All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 3, 2024 - Whatever Podcast
05:08:05
Andrew Wilson vs. Pxie (Feminist) HEATED DEBATE! | Whatever Debates #8

Whatever Debates are LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever

|

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 instead of soup chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
If you super chat 100, YouTube takes 30%.
If you donate 100, Streamlabs only takes 30.
Streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Link is in the description.
If you want to interact nearly instantly with us and weigh in on the conversation, consider sending a TTS text-to-speech message.
$100 and up triggers TTS TTSs via Streamlabs only.
For the sake of a smooth stream and debate, if it is too disruptive, we may have to delay, hold, or boost the TTS.
So please see the description for all triggers and full details.
Also, for those of you who tuned into the sort of debate, I don't know if we would call that a debate.
Yesterday on our Discord, discord.gg/slash whatever, we posted the, could you X out at the top there?
Yeah, it's all good.
It's all good.
We posted the clip on our Discord.
It's discord.gg slash whatever.
You can sign up via patreon.com slash whatever.
If you want to check it out, this woman, she is it, it was an assault, Andrew?
Did she assault you?
Or was it?
I mean, I don't know exactly what to call it.
I would say some kind of maybe battery or the very least harassment.
I have no idea.
Something.
In any case, that is.
If I did it, I would have gone to jail.
Let's put it that way.
Indeed.
So it is available on our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
That was just from yesterday's show.
And without further ado, I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible.
He's a political commentator, political satirist, and blood sport debater.
His feminist debate opponent is Pixie.
As she goes online, she's the co-host of the Sugar Spice podcast.
She graduated from University of Florida with a triple major, getting her BS in psychology and BA in philosophy and economics.
Now you can each have an opening statement and the rest of the show will just be an open debate/slash conversation.
Pixie will go first and then Andrew.
So go ahead, Pixie.
Hi, I'm Pixie.
I was asked to basically begin with a general worldview.
Obviously, that's really complicated and really hard because the world's complicated and hard.
But if I had to say what I generally believe in, most of my principles are utilitarian-like, the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people with the least amount of harm possible.
Other than that, I'm a big fan of Rawl's like Veil of Ignorance, right?
If we didn't know what race, gender, whatever component you want to say, and we're going to be thrust into society, how would that society ideally be?
I just want to live in a world that is as equal as possible in terms of opportunity and, you know, with a basic standard of living.
That is my ideal.
Obviously, I feel a little bit more complicated than that.
And even in terms of utilitarianism, oh, God.
Party foul.
Utilitarianism.
Keep going.
You're fine.
Yeah.
I still believe that.
How many utils did you just lose?
So many.
I'm going to a bad place.
Negative 10 utils.
I still think that we have certain duties towards our loved ones or our friends, family members, et cetera, et cetera.
But yeah, overall, I have more of a utilitarian perspective on things.
Once my general worldview.
Peace out.
Peace out.
You too, homie.
Sorry, Did not mean to press that.
I had to move.
I was cleaning up the popcorn.
I was cleaning up the popcorn.
And then I guess we can get into your views on feminism.
Yeah.
Do you want me to do that right now?
Yeah, for just your opening.
So I was just requesting that you gave me your worldview so that I knew what prism you're looking through as you kind of tell me what your takes are on feminism.
Yeah.
So basically my general view on feminism is that we've made a lot of long strides when it comes to equality.
I still think that there's certain like gender stereotypes or behaviors that we like punish for both men and women.
I do think men are sometimes at a slight advantage when it comes to certain power structures in place because of old notions of what it means to be masculine or feminine.
But yeah, I just want to strive to be in a world where you know a guy could act sad or emotional and they're not punished for it.
And where a woman can act like, you know, straightforward or confident or direct and not be punished for that either.
That's just where I'm at.
So just to reiterate very quickly, your general worldview is utilitarianism.
The only thing I just wanted to quickly follow up on is you said that you have duties.
Does this fall under threshold deontology where you feel that there's duties up into a point and then you switch over to utilitarianism?
Yeah, basically.
I mean, if there was one moral system that solved it all, we wouldn't be constantly debating about this in philosophy, right?
Like this wouldn't be a thing that's still talked like in academia for forever.
But basically, even though I ascribe a lot to like utilitarianism in the sense of what greatest amount of good for greatest amount to people, there is still a level of duty that you have towards your friends or family.
So for example, let's say you get slightly more utility by, in a hypothetical reality, right?
This might not make sense, whatever, in a hypothetical reality, lying to everybody about your friend in a negative manner for whatever reason.
Let's say that just produces more utility in the world.
Well, then there's two things there.
I think you can probably still create a better world where you don't have to stoop to such a level to lie in a malicious manner, most likely.
And then second of all, you also shouldn't do that because that's your friend.
And I guess what I'm trying to say here, what I'm trying to get at, is that there's a way to be good to each other on a personal level that I think a framework of duty explains better than a framework of utility.
So you could have a framework of utility when it comes to like general policies, like on a large scale, whatever.
But when it comes to personally, like, how should I treat you?
Should I treat you with kindness?
That's where you get a little bit more individualistic.
Obviously, sometimes these things can like contradict.
Again, moral philosophy, as you know, is pretty complicated in terms of like academia.
There's so many different arguments.
I'm open to learning, to talking more about it.
It's just obviously something that people still wrestle with a lot because there are a lot of moral conundrums out there.
Yeah, I don't, I don't think that you could explain the entirety of your worldview in a single opening statement, right?
I'm just kind of looking for the key point principles.
So utilitarianism, the basic harm principle, and then a threshold where it meets duty.
So duty has to be in play there in some points because you don't think that utilitarianism itself can accommodate everything.
Okay.
So there's like a bit of threshold deontology.
All right.
So I'll dive into my opener here.
So I came to Christianity first logically rather than spiritually.
The spiritual part of it came after the logical part.
That actually is very common with people, more common than people know.
So to give you kind of my framework and understanding, I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian, so that's the viewpoint that I go, you know, look at the world from.
But Intel Wilde donated $100.
Andrew, for all of us on the crucible/slash whatever side, please wreck this work.
Leftist bluehead, feminist Nazi, tree-hugging, carbon footprint, gender pronoun, kuma.
Blue-haired.
That's where I draw the line.
Everything else is fine, but I clearly do not have blue hair.
She only has green hair sometimes.
Yeah, sometimes.
In edited thumbnails.
Yeah, so I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian.
But to give you an overview of what that means, I'm going to kind of accommodate Catholics and then what I would consider most Protestants would consider to be a Christian.
So from my worldview, knowledge is not possible without there being a God.
It's not even possible.
And here's what I mean by that.
Without an unerring standard or a standard which is unchanging, your ability to know something is going to be arbitrary.
Any appeal that you make, any standard appeal that you make to anything ever is going to reduce to relativism and it's going to reduce to being arbitrary no matter what.
So because that standard doesn't exist, I actually believe that there is truth which you can know and knowledge which you can know because I appeal to the standard which is unchanging.
The reason we're Trinitarians, meaning we believe in the triune nature of God, is because first in John 1.1, the word was with God and God was the word.
Okay?
What this is saying is if you move forward to 1.14 in John, it says, and the word became flesh.
So that would be Jesus Christ.
So in the beginning, there's the word, the word was God, the word was with God.
And then in 114, the word becomes flesh.
So that means Jesus Christ is God, right?
Part of the nature of God.
John 14, 6, Jesus Christ says, I am the way, the truth, and the light.
Okay, so the key word there for us is truth, right?
The way, the truth, and the light.
So in philosophy, a justified true belief is knowledge, right?
I mean, Aristotle is the one, or synonymous, I can't remember who exactly.
Knowledge is a justified, true belief.
So you can have a justified belief, but that doesn't mean it's true.
