Kant is literally the opposite of Bentham and Mill.
	Opposite.
	100%.
	The deontology is direct opposition to utilitarianism.
	One is consequentialism.
	One's universalism.
	So, like, I don't know.
	Yeah, they're not even aware of that.
	Well, I was just saying I was.
	We already showed that I'm not actually utilitarian.
	Yeah, and you fucked me up from the beginning because you asked me to classify myself and I don't know what I am.
	Well, fair enough.
	All right, we have another chat here from Brian Jones.
	Hey, Brian Jones, thank you very much, man.
	Appreciate the soup chat.
	Ladies and gentlemen, it is soy.
	Half the things we eat are made out of it.
	It makes men more feminine and women blank, blank, blank.
	Okay, Brian Johnson.
	Excuse me, literal soy.
	Yeah, literally.
	It's in fucking everything.
	It's gross.
	All right.
	Thank you, Brian.
	Appreciate that.
	Get your last-minute chats in if you have any.
	Let me just double-check here.
	We do have a Streamlabs message from Passable Gamer.
	Ironic bringing up eugenics when it was and has been a tenet of progressivism in the U.S. Margaret Sanger, et cetera.
	Word?
	I'm not.
	Her name sounds familiar, but she was the person who founded Planned Parenthood.
	Oh, my God.
	Wow, I look awful now.
	Yeah, but interesting.
	I wasn't.
	Never mind.
	Nothing to say.
	Continue.
	I had one question.
	Earlier on in the conversation, you mentioned something about hedonism.
	And I don't want to misquote you.
	You said something along the lines of people should be able to do whatever they want and pursue the maximum degree or amount of happiness.
	As long as it doesn't break the categorical imperative, meaning they're not hurting other people in the process of doing so.
	So, but that's your kind of guiding philosophy?
	Not exactly.
	I'd say hedonism is more of like a personal philosophy for me.
	And I think that's typically in the con, that's how it's talked about in most contexts.
	I was just saying I think people should be allowed to be hedonistic if they want to be.
	The government shouldn't be saying you shouldn't be hedonistic.
	Should be moral and stay home and take care of your kids.
	Like the government's not the one who should be saying that.
	But if the government says, or if you're saying the government shouldn't do something, right?
	They ought not do that.
	Then you're saying that the government shouldn't follow its preferences.
	Whose preferences should it follow?
	The people's.
	And whose preferences should they follow?
	Their own.
	Then everybody's individualistic preferences are just as valid as anybody else's.
	Okay.
	Never said they weren't.
	And so when it comes to the hedonism, you said that's your own personal not completely.
	I was just throwing some words in there.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, how does that manifest for you?
	Hedonism?
	I was trying to use that more in the context of like, he was saying that it would be completely evil of a woman to say, like, my husband makes me unhappy.
	And, you know, I'd rather just go live with my kids alone in fucking Alaska.
	And I'm saying that people should be able to do that and be hedonistic and chase their desires.
	And they shouldn't be like.
	At the expense of their children.
	It's not always at the expense of the child.
	Maybe the child would have a better life not listening to mom and dad yell at each other all day long.
	Use of at the expense of the children, prioritizing her happiness over the expense of the children.
	Like how you left that part out, but that's what I actually said.
	The children can prioritize their own happiness when they get older.
	Oh, no way you just said that.
	The children could prioritize their own happiness when they get fuck those kids, little bastards.
	Now you know why one in four of them have mental illness.
	Because they need to prioritize their happiness when they get older.
	I see myself as one of those children who come from a broken home, and I'd like to be able to prioritize my own happiness regardless of the circumstances.
	You've been over your own children?
	In the future, if I had to divorce my husband, okay, I don't want to get divorced.
	I definitely don't.
	And obviously.
	But if you were going to be happier divorced, even if it was at the expense of your children.
	Obviously, I'm not going to live every day in misery, but I would have to weigh the values at that time, especially considering what the reason was for the divorce.
	And you were unhappy.
	You wanted to fuck John down the street because John looked really good and had a nicer time.
	I wouldn't do that.
	Okay, there's a difference between hedonism and doing what you want.
	I don't mean like...
	No, I agree with that.
	I don't mean like every single thought that you think of.