So since we don't have a justified true belief and we believe that the truth is God and must be God because that's the only inerrant, unchanging standard that there could ever be for truth, essentially I feel like most everything that anybody tells me who's not a Christian is a lie because it has no foundational grounding for it to be true.
It's moving towards some kind of standard which is completely arbitrary.
So I think that your worldview in and of itself destroys the ability, the very ability for you to even have knowledge.
So that is my worldview and how I see things.
Now I'm not here to have a precept debate with you about Christianity, right?
But I did want you to understand my viewpoint and how it is that I think about Christianity.
And I think most Christians think of it this way.
Yeah.
Okay.
I feel bad because I know we're supposed to talk about feminism, but I want to ask you if you've ever heard of Gettier problems.
Yes.
The thing is, is that those can be reconciled through the Orthodox worldview as well.
Okay, so you're talking in the Gettier problems of the laws of logic having problems.
Like you could be half in a room, half in a different room, stuff like this.
But these are semantic issues, right?
No, no.
Or here, let me give you an example of a getter problem.
So for example, let's say you are driving by in your car, and then you pass, what is it?
You pass a barn and you say, there's a barn.
It's justified.
You saw it.
It's a belief that you're holding, and it's true.
Except in this case, in this scenario, that was actually a fake barn, and right behind it was a real barn.
I know that sounds weird, but obviously it's just a theoretical.
Sure.
Technically, your belief is still true.
You said there's a barn over there.
But can you really say that's knowledge?
Did you truly know there was a barn there when what you were pointing to was in fact a fake barn?
But I mean, that would just move into precept.
So whatever standard implied knowledge that you would have be relative anyways.
Who cares if there's a barn behind it or not?
Because it's going to be whatever you're going to appeal to to know that there's a barn behind it, it's going to be an arbitrary standard, which can be reduced to relativism.
I mean, does it have to be arbitrary, I guess?
Yeah, you can never, I don't see how if you didn't have a standard which was unchanging, meaning could not be changed, how you it wouldn't reduce to a relative standard.
Okay, I'm going to put it this way.
Let's say that there is a certain period in time where you had this village.
And in this village, they decided that like when the water falls down, when you're adding water, whatever, you should give it to the old people first because they need it more.
You know, it's more important that they get water first, whatever, whatever.
Whatever, whatever, sorry.
And let's say over time, everything gets better, like their water systems get better, blah, blah, blah.
Things become more evolved, more advanced.
And now that rule is arbitrary.
Things change.
The circumstances changed, but it doesn't mean that rule is always arbitrary.
What I'm trying to convey here is that...
No, no, okay.
That rule would not have been arbitrary.
So the meaning of arbitrary meaning without system or something like this, but it would have been relative.
Yeah.
And that's the point.
It would have been a relative rule.
So it wouldn't have been anything that you were basing it on other than some metric you made up.
But even though it was a metric you made up, it was a metric that was tied down towards like our physical reality of how we interact with each other, how the environment is.
But could somebody have come in and said, eh, don't give the water to the old people first?
And they could have agreed to that, right?
They could have agreed to that, but that doesn't mean that they did what was in the best interest of.
Sure, but that means that the standard can be changed.
So if the standard can be changed, the standard is relative.
For instance, the laws of logic can't be changed.
Okay.
So for instance, can you tell me how you would change the laws of logic without appealing to the laws of logic first?
No, no.
I'll agree with you that the laws of logic can't be changed.
But I think what I'm trying to disagree with you here on is just because something can be changed doesn't necessarily make it arbitrary.
No, no, no.
Arbitrary in this case, if you're talking about the definition of has no system to it.
I believe that you can come up with all sorts of systems and then it's no longer arbitrary, but it's still relative.
It's still made up.
And so what I'm saying is that the laws of logic are not relative.
They're not made up.
They exist as a metaphysical reality and they must exist as a metaphysical reality because they can't be changed.
And if you can change them, I would love to know how you could.
Can I ask you a question on, like, how do you define, and this sounds funny or weird, but how do you define like objectivity?
Well, it depends on what you mean by objectivity.
So like an easy way might be correspondence theory of truth, that that which corresponds with reality you could say is objective.
There's many different theories of truth which are encompassed in Christianity, but I think correspondence theory would be fine for us to use as some definition for objective truth.
Yes.
Okay.
And just to clarify, you believe in objective truth.
You would have to because you believe in...
That objective standard.
So if you believe in a subjective truth and everything is relative, then like for your moral standard, what do I even care about your moral standard for?
Yeah.
Okay.
So, because in my head, what are you writing?
She's crazy.
No.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Where was I?
We're talking about subjective.
Yes, subjective, objective, that which relates to an outside reality.
So I think, and we agree with this definition, just making it crystal clear.
Well, I'm not sure if we agree on it or not.
I don't think we need to for the purpose of the debate.
I'm just trying to express to you what my viewpoint is as we go into the debate on feminism.
Yeah.
Showing that I'm probably not going to agree with your principles of utilitarianism, nor you with my principles of Christianity.
But that doesn't mean that if we both can look at like correspondence theory or something like that, that which corresponds with reality, that maybe we couldn't find some common ground here on feminism itself.
Yeah, I agree.
I think just my main issue that I take is that when you are because I also believe in objective morality, but I believe in it, I think, for a different reason that you do.
And there's so many thoughts about the hero.
I'll start here.
So basically, I think my problem with your worldview or with how you're starting it out is that you're saying, oh no, like there has to be an unchanging God because then anything else is relative and therefore like subjective.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
No.
What I'm saying to you is that knowledge itself is not possible if knowledge itself, the thing that you appeal to, has an arbitrary metric.
Knowledge becomes impossible.
You can't know anything if you say there's no standard which is unchanging for which we can know a thing by.
Therefore, no belief you have can be true because knowledge itself is a justified true belief.
Yeah.
Okay.
So you've so by having a subjective worldview, from my worldview, you have destroyed the very capacity to even have knowledge.
Yeah.
And I think where the major disagreement comes from is that things can be changing, but you can still know of something despite the changes.
How do you know if you can't appeal to a standard from which if you always appeal to it is unchanging?
How could you ever know that?
Yeah.
How do you know?
Okay.
Maybe you can help me answer.
So like, this beer, right?
Can that be water?
No.
How do you know?
Because I see that it is beer and I know that you, unless if you decide to do some, a bunch of like chemical processes, essentially, it's not going to.
So you're appealing to some unerrant standard, some unchanging standard, which would say that this always must be itself.
Like the laws of logic would say this beer can only be what it is, which is beer, right?
Yeah, I'm basically appealing to, this is where we're going to start disagreeing probably, my experiences, essentially.
And some laws of logic within those experiences that I've had, right?
Yeah, but your experiences are going to have to still be limited to the confines of knowledge, which is still going to be confined to the laws of logic.
Yeah, but those confines are within my reality, if that makes sense.
So, okay, I'm going to ask.
Yeah, well, hang on.
That's true.
Yes.
You yourself, I think, can have subjective experiences.
Sure.
I think that you can have many subjective experiences.
But that really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they're true or whether or not you have the capacity to know things if you think that knowledge itself has no standard for objectivity.
How the hell can you say I know anything if that is the case?
Well, yeah, that's what I was gonna get to.
Basically, for you to state that there is an outside, like external, like unchanging force, you would have to essentially prove that to me.
Why?
Because otherwise.
Prove to.
Okay, so here's the thing.
I will give you philosophical proof that there is an unchanging source from which we can always appeal to for knowledge called the laws of logic.
Now, if that is not true, can you explain to me how these can be changed?
If they are subjective, they should be changeable.
Can you change the laws of logic or can you not?
No, I'm saying those laws of logic can 100% not be changed in your reality.
The problem is you would have to prove to me a reality exists outside of your perspective, which you inherently cannot do because you are quite literally processing everything through your perspective.
It would be an impossible task for me to prove that.
In any reality, do you think that a thing cannot be what a thing is?
Essentially, even if those rules are true, they're still confined to my reality.
Does that make sense?
Even if they're confined to your reality, all I need you to do is envision a reality in which a thing isn't what it is.
Which I can't.
But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So, I think there's all possible realities that you can possibly come up with.
It's not good enough philosophical proof for you that you can't think of a single one in which the laws of logic would not apply.
Andrew, what I'm trying to convey here, you see this box?
Yep.
Okay, that's for the audience.
You are in this box.
Okay.
And you're basically saying, oh, nothing outside this box can exist because I cannot perceive of anything outside this box.
But just because you cannot perceive of anything outside this box doesn't mean that there is nothing outside the box.
You are confined to the box through your experiences.
This is just an argument from incredibility, ultimately.
What you're saying is it's possible that there are things which exist outside of anything you could ever envision.
And so therefore this thing may not be true.
That's just incredibility.
Yeah, no.
That's just incredibility.
It's a fallacious argument.
What I need you to do is tell me, based on any experience, subjective or otherwise, I just did.
I gave you.
No, no, no.
You didn't.
You said it's fallacious, but you did not explain to me why it's fallacious.
The argument from incredibility is a fallacious argument.
You have to explain to me why you believe it's fallacious.
You can't just say it's fallacious.
Okay, because I could say, I could be incredulous about any argument you make, right?
You could say, for instance, I'm not here right now, right?
And I go, well, I don't believe that.
Well, that's not an argument.
That's not an actual argument.
My argument is the same.
Yeah, hang on, hang on.
Do you agree with me that that would be fallacious argumentation?
I would agree with you, but that's not what I'm saying.
It is what you're saying.
You're saying, because I can't envision something outside of anything which can even be envisioned, where the laws of logic may not be true.
You're just saying conceptually there could be.
But when I ask you to demonstrate a reality in which it could even be true, you still can't even do that.
No, because what I'm trying to say is that inherently, every law of logic, every experience you have, everything you ever do must go through your own perception first.
Okay, but you would agree with me, even if that's true, okay?
You think that other people have perceptions, right?
Yes, but I can never prove it from.
From your perception, you think, but you do think that.
I can think that, yeah, but I'll never be able to prove it.
But you don't really need to.
You don't really need to prove it fully.
We can just go off of your perceptions then.
If you can't prove anybody else has them and only you have them, inside of anything in which you can envision, you, from your subjective metric, the only one which exists or is necessary, can a world exist where the laws of logic do not apply?
No, but that's, here's the deal, right?
If we That's powerful philosophical proof, by the way.
But of an unchanging standard which can be adhered to for knowledge.
Here's the deal, right?
If we can agree that even though I do not know or I cannot prove something outside of my own perception, that's an impossible task to do, it is still real to me, right?
It is still something that is actively affecting my life.
I cannot just like pretend it doesn't.
It doesn't make it any less real.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, you could say, you can say that, but I'm just going to grant it.
I'm just going to grant that it's all real to you.
Okay, okay.
So even granting that it's all real to you, right?
From what is real from your perspective, can you change the laws of logic?
No, no, I don't.
No, no, I did.
I did.
I answered.
So if the answer is yes, then that's the only standard you can appeal to for objective knowledge, right?
What, the laws of logic?
Yeah.
What other objective standard can you think of which is unchanged?
Well, that's the point that I'm trying to get across is that even if there is a reality outside of my current experience, which I do not know, I do not know if that's the case, whatever, whatever.
There are still these basic components of our experiences.
And yeah, like the laws of logic, in a sense, are an experience, right?
Thinking like one plus one equals two is something that you are actively experiencing, going through, thinking about, putting together.
I disagree, believe that these are discovered.
They're not subjective metrics of the human mind, but rather discoveries, which you find because they're true.
So you're not external to the mind.
Yeah, you're presupposing an external world, which brings us back to the problem.
No, no, no, no.
Hang on.
I'm not presupposing an external world.
What I'm saying to you is from your subjective metric right now, which is what you consider to be everything in reality which exists and that you could ever perceive of, from that metric, do you agree that when you pass away, the laws of logic will still be here, even if you can't perceive them?
Yeah, no, that's presupposing that there is an existence outside or everything is a presupposition which reduces itself to an unerring standard, which has always been there and always will be there and always must have been there to assume creation or any justification for knowledge.
I don't think, what is it?
I'm trying to think how to phrase this.
You are basing your worldview off a presupposition that there is an external world, which I don't even 100% disagree with.
What I'm trying to convey here is that it is...
No, no, no, no, no.
You're presupposing that you can have this conversation right now.
You're presupposing that you have knowledge right now.
You presuppose everything leading to this conversation, and everything you presuppose leading up to it has a requirement for knowledge, which you presuppose baked into the laws of logic, but won't grant that there has to be an unsupported standard.
That has to be an unerring standard.
What else would you call that but God?
okay is it um i mean we could get into like a theological debate about god if you want to um well Well, I would like to move it to feminism.
Oh, right.
If I have substantially answered your questions so that you understand where I'm coming from from my worldview.
Yes.
I guess I'm just a little bit uncertain when it comes to...
Well, I mean, if that's the case, then I would have to cross-examine what you gave us for utilitarianism, which wasn't much.
Yeah, no, no, absolutely.
We could dive into that.
But I would like to dive into the purpose of the debate now that you know my worldview.
Okay, we can dive into it.
It wasn't to be the debate, though I'm happy to do one in the future with you on this.
Okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The only reason, but if anything, we'll just circle back.
Yeah, we can.
Yeah, okay, because what my concern is that once we start talking about like feminism or worldview, I am concerned that you're going to bring it back to God, which is...
I make secular arguments.
Okay, cool.
Awesome.
Great.
We're good then.
Before we do that, I'll just allow TTS to come.
Eula sees the pagan donated $100.
I give Pixie prompts coming prepared and taking notes like Andrew.
I don't agree with her worldview, but I appreciate her taking the debate seriously and wanting to engage.
Well, Pixie, I ran into her on quite a few panels in the Twitch poll universe, so I was happy that she was coming into debate.
Thank you.
I'm happy I'm debating you right now.
Talk about the video.
Well, let's get into the debate.
Perhaps actually one question before we do that, and I think it is perhaps related to feminism.
I don't know if we've had you on the panel since, Pixie, but this is something that we've brought on our dating talk panels very frequently.
Are you familiar with the man versus bear question?
Yeah.
And so what the okay, sorry, stream deck tripped out there.
So, I mean, perhaps right before we get into the meat of the feminism conversation, I wanted to just hear your take on that.
So the scenario is, if you ask a woman, would she rather be stuck in the woods with a random man or a random bear?
Quite a lot of women respond by saying bear.
What's your take on this?
What's your answer to the question?
Am I allowed to ask what type of bear?
Well, it's a random bear and a random man.
Yeah.
Okay.
I might be wrong on this number from last time I actually researched this question or whatever.
I do think that the majority or the most likely bear that you're likely to run into is a black bear.
If it's a black bear, I would pick bear.
If it's anything but a black bear, I would pick a guy.
Is the most likely guy you're going to run into predatory?
No, but no, let me think of Fannish.
So the reason why I say this is because even if the most likely guy I run into is not predatory or whatever, there's still like an unstable factor there, right?
Where it's like, in most, in the vast majority of cases with bears, it's the or black bears, let's be specific.
They don't know they're really apex predators.
They will like, they're basically, they have basically no freaking clue.
They'll usually like run away or stay out of your way, unless if you're like threatening a cub or something, that's a mama bear, though.
That's a whole different scenario.
Men, I think, are a lot more spontaneous.
They're obviously more intelligent, in my opinion.