	I'm saying you should be able to act based on your pleasure rather than morality.
	They prioritize their happiness.
	They don't actually step out on their husband, but they want John.
	They want John down the street.
	They're not going to step out.
	So they go to their husband and they say, listen, I am miserable in this marriage.
	And I want this guy, this other guy who's not you.
	And that's going to maximize my happiness.
	Do they leave their husband and break up their family so that they can go pursue John?
	You're neglecting to weigh how much happiness it brings them to have their children happy and together with the family too.
	Because women do have to weigh that when they're thinking about whether or not they're going to divorce.
	She's doing something wrong by doing that, is my question.
	Is she doing something wrong by doing that?
	I mean, it's not right, and I wouldn't want her to do it.
	But she's able to do it.
	It should be legal.
	It should be legal.
	So, yeah.
	So, I mean, ultimately, like, fuck the kids, right?
	It's not really wrong.
	Yeah, but how the fuck are you going to enforce a law that's like, you know, you add fault to divorces so that there's penalties so that you can't go to your husband and say, I want to go fuck the neighbor.
	You just gave me an exception.
	You just gave me a huge exception.
	Like, it could have been based on any other number of factors besides wanting to go fuck the neighbor.
	And all those factors can be taken into consideration for a penalty or an at-fault divorce instead of a no-fault divorce.
	Who's at fault for the divorce?
	So, if you decide to prioritize your happiness over your family, you don't get to walk away and get the kids and get the car and get the house and get the money.
	Fuck that.
	They do that in divorce court anyways, basically.
	Yeah, but that's because it's a no-fault divorce.
	You don't have to show any cause for why you want the divorce.
	And if you had to, then you could determine who's at fault and then you can split assets correctly because we know who fucked the marriage up.
	You went out and fucked John down the road or whatever, right?
	Same thing with the husband.
	That's a much better system.
	Okay.
	I recognize everything you're talking about is like bad for the kids, but I still don't understand why you would want to bring the law into it, especially if there's people out there who like, I don't know, might not, I don't know.
	I mean, the laws involved in it.
	Who might not even think that the nuclear family is important at all?
	Yeah, that's true, but that's really, again, when it comes to what is optimal for children, if you are intentionally raising your kids outside of a nuclear family, it's like some kind of F you to society, then you're immediately doing something which is you should probably think twice about, right?
	So if this and this happens all the time, essentially it's single mom regret, right?
	They'll go and they'll get knocked up because they really, really want to have a kid.
	And then they go, fuck, I really didn't think this through because kid wants dad.
	You know, kid wants a dad.
	There are women who get now, this isn't a well-studied phenomenon at all, right?
	I'm just bringing it up to kind of make an example, but there are people who go and they impregnate women as a job.
	They actually will go, they'll show up to their house.
	They're not surrogate fathers, right?
	Nope, nope.
	They're not surrogate fathers, really.
	Well, I mean, they are, but what they do is they'll post an ad on Craigslist saying, I will impregnate whoever.
	And they show up to their house and they get these women pregnant.
	Sometimes it's with couples, sometimes it's not.
	But they did track one guy.
	And I read this article not too long ago.
	They tracked this guy.
	He had impregnated like 800 women.
	Okay.
	Tons.
	I mean, he had tons of kids out there.
	And they went and met up with some of these moms.
	And some of them were like, yeah, probably shouldn't have done that because I really wanted to have a baby, but you didn't really think about the ramifications.
	Real Trump donated $200.
	I can't wait to see Andrew's wife on the podcast.
	She did a great job hosting the watch party yesterday.
	And I can't believe Brian tried to get the most conservative Republican chicken and rice WTA.
	Yeah, what the fuck was that?
	That was personally offensive, that one.
	The chicken and rice.
	He's never offended me before.
	That was a little upset by it.
	Oh, just the previous stream.
	We were door dashing some food and it was like pizza burgers.
	And you got him chicken and rice?
	No, I got him a pizza.
	No, I got a big ass cheeseburger.
	Got a big, big old cheeseburger.
	Real Trump.
	Appreciate the message.
	I have another chat here that I'm going to pull up.
	We have Ta.
	Ta donate 100.
	Hey, thank you, man.