It could be the case where you have like a normal guy or something, and then something happens to a normal guy, you know, maybe isolation in the wilderness for a couple of years could drive anybody crazy.
And then it results into them acting out, for example.
It could be a predator, or it could be somebody who, you know, doesn't really care.
Like, let's say it's a gay guy, whatever.
Either way, the factor is more of an unknown versus if it's just like a black bear, which just seems like they'll stay out of your way most of the time.
Now, if it's a grizzly bear, fuck that.
I'll take my chances with even like a predator guy because grizzly brothers will kill you on site.
Black bears will kill you on site, too.
The vast majority of black bears are pretty like, they don't know.
They don't realize they're apex predators.
It's kind of insane.
I'm not joking.
I did my research on this question.
I'm not lie.
Not going crazy.
You think, let me ask you this.
If you walked up to, I don't know, 100 random men on the street and just walked over and patted them on the head versus you walked over to a hundred random bears in the forest and walked over and patted them on the head, which one do you think would be more likely to attack you?
Yeah, the point is I wouldn't be patting the black bears in the head.
I'll make sure like I'm staying my proper distance from them.
With a guy, again, as we've established, like if black bears don't know that they're apex predators, which the vast majority don't, they're going to stay out of your way, whatever, whatever.
With a guy, even if it's like a friendly guy, like maybe he'll want to talk to me or like, you know, get towards me or whatever.
And I can't really ascribe his intentions.
With the black bear, we can just like, we can stay out of each other's ways.
So from a utilitarian standpoint, though, wouldn't you be far more likely to be helped by a man than a black bear?
I guess it's based if I need help in that scenario.
Well, based on your current level of forest survival skills, do you think you would be up to the task on your own?
I don't think the average man knows how to survive a forest.
I think that the average man can survive in the forest a lot better than the average woman.
They're just stronger, right?
They're built stronger.
They can just do tasks that most average women can't do.
Yeah, but they don't have the required prerequisite strength, right?
Well, I think women do have the strength to live in a forest, just like how men have the strength to live in the forest.
But I understand your point.
You're saying, let's say there's like a heavy log or something, you have to move out of the way.
A man is going to be a lot better at that task than a woman.
Well, no, it's not just that.
It's just even tool making requires physical strength.
Yeah, but I mean, like, I can still make a tool.
Maybe it'll take me a little bit longer, but it's not going to be the end-all-be-all.
But the point that I'm trying to get across, or what I'm trying to say, is that there is a chance that I might get helped, but then I'm also, you know, rolling the dice on whether there's a chance that the guy is like fucking insane and wants to like kill me or do bad things to.
If you're such a savage, you can live in a forest.
If you're just dropped in a forest with no equipment and you can just survive in there, then why aren't you savage enough to take care of yourself from a man?
What is it?
There's a very big difference between being in a forest, like trying to scavenge for your own, like hunt for fish, whatever, start a fire versus having somebody actively attacking you.
What's your fish if you were in a forest?
If there's like a, what is it, like a freshwater stream or lake or something.
Yeah, how?
How would you do it?
Ideally, I would find some sort of like small insect or bait or something like that.
Try to do something maybe with like the lining of like leaves or something, basically like a little rod, maybe, and use that to try to lure in the fish.
That's how you try to catch fish in a forest?
I'm not an expert at catching fish, but if our ancestors did it for thousands of years, I'm sure that I can figure out a way through trial and error.
Okay, so I guess that really doesn't have, I don't know where we're going with that.
Let me just let this TTS come.
Lol Paladins donated $100.
We're to see Pixie arguing, W slash Chandrew, for the existence of God.
Somehow I agree with her.
We are flawed humans and cannot know real objective truth and his plan for us.
Is that objectively true?
Is that objectively true, Lol Paladins?
Because if it's not objectively true, then why should I believe it?
But anyway.
One quick thing.
This is breaking news.
I've received word that Desiree from the show yesterday, who she, in an Instagram story, states she is raffling off the underwear that she wore.
Fresh out, and I quote, fresh out of the ass I used to put Andrew in his place Yesterday on whatever, so make sure you subscribe and enter before I pick a winner Sunday night.
That's wild.
That's fucking degen.
She didn't learn a thing.
Anyways, sorry, continue on.
Continue on.
So anyway, over to feminism.
So can we agree to a definition of feminism?
Let's do something really boilerplate basic.
So I give you my definition.
You can tell me if you like it or don't like it.
I would say it's the move towards egalitarianism with the rejection of patriarchal systems.
When you're saying egalitarianism.
Equality and equity.
Oh, I'm not sure if I 100% agree with that, but we'll say.
So then what's your definition?
Well, no, no.
I'm going to agree with it in general, but I know some people take that and then they bring it to an extreme.
They're like, oh.
So you mean like I'm trying to think of an example.
Are you full, by the way?
Because people are going to be able to do it.
Presuming prepositions is preposterous.
I propose a pedantic posturing proliferated by poor practice.
Must go back to school.
If only there were a university I could sign up to based around debating.
Right.
That's actually a really good point.
He's saying that you're actually presupposing even the idea of the subjective being in the box has the requirement of knowledge.
So, I mean, that's the point.
But anyway, it doesn't matter.
Over to feminism.
The idea on feminism.
Yeah, yeah.
The rejection of patriarchy and the movement towards egalitarianism.
Do you agree?
Yeah.
I was going to say, I'm going to assume that we're being good faith right now because some people will be like, oh, you know, you want like equality and like equity?
Do you me?
And then maybe that means I don't want equity.
I'm not sure.
But, oh, like you believe in that?
That means that, you know, you think like both a guy and girl, despite of their qualifications, should be in the same military bracket or whatever.
I'm using a random example.
And it's like, well, no, only if they meet the requirements to be in that bracket.
Does that make sense?
Like people will take it and think that, I mean, on the basis of gender, it means that they should be exactly 100% the same, even if they're not as equally qualified.
Yeah, I don't think men and women are interchangeable widgets or that feminists even say that they are.
Okay, okay.
Just clarifying.
Okay, we're good then.
Yep.
So, I mean, I think that that's fine.
Okay.
Right.
So if your idea there is that their ontology is different, men and women, their being is different.
I don't, what do you mean by being?
Well, they're not interchangeable widgets.
So whatever, what we would call telos or purpose or the things that they're interested in, maybe from your perspective, are going to be different than the things women are interested in.
And that's going to be innate somewhat.
Yeah.
Because otherwise, then we do have a problem of you thinking they're interchangeable widgets.
So if you think their ontology is exactly the same, that men and women are exactly the same, then we do have a problem.
Yeah, I so I think if I had to draw it out again, I would say that there's probably like a scale of behaviors.
I don't even like doing it this way, but I'm going to put man, woman, even though I think this is dumb, because I think there's just human behaviors in general that both men and women have.
But I think there's like...
You're talking about a gender scale?
Yeah.
Yeah, essentially.
X amount of these qualities make you a woman.
X amount of these qualities make you a man.
Well, no, that's why I'm saying.
That's where I would disagree.
I would say that there are certain behaviors that are just human behaviors that both men and women have.
Yeah, I agree.
So I would say anything that you would consider like a gendered emotions nonsense.
Anything you'd consider specifically a gendered behavior would be nonsense, right?
Like if you can have tom girls, for instance, they're still females.
You can have men that do little fucking tea parties or whatever.
They're still men, right?
They're still males.
So I would agree with all of that, right?
So I don't think that there's a specific emotion.
I just think that the men and women perceive them differently and that men and women are built differently.
Yeah.
From conception, they're built differently.
Their brains work differently and their bodies are different.
Yeah, I think there's definitely differences in body, especially in strength.
The brain argument is a lot more complicated because then it becomes a question of like nature versus nurture.
Like, the whole idea of, like, female and male brain is, like, pretty contentious.
A lot of it, like...