	I don't know what I am.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	Me neither, bro.
	That was the joke.
	That was also a joke.
	And that was my joke about your joke about that joke.
	Hello, meta.
	Yeah.
	Well, that's meta to the meta.
	Last two things here that I have notes for.
	I believe on the show, the dating talk that you were on, you had said something about you wishing you weren't.
	That's something that's something that I very quickly backpedaled on.
	Okay.
	I think it was definitely misconstrued.
	I didn't mean it as like, because if I, you guys had a valid argument there.
	If I did mean that, then I basically was saying that I would have killed myself already.
	But the argument.
	No, no, saying that word.
	Okay, sorry about that.
	Unalived.
	I would have yoinked myself off the planet.
	Yoinked.
	Sheated herself off.
	But the point that I was trying to make was he's already mentioned so many times, you know, children of families that are not traditional or have really rough circumstances for the child.
	You know, sometimes it can be, the mom can know before they give birth that they're going to give birth to a child in awful circumstances with no father or not enough money to take care of them.
	Why would they put a child in that circumstance?
	That's basically what I was saying.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	I'm going to actually read this one just because it's a nice one.
	Ben George, thanks for having a cordial debate.
	Give her props for willing to be here.
	Let's hope she realizes she needs to prioritize her child's needs over happiness, and she does it for herself.
	Well, there's great hope.
	She's still a damn kid, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Thank you, Ben.
	Appreciate it.
	Let me just double check everything over here.
	I guess just final question on the feminism topic.
	So what rights, because feminists are fighting for women's rights, right?
	So what rights do men have that women don't?
	Legally, none.
	None.
	Okay.
	I think.
	So then what the hell do you need feminism for?
	Chicken.
	Like I said, it's about the ideas, not the laws.
	It's about the fact that if I decided to work while also caring for my children, I would be called a bad mother, prioritizing my happiness over my child.
	But if a man chooses to be more nurturing towards his child, he's not considered a bad father for not going out and making more money instead.
	It's like men are allowed to love and take care of their children and be good fathers while also working, but women can only be one or the other.
	No, that's been completely untrue.
	It's a totally untrue bifurcation.
	I don't know where you came up with this idea.
	Bad mothers are bad mothers, bad fathers are bad fathers.
	So there can be men who are, I don't know, I guess you could say, far more paternal than men who are not, who are far worse fathers than men who work all the time.
	And there's men who work all the time, who are far worse fathers than men who are highly paternal.
	That's really not a good qualifier for that.
	Just like there's women who stay at home with their kids who are terrible mothers, and there's women who work who are good mothers.
	But all we're doing is we're trying to associate what we'd like to see as a society.
	Same thing with egalitarianism.
	You want all of society to move towards equality.
	I want all of society to move to a different outcome, which is towards a stable outcome inside of society, which would include a patriarchal system, which enables women to be able to stay home with their children.
	Because that sounds fucking awesome.
	It doesn't enable them.
	It forces them.
	It doesn't force them.
	How are they being forced?
	What have I said here, which would allude to force?
	Because they're not allowed to work and they have to stay at home.
	No, they're allowed to work.
	You just said.
	They're allowed to work.
	They're going to send their kids off to public school daycare.
	Yeah, what you're trying to do is push society towards women moving out of the workforce, which means don't go to college and get a degree.
	It's a waste of your fucking time.
	Start a family instead.
	And the government can even create incentives to have you start a family.
	That's impossible in the current state of society, though.
	What?
	What you just said.
	No, it's not.
	Incentives for.
	If I didn't go to college, I would be working at a fast food restaurant for the rest of my life.
	No.
	No.
	You could get married and have children.
	I could drop ship, okay?
	No, you could get married and have children and even have a home business.
	What do you mean?
	Okay, but I mean, like, what I'm saying is, like, let's say a woman is coming out of, like, poverty, and there's no guarantee that men are going to provide for her because, you know, there's so much feminism out there and men who don't want to pay for women anymore.
	How else is she supposed to guarantee her own financial security?
	Well, this is the problem, right?
	Is it you're moving back to a prioritization of you.
	And you should.
	You kind of need money to live.
	You do need money to live, that's true.
	But what used to happen is women would stay at home with their parents as they would look for suitors who would marry them.