Yeah, but if you have one sex that's stronger, right?
Physically stronger on average, and the male sex is much stronger on average than women.
It's significantly stronger.
The tailoring of society necessarily around that would create different interests, right?
Yes, at certain points.
I think the problem is that as we have a society has evolved and as we've had like more like, let's say, machinery or even like other things have just come and spawned essentially, our DNA and like biological predispositions also somewhat slightly change, even if it's like ever so slightly.
So do you know like epigenetics?
Yeah, but I mean epigenetics wouldn't even explain this in 60 years.
That's insane.
Even from an epigenetic standpoint.
Well, from an epigenetic standpoint, like our genes are like, they're constantly changing to our environment, basically.
It doesn't happen in one generation.
It doesn't happen in one generation.
Or two or three.
No, well, it can happen pretty quickly.
I mean, there's like, what is it?
Epigenetic studies on like, for example, women who have had children or were pregnant.
You got to do me one favor, though.
Yeah.
You got to say women and not women.
I am English in my second language.
You got to say women and not women.
Okay, call me out.
All right.
Women.
Walman.
No, no.
I could say mujer if that's easier in Spanish.
I could say women.
Women.
I swear to God, I'm not being crazy right now.
All right.
All right, fine.
It's not me trying to be an asshole.
It's the second language.
There's epigenetic studies of women who, you know, who are, let's say, like pregnant or whatever during like a time of strife, starvation, resources are low, and like how that like literally genetically affects their offspring to be able to like retain like fat better, for example.
Or basically things that can happen within like one generation, essentially.
That wouldn't apply to the societal social characteristics of the entirety of a nation when it came to the interests of men and women.
Well, what I'm trying to say is that if we can already see things like that within like one pregnancy and see like DNA changes, then it's not a giant leap of faith to assume that like over time, especially as society has like more and more changes, you'd start seeing, yeah, you'd start seeing.
What kind of changes?
What kind of changes would you expect to see?
Let's see.
In a society where physical labor and force becomes less important, essentially.
Like right now.
Yeah, or like how it has been.
What would you expect to see?
Yeah, you would expect to see basically societies that start centering intelligence as a more important component or start selecting based more on, you know, expected intelligence, whatever, than just pure brute strength.
Yeah, but society's not becoming smarter.
I don't know about that.
Yeah, I know about that.
I do slated to continue to reduce on average.
Where are you getting this?
Well, I'll give you the numbers.
Yeah.
But not only that, let me bring this up as well.
Don't give me just the numbers.
Give me the study.
Yeah, yeah.
But let me give you the numbers on this as well.
This is all CDC information, by the way.
If I were to take what you're saying at face value, that necessarily through epigenetic leaps, that men and women, women, by the way, would suddenly begin to have different interests.
Not suddenly.
It would be gradual.
Oh, but how?
And you said, what do you mean gradual?
Like how long?
Because you said it could happen very quickly.
It can happen very quickly.
Well, how quickly?
It could theoretically, or certain changes could happen within a generation.
Yeah, so this is CDC info.
Most female jobs, this is according to the, I'm sorry, the BLS, these jobs have the highest percentage of female workers.
Preschool kindergarten teachers, 98%.
Medical record specialists, 95%.
Child care workers, 94%.
Speech, language, dental hygienic.
I'm confused about skincare.
Yeah, and talking about like a lot of people.
Okay, so where's all of the women who are doing all of these actual labor-intensive jobs now that labor in those jobs is far easier?
Well, no, the point is as a society as a whole, if labor is less important because we have machinery to do it instead, you would find both men and women more in service sector jobs, which we have seen.
You're seeing mostly women in those jobs, and that's what I'm going to show you.
Yeah, no, the amount of men who are now like in STEM in general, like the United States as a whole is a serious statement.
Men have always been in STEM.
Men have always been.
No, no, no, not always.
We have seen men have always been dominant.
I'm saying that doesn't matter because I'm saying that when we compare manual labor jobs to service jobs, we have seen a vast increase in service-based jobs versus manual labor jobs in the United States.
That is just objectively true.
That women do, which is the exact same jobs they were on.
Men have also done more service-based jobs.
More people are lawyers, doctors, software, even just.
Wait, men have always been in those fields, always been in those fields.
Maybe I'm not explaining my point clearly enough.
The point that I'm trying to get across is that as manual labor has become less important in the United States, there is an increase of men doing more of those jobs.
So before, it might have been like, hey, maybe I'm going to go faster halfway.
Wait, let me finish.
This makes the argument.
No, no, please let me finish.
I'll steal man the argument.
That way you know I understand it.
The argument that you're making is as these other service sectors have opened up, men are gravitating into those service sectors instead of just manual labor, right?
Yes.
Then how come women aren't gravitating towards the manual labor sections?
Because the manual labor sections have been either taken over by technology.
No, they haven't.
Or.
Or.
Has roofing been taken over by technology?
No.
No, but what is it?
It doesn't necessarily...
I'm trying to go off.
Has construction been taken over by technology?
Roofing?
Has even gardening, basic gardening, what about lawn mowing, lawn care?
In fact, almost all labor I can think of, which now is heavily inundated with machines, still totally dominated by men.
Almost no women.
There's a lot less men in average doing those jobs compared to before because you have had machinery replaced.
But if it took three men, It took five men to redo a roof or whatever.
Now it takes two, right?
Yeah, why isn't one of them a woman?
No, because the point is, as a society as a whole, we have just moved away from manual labor.
So obviously.
This argument makes no sense.
Yes, it does make sense.
It's very simple.
Okay, give it to me again.
Yeah, here.
Okay.
Manual labor jobs have become less important.
We have found technology to basically help replace a lot of the brute force or strength that we needed before.
Agree.
So the vast majority of people, men and women, are now more inclined towards service sector jobs.
Okay, so I don't understand though.
Are you implying that women were doing manual labor jobs?
No, I'm not implying women were doing manual labor jobs.
If that is true, and women were not doing manual labor jobs before, and now you have machinery which are assisting in these manual labor jobs, why aren't women gravitating towards those jobs?
All you're saying to me is, as manual labor jobs have decreased, all right, because the market demand, men who ordinarily would take those jobs move into things which aren't manual labor.
That is not a fucking argument at all for any epigenetic stride at all.
That's just, I'm going to take this thing away, so now you have no access to it because it's not available, so you have to do something else.
That doesn't mean that their interests still aren't here.
It just means it's not available.
Why aren't women taking those jobs still, especially if they're less physically demanding?
The argument that I'm trying to make is as a whole, our society has decided to put more value on the service labor jobs.
That's why you're not going to see women.
Well, first of all, what would that have to do with anything?
I'm serious.
If the argument is.
Andrew, you can either become a doctor or you can do roofs.
Sure.
The doctor will pay better.
Are those choices available to men and women?
What?
To do the doctor?
To do doctoring or the roof.
Yes.
Okay, so I understand.
So I understand if there's less jobs available to do roofs, which there aren't, right?
But I mean, there's still plenty of jobs to do roofs.
But even if there was less of them, so now the men who wouldn't ordinarily be doing roofs go, ah, fuck, I got to go be a doctor now.
So they go and they be a doctor now.
You have eliminated this option for them.
So this is what they can do.
Why are women who can do both only doing the doctor and not doing the construction part?
Because our society elevates the freaking doctors.
That's why our society, and I'm not saying this is right.
I'm not saying this is necessarily how it should be.
But yeah, our society tends to value things that are more service-based than manual labor-based.
So this argument is.
We value our CEOs more than we manage.
Wait, wait, let me finish.
We value our CEOs more than we value our janitors, for example.
So let me get this right.
Even if it were true that we put the value, and we do, right?
We put a value on doctors and lawyers more than we do like garbage men and shit like that.
There's no way in hell you're assuming that every woman is so smart that they're going to be able to be the doctors and lawyers, right?
No, I never said that.
So how come none of them are not?
No, no, no, I'm not.
Let's strike up statistics right now.
That's not zero.
I've got them right now.
Let's do it.
Do you think that 98 fucking percent of dental?
I never said that.
I never gave a specific argument.
I'm giving you specific numbers.
Preschool.
The number is obviously not kindergarten.
So when you say none of them, you're exaggerating.
Preschool kindergarten teachers, 98% women, 98% women.
Can you send us that so we can pull it up for the audience?
Yeah.
Okay, but none of what you're saying is contradicting what I'm saying.
Yeah.
Like, no, it's literally.
So how many roughnecks?
Let's find out how many roughnecks are.
Wait, let me finish before I forget.
Here's the other thing.
Is it Rachel who's sending it?
What's that?
No, I'm sending it to you.
What do you mean?
You just told me to.
Yeah, yeah, no, but.
Yeah, so here's a couple.
To our Instagram, if you can.
Here's a couple things to break down also.
What is it?
Women are also a lot less likely to apply towards jobs that are male-dominated fields for a variety of reasons.
You could say some of them are just not interested in it, sure.
Even for women who aren't interested in it, which is more of a minority, yes, you are more likely to experience sexual harassment or just sexism in general, the more male-dominated a field is.
So you're less likely to get hired.
And even if you are hired, you're more likely to be looked down upon.
So there are a combination of factors, which I've never denied that even I said it multiple times.
I never denied that women are less into these fields.
No, you gave a descriptor that because of epigenetics, what's going on is that...
No, what I said...
So let me finish and then I'll go.
Okay.
You gave me a descriptor.
I asked you this question specifically.
The question was, why is it that you think that this is happening?
And this is in regards to why women are taking these fields, men are taking these fields.
Your descriptor for this was because through epigenetics, through genes, their interests can suddenly change, suddenly change, and that that's what's going on because now society is valuing different things.
I'm granting the argument as being true for the purpose of internally critiquing it.
So here's what I see.
I see you saying this.
We have five construction workers and then we have a robot.
The robot comes in, takes the job away from two of those.
Now we have a doctor's slot over here.
Okay.
The women who are on this side, who are in, I don't know, they're fucking coffee baristas or something.
There's five of them.
Okay.
Robot comes in, takes two of those jobs away.
Now there's three of them.
Now you're saying they're both competing to be doctors.
Okay, I agree.
But how come the women who are the baristas, if what you're saying is true about epigenetics, aren't coming in to take those three jobs of the construction workers or the construction workers going in to take the three jobs of the baristas?
That's the fucking question that you are not actually answering.
Yeah, no.
The argument that I was trying to make is that the reason why people are not trying to suddenly jump into another labor job or whatever is because as a whole, both the men and the women are trying to get into the nice service.
I'm not saying it's actually nice, but whatever, the nice service-based jobs instead, because that is where the fame, notoriety, whatever you want to call it.
So societal respect, let's put it that way.
Yeah, but I've already granted that this is the case.
So let's just, I'm just going to assume that men and women both want to be doctors.
Yeah.
But you can then grant to me that almost nobody's ever going to be a doctor.
Yes.
Yes.
So that would be men and women.
But there's whatever.
So if it is the case that almost no men and no women are going to be doctors and they're not going to be in high status jobs, lawyers, doctors, professionals like this, most of them are going to be in the service industry or they're going to be working in factories and construction and shipping.
They're going to be more specific.
How come we don't see from these ends any crossover into these other fields?
In fact, they seem to be more inundated along gender lines for construction than ever before.
Yeah, and like how I stated before, there's two reasons for this.
Because if a person can escape or if there's an opportunity for them to escape the manual labor, they're going to most likely take it.
They don't.
Men aren't taking it.
You think they have to do it?
What do you mean by they have to?
Like, couldn't they go, they could go be a fucking waitress?
Yeah, no.
What I'm also saying is that there's also other combinations or other factors that, like how I was saying before, for example, women, even the ones that are interested, because the number isn't zero, it is low, however, I will grant that.
So low as to be abysmal.
Like almost none in many of these cases.
Like roughnecks, for instance, there's basically none.
Line workers, for instance, on power lines, basically no females at all.
Yeah, the point that I'm trying to get across is that there's other barriers also in place.
What are they?
Okay, well, let's get into those barriers.
Let me finish, please.
So, what is it?
When it comes to a lot of these women, or when it comes to breaking into male-dominated fields, the more men there are, the higher rates of sexism a woman's more likely to experience, or just straight-up sexual harassment.
There is usually a direct correlation with those.
Some of it could just be straight-up interest.
Maybe not as many women are interested in doing those jobs, essentially.
I thought epigenetics was going to take care of that interest probably.
Well, what I was trying to describe before when it comes to, first of all, that's not how I was using epigenetics originally, but even if I was, my original argument for epigenetics was that we might see a slight difference in interest over time.
But regardless, regardless.
That's what I just said.
Wait, let me finish.
Okay.
Regardless of that, even if I did 100% grant whatever you were saying, you would see the biggest leap not in between, oh, other manual jobs.
You would see the biggest leap into, as what we were describing before, service-based jobs.
Because service-based jobs are the ones, again, with the more prestige, the more value, the more societal respect.
So that's why we wouldn't see intercrossing.
You would just see people trying to move up instead.
Yeah, that makes no sense.
If you have a barrier for entry inside of those service-level jobs that you're talking about, meaning you and I both know that not everybody can be a doctor or a lawyer or in one of these high-status fields, you should actually see the interconnecting.
Why wouldn't you?
Why wouldn't you?
You say because there's a barrier to entry to be a construction worker, female, what barrier?
No, no, no.
What I'm trying to describe here, if we're saying, okay, epigenetics, your genes or yeah, whatever, your offspring's genes, even your genes can change depending on the environment, even ever so slightly.
Over time, our society starts valuing X quality.
Just let's say they value X quality.
People are going to start selecting for that quality more, right?
Or your genes are going to respond to that quality more, essentially, men and women.
Got it.
Right.
So if X quality is essentially intelligence, that's what more of society is going to start leaning and focusing more towards.
They're not going to be focusing on the other manual labor job.
They're going to be focusing more towards the intelligence-based job.
Okay, got it.
So both men and women want their selections.
They want X quality.
They want to move towards being doctors and lawyers.
Got it.
Yes.
However, this still does not answer my question, which is this.
Why is it that women still, even if they're competing for these neutral jobs that they can do because it requires zero fucking physical strength, they sit in an office building all day being a lawyer or doctor, whatever it is.
Why is it that you don't see them competing to be line workers?
Why don't you see them working on power lines?
Why don't you see them working on oil rigs?
Those are extremely high-paying jobs, even for dumb women.
Way higher paying jobs than being a fucking coffee barista or somebody who works as a waitress.
There's no more barrier for entry.
Why aren't they crossing over?
That would make no sense.
Why wouldn't they do that?
There's a couple of reasons, like I listed before.
Some of it can be based off of interest.
Maybe not as many women are interested in doing those things.
Why not?
What is it?
There are a million reasons.
Maybe some of them do have a biological predisposition to not be interested in that.
Biological predisposition.
Right?
So somebody can do with their ontology.
Some.
Some.
Some other ones might be raised in a household where they're taught, hey, that's not a very ladylike thing to do.
You should focus instead on like, you know, taking care of children.
Like, that's more, you know, that's the more ladylike thing to do.
So their interest might develop more into that field, basically, rather than having it being a biological innate thing.
So for some people, it might be biologically innate.
For some other people, it might be just a result of society.
That's really weird.
Is pornography a ladylike thing to do?
Um, what is it?
It's not necessarily ladylike, but it is highly rewarded.
Yeah, it's highly rewarded.