	What if they hated their parents or their parents were abusive?
	They just had to deal with it.
	We don't want to move society into all exceptions, but that would happen.
	And what would happen is they would move in with their aunts, their uncles, their extended families.
	And these things were a lot closer together and they had a much better community because there was a lot more of them in these cramped in areas, which is a good thing.
	I would like to get back to that too.
	If women have it so much better in that patriarchal society, then why wouldn't you want to be a woman in that?
	You want to be a man in that society?
	How could I be a woman in it?
	Okay, I'm saying theoretically.
	Theoretic?
	No, theoretically, I wouldn't want to be a woman, but that's because my ontology can't, I can't really understand what that would even entail.
	So I could never actually understand sex and attraction to men and things like that.
	I can't fathom those things, but I'm not supposed to be able to.
	That's outside of my purview.
	I can understand to a degree, you know what I mean?
	Like I can rationalize it and I could logically walk through it, but I don't really understand.
	But I'm saying in the context of you're saying women have it so much better and safer in this patriarchal society, wouldn't you be a bad person?
	Yeah, it's way better to be a woman in that society.
	Like if I had to be born, so logically I'd say, yeah, it would be way better to be a bad person.
	You would want to be born a woman.
	It would be way better to be a woman.
	You would not be talking to me on this podcast.
	It would be way better to be a woman inside of a patriarchal society like what we had even just 100 years ago, leading into just the 80s.
	So you just want to stay at home every day and cook?
	That's what you want?
	What a rough life.
	Fucking bastard patriarchist men making us stay at home with our kids, cook, and have an enjoyable life.
	Do you think unemployed people are happy?
	I mean, yeah.
	Do you think that all those people got to stay home during the lockdowns for like, I really wish I could go to work today instead of sitting on my ass at home and getting a huge paycheck?
	Fuck no.
	They loved that shit.
	People get home.
	And people stayed home with their kids, especially the ones that stayed home with their kids.
	They stayed with homeschooling.
	Homeschooling shot up through the roof because they realized how much superior that system was when they were allowed to do it than the system that they were indoctrinated into.
	Do people not get gratification from their work?
	Of course they do.
	Isn't that a part of who they are?
	What identity would they have besides I'm woman, I cook clean, I'm same as all other women, versus you can say, I want to be an astronaut, I want to be a political debater, I want to be a podcast.
	This assumes anything could ever possibly be more important than being a mother.
	Could you think of anything more important than that job?
	I mean, the president of the United States, probably.
	The president of the United States is there to protect what?
	The nation.
	I don't know.
	I'm saying.
	Mothers, right?
	And fathers.
	So I can't think of a more important job for a woman, an individual woman, than being a mother.
	What about being a father for an individual man?
	Why isn't that his most important job?
	It is an important job.
	No, obviously him going out and making money is more important than him being a father.
	Because he's enabling the mother, who has the most important job ever, which is being the mother, only she can be that, to stay home with the kids.
	A great privilege for her to be able to do that, stay home with her own kids.
	You don't get to decide whether or not that was a great privilege for her.
	Not deciding that it, whether or not it was a great privilege for this particular woman specifically.
	I'm just saying that the fact that that can even be done in modernity, I don't see how you could see it as anything other than a privilege for a woman to be able to do that.
	So, if we could live in a communist society where no one had to work and we could all live under like a government or a billionaire as the patriarchy, wouldn't you want that?
	Are you just saying you're against like productivity in society?
	Communism is the move towards a stateless society.
	Communism has the same impossibility.
	By the way, communists were the original feminists, just so you know.
	I am aware, actually.
	Yeah, but just so you know, communism suffers from the same hole in its logic as feminism, which is enforcement.
	Communism is the move towards a stateless society.
	Who's going to enforce it?
	Yeah, I know.
	But I wasn't making an argument.
	So I couldn't.
	I was not afraid of it.
	But your argument's not logically possible, so I can't even respond to the hypothetical.
	It's not even logically possible.
	What did I ask you again?
	You asked me if you could live in a communist utopia where nobody had to work and everybody was just paid equally.
	I could, I guess, engage and say, sure, I'd love that if such a thing was possible, but I don't even think it's actually logically possible because of the lack of enforcement.