So, is being a person who works on an oil rig, highly rewarded.
Or no, hang on, hang on.
Let me finish now.
I just let you go.
I'll just finish.
I'll let you finish.
Go for it.
Just like working on a fishing boat, just like working at you know, in the world's deadliest catch.
You don't see any women doing any of these or working as an ice trucker.
Yeah.
Here's why.
Here's what's so interesting to your argument: pornography is not ladylike in any way, shape, or form.
So, your argument of wait a second, they're told that X thing is not ladylike.
It seems that women will ignore this isn't ladylike if it leads to a lot of fucking money.
If it leads to a bunch of money, suddenly the it's not ladylike, we can put a big fucking X through it.
So, if we can put a big X through, doesn't seem very ladylike because we will compensate for that with money.
Why the fuck wouldn't they go do that with other jobs?
Is it because they can't?
Just say, just say Andrews.
Let me ask you, Andrew, let me finish.
I like you finish.
Now it's my turn.
So, I use the word ladylike, but the truth is, if a woman tries to go into the fucking oil rig, whatever field, yeah, a lot of guys are going to straight up laugh at her, not even give her the opportunity to prove herself, basically be like, hey, you're a fucking woman.
And again, as we stated before, yeah, more male-dominated fields tend to be more discriminatory towards women.
So, even a woman who could do those things and is physically capable of doing those things will probably get fucking laughed at.
Hey, no, let me finish.
Let's test this.
Wait, let me finish, please.
We'll probably get laughed at this.
I've been interrupting you too much.
Yes, okay.
I'm just being playful.
So, so hang on.
So, wait, no, no, no.
I just want to test this real quick.
Wait, no, I'm pleased at a time.
Well, you said three points.
I just want to respond to those three points, and then you can respond to everything you want.
Go ahead.
Then, in addition to that, oh, yeah, women are very much rewarded, also somewhat societally, when they do pornography.
Okay, that's straight up.
You have a lot of guys being like, oh, like, you're so hot.
You're so sexy.
Oh, my God.
Like, that's you're the most beautiful woman I've ever seen.
It's still positive reinforcement versus if you're a woman who works in an oil field, you somehow get in there, you're not laughed off, whatever.
You make that bag, you make that money.
You're still going to be people being like, Really?
Like, that's a field you chose?
Well, I want to check.
Well, pornography, you still have a shit ton of people in our modern society being like, Wow, you're so hot.
Yeah, I can put this to the test, though.
But by the way, that's really weird because that would be the barrier entry of politics, all sorts of things which are male-dominated.
Women come in and instead they're glorified.
The opposite happens.
They're not repressed.
They're fucking glorified.
Here's an example of this.
Have you heard of the first female Navy SEAL?
Do you know her name?
No.
Okay, she doesn't exist.
That's why you've never heard her name because not a single woman, even though the Navy has done everything in its power to recruit women to be Navy SEALs.
Treat them like fucking gold.
Put out every ad you can imagine.
They want one in the worst way so they can be like, this is the first one.
None of them can actually do the training.
None of them have been able to actually accomplish the feat of being able to pass basic underwater demolition schools.
So there's no female Navy SEALs, not one.
So the thing is, is that your argument here of, but wait, they'll be laughed at.
They have every government incentive on planet Earth to not be laughed at.
Oil rigs will be given incentives, for instance.
Linemen will be given incentives, for instance, to bring women on, instruct their staff to train them every which way possible, give them massive incentives, and women just physically can't fucking do the job.
Yeah, no, I said in the beginning there.
So, this idea that it's stigma, I need you to answer to the idea of how you can have massive government programs doing everything they can to bribe the employer to bring women on, which reduces the stigma to like something non-existent.
And somehow, though, somehow, though, you think that they're just afraid they're going to get laughed off the line.
There's a couple of things to break down here.
Okay.
First of all, just saying, oh, no, you see, they have incentives to not be stigmatic doesn't necessarily take away the stigma.
As like stated before, a lot of it, like, it's basically your cohort.
No, I'm sorry.
You have like, well, who's getting the incentive?
It's what is it?
The oil company, let's say, per se, whatever.
It's not necessarily the daily lineman worker that's going to be interacting with this woman.
So you can have government incentives that doesn't necessarily take away the social stigma.
Even with that, like what I stated before, yeah, a lot of women can't necessarily physically do it.
I'm not disagreeing with that.
I think the biggest difference between you and me right now is that I'm saying there could be a variety of reasons, some of them physical strength, some of them societal pressure.
While you're saying, no, it's only because they physically can't, social stigma doesn't exist, which is insane to me.
Wait, wait, you're strawmanning my position.
I never said that there couldn't be more than one reason.
Then why are you attacking me so hard when I say that?
Because I'm starting with my first reason, which is that men and women are not interchangeable women units.
They're not interchangeable widgets.
And almost no women, almost none, have the physical capability to do a lot of these jobs that men are doing.
Almost none.
Maybe some outliers somewhere that I don't know about, but almost none do.
I don't disagree with that.
I'm trying to say there's various reasons.
So then if you don't disagree with that, you agree with me that men and women are not interchangeable widgets, which is how we got on this to begin with.
Yeah, like I never, what is got it?
So then, so then if that is the case, then there must be it.
Society is going to tailor itself around people's purpose.
And if men are incredibly strong can do these jobs because you agree with me that most women can't, then that would kind of say that society is going to form itself around the purpose of men at that point, right?
And as I stated before, when it comes to the whole idea of like, oh, presupposed purpose, as society also changes, the purpose of both men and women will change as well because society has changed.
So as how we got here in the beginning, critical changed.
The necessary requirements for what is it, critical infrastructure has absolutely changed in the sense of, oh, it's no longer brute strength.
We have machinery.
Yeah.
No.
What machinery is going to lay a roof?
What do you mean?
Well, I mean, eventually, but it's not, it's not impossible.
Wait, wait, no, no, no, wait.
It's not impossible for a woman to roof off.
Obfuscate.
You're acting.
No, no, okay.
I'm not obfuscating.
Okay, good.
Then let me go down my series.
No, okay.
You're acting as if it's impossible for a woman to do it.
Let me go down my series.
Yeah, okay.
So what I'm saying to you is almost no women anywhere, anywhere on planet fucking earth can do roof work.
Almost none.
Do you think they're physically incapable of doing roof work?
Okay, I disagree.
I think there's definitely jobs that women are less inclined to do.
Rescaling a roof, I'm pretty sure we can find out multiple examples of women doing it.
I think most women are not inclined to do it.
Maybe it's not optimal for women to do it.
Did I say all?
Okay, you said none.
I literally just asked you.
I said, yeah, replay it.
My exact words were this to you.
I said, almost none.
Is that all?
Okay.
Is almost none the word all?
No, I'm pretty sure you said none.
Nope.
I said almost none.
Okay, but say you said almost none.
I never put anything in a monolith because dumb fucking liberals will always do this.
If I can point to one, and then they say they're, hang on, hang on.
Then they say they're the ones who are good faith.
Well, if I could point to one, then you're all claims.
So I never make the all claim.
What I'm saying to you is that most, almost all women, almost all, not all, almost all, are incapable of doing roof work, incapable physically of doing it.
Okay.
And this is where I disagree.
Good.
Now we can get to the argument.
Okay, I think we could say, at least in my understanding of a roof work, I'm pretty sure most women could do it.
It's just not optimal.
It's not ideal.
It would probably be easier if a guy did it, but that doesn't mean women are incapable of doing roof work.
Or almost all women are running.
Doesn't women's body temperature regulate the same?
No, I think women run slightly colder.
They have trouble in heat.
Yeah, but it doesn't mean that it's not possible for them to do roof work.
But wait, not possible for most of them to work in extreme temperature conditions.
I'm sorry.