	So I don't even think that that's a valid hypothetical because it's just illogical.
	It's not even possible.
	Okay.
	It's like there's some hypotheticals which are not logically possible, so they can be rejected.
	Hmm.
	Okay.
	What I meant, though, on a broader scale was this seems to be a very anti-capitalist mentality to have half the workforce.
	I don't know about capitalism.
	It's not important to me.
	Oh.
	But neither is socialism.
	That's worse.
	And what you end up with with pure capitalism is crony capitalism.
	We have a great tradition in the United States and globally, especially in Europe, of mercantilism.
	And that's phenomenal.
	That's a fantastic system.
	Okay.
	Yeah, of merchants being able to freely trade, barter.
	And, you know, I understand having a currency like we have now, but yeah, I think it's a mercantilism will always exist.
	It exists right now.
	But capitalism has become crony.
	I mean, crony capitalism is capitalism, basically now.
	So, yeah.
	Not a big fan of how capitalism currently exists.
	Oh.
	But it's still a better system than socialism and communism.
	Well, one's a mixed economy, type of socialism, and then there's like a socialist communism.
	No, socialism in its actual form is that the state has control of all industry, and communism is a stateless society.
	So socialism is stage one.
	All industry and private industry is owned by the state.
	And then stage two.
	But hadn't you told me on the last podcast that you would also consider before the abolishment of the system that it would still be socialism if it's a mixed economy?
	You said that I was a socialist on the basis that I believed on a mixed social media system.
	But that's because the mixing that you want in the economy is the state to own the means of production.
	That's the problem.
	So like healthcare, for instance, that's the state owning the means of production.
	Yeah, but you just posited that it would be all of the means of production.
	That's the end result.
	I was saying there should only be some.
	But socialists are going to start by socializing whatever industries that they can before they socialize the other industries.
	But then I wouldn't be a socialist.
	I would be a social democrat.
	Well, no, you'd be a socialist because you'd want to see all industry socialized.
	When did I say that?
	I had told you that I wanted to see some industry socialized, like healthcare.
	You know, I told you I believed in a mixed economy.
	Mixed how?
	As in there's still capitalist facets of the economy?
	Like which ones?
	What kind?
	Okay, well, I actually, I honestly wouldn't even want to get into it because I don't even know what I'd say.
	That's fair.
	We have one chat here from IDK, How to Play.
	Hey, thank you, man.
	Appreciate it.
	I don't know what Extians?
	I don't know what that is.
	Do you know what that is?
	Exteans?
	Citizens?
	Oh, maybe Extians must follow the Bible.
	Andrew believes in slavery.
	Atheists have morals.
	We live in societies and determine the consensus.
	Extians believe in fiction.
	Oh, okay.
	Christians believe in fiction.
	Good people don't need God to give them rules.
	What makes them?
	How do you know they're good?
	What makes a person good?
	They're not mean to other people.
	Why is that good?
	You literally said it yourself, a categorical imperative.
	The categorical imperative was me pointing out what that meant.
	Not that I followed it.
	I don't follow Kantian ethics.
	Okay, okay.
	Treating people as means rather than ends.
	That's another Kantian principle.
	Yeah, that's still the same one.
	Yeah, but the question still is what makes it good, though?
	What makes it good?
	What's the justification of what is good and what is not good?
	What makes something good?
	What makes something bad other than preference?
	Okay, you're about to say like facts, not feelings, but here you're just saying like feelings versus Bible.
	And in my humble view, feelings are more tangible and real evidence for something happening than I'd say the Bible.
	So what makes a thing bad is your feelings.
	Yeah.
	How you feel about it.
	And if that's the case, then if another person feels bad about things you feel good about, then that would make you bad.
	Yeah.
	And they're just as justified in that position as you.
	Yeah, but that's why in every decision that we make, we temper our utility versus how much it's going to harm other people.
	And I'd say what objective goodness is, trying to decrease the harm is still a subjective metric because what is harmed to you may not be harm to him, may not be harm to him, may not be harm to him.
	Yeah, but it's still less subjective than religion, in my opinion.
	Just everybody.
	Because religion was just like one man decided and wrote it down.
	This is everyone feels, everyone feels the same way.
	You can be empathetic towards anyone who has feelings.
	You don't believe in objective truth?
	Can you give me examples of objective truths that aren't religious?
	Yeah, the laws of logic.
	I don't know.
	Probably.
	Can the cup be a cup and not a cup at the same time?
	Can it be anything other than itself?
	Can the law of non-contradiction not exist?
	I don't know.
	You don't know.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I just want to thank you.
	I just want to let you know that that's part of an argument for the evidence of God.
	And while people pretend that there is none, there is philosophical evidence.
	I did say I was agnostic and not atheist fully.
	All right.
	I do want to thank Smash Nitro, who became a tier five member of the channel.
	Thank you, man.
	Very much appreciate your support and patronage.
	Thank you, man.
	appreciate it we do have a chat here via streamlabs from one sec guys It's loading.
	Sleepy Bear.
	Thank you, man.
	Appreciate the Streamlabs message.
	Self-worth is not to be tied, is not be tied to your profession.
	It is tied to your posterity.
	Elderly talk about their children, not their jobs.
	How you make money is meaningless.
	Your children have all meaning.
	There could never be anything more meaningful than your own children.
	What else could there be?
	Thank you, Sleepy Bear.
	Very much appreciate it.
	Guys, if you want, get your last-minute chats in.
	I'd like to offer up for now, if you'd like to each make a closing statement.
	Andrew, why don't we have you start?
	Yeah, I appreciate you coming out tonight for this debate.
	It was very kind of you to do.
	I hope you enjoyed yourself.
	All right.
	I'm not the vicious, cruel, evil bastard I have been made out to be.
	At least not unless there's a panel full of dumb women.
	And I become that evil, rotten, no good, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
	But I do appreciate the exchange.
	Your worldview is severely flawed, but the one thing about you is you're no dummy.
	I think that you realize that there's some serious flaws there that you got to kind of work out.
	But other than that, I appreciated the good faith exchange.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, like I said, from the beginning, I already felt like I was probably going to have trouble classifying my views.
	And I know a lot of people are going to say, like, oh, why is she even on this podcast?
	First of all, like, I never said that I was an expert.
	And, like, I don't know, I kind of, people just told me it was a dating podcast.
	So I'm not claiming that everything I say is like absolute factual truth.
	I'm just expressing my opinion and trying to make an argument without like hurting other people.
	I don't know.
	I like that I was able to have a discussion here and find out that I'm not a utilitarian.
	Okay.
	Has he changed your mind on anything, Andrew, or pretty still firm on beliefs?
	He's definitely made some points that I've had to concede to with my own views.
	I don't think he's convinced me of any of his views.
	But I think I definitely have to concede on certain stuff.
	Like when I said that I wish that I was aborted or like the utilitarian thing, I do think you did a pretty good gotcha there with that one.
	So yeah, I think there are points where I'd have to backpedal and concede that I don't make a perfect argument every time, but I would still say I believe in my own views.
	Okay.
	What if I had delivered this entire thing the meanest way I possibly could think of, but made the same points?
	Would you still have the same opinion?
	Even though I would like I wouldn't be like, I wouldn't storm out if you did that.
	I think I would just be also very annoying to deal with, and I don't think either of us would have made any productive discussion.
	It would have been more entertaining.
	Should we do it like for five minutes?
	You guys want to just go at each other?
	No, just kidding.
	Let's see.
	We're going to, a couple quick things.
	Nick, could you pull up the Twitch?
	Guys, I hope you enjoyed the stream.
	Just stick tight for just a bit.
	Guys, go to our Twitch.
	Twitch.
	Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa.
	No, no, Just the followers.
	Guys, go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
	Drop us a follow in the Prime sub if you have one.
	Twitch has a better streaming quality, and we're actually going to be starting up.
	It's in the works, but we're going to have Madison streaming on off days on our Twitch account.
	So guys, that's why I've been pushing the Twitch.
	Be sure to follow us over there on Twitch, twitch.tv slash whatever.
	If you have an available Amazon Prime, drop us a Prime sub.
	Yo, Raz, thank you for the Prime there, man.
	Appreciate it.
	Drop us.
	Oh, look at, oh my God, the follow, they're on fire.
	Look at all these guys coming in.
	Thank you guys so much.
	Drop us a follow, drop us a Prime sub if you have one over there on Twitch.
	Those of you who are on Twitch, we will be doing a raid.
	But before I do that, I just want to end the debate by just saying thank you to both of you for coming.
	Appreciate it.
	And certainly a little extra credit for you just because, you know, Andrew's tough.
	He's been doing this for a long time.
	And, you know, you're having your worldview challenge.
	And you go to, you're in university right now.
	And I don't know if you hear much of differing opinions.
	So credit to you.
	By the way, let this be a lesson to the whatever audience.
	I see people bitching in the comments about me being too mean, right?
	I bet you people wish that it would have been a fire blood sport ass debate, didn't you?
	I bet you all wish that shit.
	She only called me dumb like once.
	Wish it was a fiery, brutal, over-the-top blood sport debate in that you're regretting that whole mentality of be nice right about now.
	That's what you get.
	That's what you get.
	Wait, they no, there's just a few chatters who are always like, oh, shit.
	I wish it.
	Andrew, we did.
	Okay, well, that was me being super nice and having the productive conversation that you wanted.
	Didn't like it that much, did you?
	I just said it.
	I'm joking.
	I'm joking.
	Do you think we should have done the like just a blood sport would be good?
	One blood sport debate.
	I'll come back up.
	We'll set up something big.
	We'll get something.
	It's a little more evil to do that with one-on-ones.
	I think, like, if you had put me and the girl before me together, it could have been a little bit more.
	No, no, no.
	It's really easy to do with one-on-ones.
	You just got to get the right ones.
	Easy, but I'm saying it would have been more like painful to watch.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Let me see here.
	Oh, a couple things.
	So the views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel.
	So guys, we will be live again, certainly with a dating talk Sunday and Tuesday, as is our norm.
	I do want to say GG, well played to the both of you.
	Thank you guys.
	Appreciate it.
	Those of you watching on YouTube, hit the like button.
	Thank you for tuning in.
	Thank you to everyone who supports super chats, donate, supports the show, et cetera, et cetera.
	How many male guests coming up?
	Oh, I kind of, well, we have Jake Rattlesnake TV coming back.
	He's great.
	Yep.
	And then we have Q after that the following week.
	He's great too.
	Yeah, he's awesome.
	So we've got some good guests lined up.
	Got some good panelists lined up too.
	So over there, let me see.
	We're going to do a raid on Twitch.
	So like the video on YouTube.
	Those of you who are on Twitch, Nick, if you could pull it up, we're going to pull up okay.
	So those of you on Twitch, thank you for watching over there on Twitch.
	Drop us a follow before you leave.
	I'm going to raid Matt.
	Wait, Nick.
	Oh, there's Laura.
	Oh, that's weird.
	He's like watching a video.
	Okay.
	I'm going to raid him right now.
	He looks tired.
	He's been streaming for 10 and a half hours playing World of Warcraft season of discovery.
	I'm going to raid him out.
	Iran's response is underneath.
	Okay.
	The raid should be going through, guys.
	So he's playing a warlock.
	We've sold a demonstration.
	So we're raiding him.
	There it is.
	Pause that shit, Matt.
	Oh, shit.
	It is Brian and the whatever podcast.
	Okay, we are doing World War III coverage.
	We're talking about Iran and Israel.
	We're watching some news videos.
	I don't know if you guys heard the news.
	Brian, thank you very much.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Oh, my God.
	I was getting tired here, too.
	I'm awake.
	We woke him up.
	He's been streaming for 10 hours.
	Yeah, so pretty much, if you guys are tuning in, we're kind of talking politics tonight.
	Israel was launching.
	That's it.
	I hope you guys enjoyed the stream over there on Twitch.
	You can pause that.
	Those of you watching on YouTube, thank you guys.
	Really appreciate it.
	07s in the chat, guys.
	07s in the chat.
	And, oh, wait, do we talk about, Andrew?
	Do we talk about the drama?
	No.
	Nah.
	Okay.
	07s in the chat, guys.
	Thanks again for tuning in.
	Really appreciate it.
	I hope you guys have a wonderful night.
	Have a good weekend.
	And we'll see you soon.

▲