Is it the same temperature all the time when it comes to your roof outside?
It makes it worse because of heat regulation.
So women have a harder time heating up and cooling down.
And so what happens is when you're doing something like roof work, for instance, you'll have a black tar that's laid under you.
And so even if it's 70 degrees outside, it'd be 110 degrees on the roof.
It's 110 degrees outside, 140 degrees on the roof.
What happens is women actually physically cannot deal with the regulation of temperature.
And because of their physiology, their muscular skeletal system is so small.
What ends up happening is they heat up even faster doing labor that men do, which takes them half the energy.
So it takes more energy for a woman to pick something up than a man.
Yeah, as I said before, it might not be optimal, but that doesn't make it impossible.
So even using your same example of roof work, what would end up happening is that instead of doing it like almost any time of the day or whatever, if we lived in a society of only women for whatever hypothetical reason, okay, what would have to happen?
Women would have to do it in different times.
No, it's not that I wouldn't do it.
Yeah, then show me a society where women ever fucking built anything and ever ran the fucking society.
And I don't want to hear some tribal Amazonian bullshit society that we look up.
And we find out that, nope, it's not some matriarchal society.
There is no society ever, ever in the history of any of all of mankind you can point to where there was a matriarchal workforce which took care of all of the infrastructure work for the society or even half or even 20% or even 10 or even 10%.
Has there ever been like a male society with no woman whatsoever?
No, obviously not.
Yeah, well, no, wait, we can.
Really, really?
Let me explain.
Let me explain.
Yeah, go explain.
So we have militaries, right?
Ancient militaries who often were off doing something for six, seven years in a foreign nation, right, with a mass unit.
And I'm talking thousands, right?
Sometimes tens of thousands, twenties of thousands.
That's a massive society in the ancient world.
All men, right?
For years at a time.
Yes, we can point to societies of all men regulating themselves, operating.
Yes, that is.
No, because I'm here.
That society would not be able to sustain itself in the long term.
They did sustain themselves in the long term.
No, I guess we have different definitions long term because all I'm thinking about is that there's literally no children in an all-male society.
Cross-generational.
Yeah, no, it would collapse.
What I'm saying is that no society can even do what those men did as soldiers for 10 or 12 years who are women.
They can't even do that.
It's not possible for them to even do it.
I don't know.
I think it's really interesting because when we look at parts of our history, even within the United States, when a shit ton of men, like the population of men, like decreased pre, yeah, because they were all at work, war, because they all basically went out.
It's not like things collapsed on themselves.
Like, no, that's because men were still here running things.
Yeah, no, but women could still, and maybe we just fundamentally disagree here, but women could still be in those positions of power and things would still work.
They weren't in the position.
No, but they could be throughout the world.
No, I don't think that they could be.
Okay, well, here we have a fundamental disagreement.
And that's what we're debating.
So let's get into the debate.
When all the men went off to war and women went and worked in the factories, they were putting screws in a fucking pack.
They weren't designing the bombs.
They weren't designing the grenades.
Do you think women aren't capable of designing bombs or grenades?
I think that they have extreme trouble with physical engineering because of their physical strength.
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you think that the mind, like, I'm just really curious here.
Okay.
Here, do you think there's a one-on-one on physical strength and like your mental capabilities?
No, of course not.
Of course not, right?
Yeah, what would that have to do with anything?
Okay, that has to do with everything.
So if you're telling me a woman cannot design how a bomb would be because she's not physically strong enough, there is obviously like a complete like collapse of reality.
That's what I said.
I asked you, is it possible for a woman to design?
What was my answer?
You said, because you're not strong enough, it would be difficult.
I said, with what field?
Applied what?
If you didn't say applied anything.
Yes, I said applied engineering was my exact words.
You're just not listening.
I am listening, and I'm pretty sure we can go back.
Go back.
I'll start with the video.
I'll tell you what.
I'll tell you what.
You buy in and out for the entire studio if we back this up and I said in applied engineering.
Okay, let's do it.
Let's do it.
Where's Brian?
Back it up.
If I said women have trouble and struggle physically with applied engineering, then you'll buy in and out for the whole studio.
Yeah, go for it.
All right.
How long ago?
This was only rewind it.
Minute and a half.
I think it's really interesting because when we look at parts of our history, even within the United States, when a shit ton of men, like the population of men, like decreased, yeah, because they were all at war, because they all basically went out.
It's not like things collapsed on themselves.
That's because they're still here running things.
Yeah, no, but women could still, and maybe we just fundamentally disagree here, but women could still be in those positions of power and things would still work.
They weren't in the position of the power.
No, but they could be throughout the world.
I don't think that they could be.
Okay, well, here we have a fundamental disagreement.
And that's what we're debating.
So let's get into the debate.
When all the men went off to war and women went and worked in the factories or putting screws in a fucking pack, they weren't designing the bombs.
They weren't designing the grenades.
Do you think women aren't capable of designing bombs or grenades?
I think that they have extreme trouble with physical engineering because you did not say physical applied engineering.
You said applied it.
There is a difference.
Physical is applied.
No, okay.
You said applied engineering.
Okay.
Go get the fucking in and out.
You can't weasel your way out of this.
That was it.
Go back 30 seconds or go back one minute actually right now.
I want to go further back.
No, no, I want to go now further back because he said physical applied engineering.
And I said I said physical engineering.
No, you said physical applied engineering.
And then you said, oh, I know.
No, listen, you're right.
I said, if I didn't say applied engineering, physical engineering is applied engineering.
Hey, I, there's a very, huh?
Okay.
It's fine.
I just need the in-and-out.
That's what I need.
There's a very...
You're not getting out of the in and out.
There's a very big difference between...
What is it?
Me having to physically build a bomb versus me engineering a bomb for physical use.
Can we agree with that?
Yeah.
Okay.
So you agree women are capable of like physically designing engineering.
What I said is that women have trouble with physical engineering, which is a lot of applied engineering, yes.
Okay.
I'm trying to phrase this.
Putting your hand on your face doesn't make you a better debate.
I know.
I'm frustrated.
It's a destinyism.
You got to stop.
Next to you, you're going to do the triangle.
Do the triangle hands.
There you go.
Yeah.
Okay.
Applied engineering.
I want to even say physical applied engineering.
And maybe, maybe I'm just wrong here.
Maybe we can Google the definitions.
There's a difference between design, right, and designing things for application and for use versus actually physically building those things.
Most engineering, and maybe, again, maybe I'm wrong here.
I'm open to being wrong, is focused on design.
It's not focused on me actually building those things.
That's somebody else's job.
That would be the person I'm talking about.
Okay.
You see the person who's specifically talking about design.
You can design a house, right?
Yes.
But somebody has to build the house.
Yes.
You're the designer going to build the house.
Yeah.
Okay.
So when I say that women have trouble with physical engineering, what I'm saying is that when they have to actually apply past the this is in my mind and build the fucking thing where you need the engineers to actually build it, they have a big fucking struggle with it.
Okay, but that's interesting because I asked you specifically, do you think women are going to have trouble designing bombs?
And I said no.
I said, but what they have trouble with is physical engineering.
Yeah, maybe my reality is being like lapsed or something with yours or something, because I thought you specifically said, yes, they're going to have trouble with it.
They do have trouble because of the physical application.
But these are two separate things.
Yes, but what I'm saying to you is that, listen, if you have women who are just there in an engineering, all the men are off at war, okay?
This was the point of this.
All the men are off at war.
And a woman designs a phenomenal bomb, like the bestest bomb ever.
Doesn't matter if she can't fucking build it or the other women around can't fucking build it if it requires the male engineers.
That's the point.
Okay.
Here's another thing.
It does require a level of strength to build things.
However, we also, and I'm saying machinery as if it's like this really complicated thing, but I'm talking about like simple like pulley or lever systems.
Ever since like humanity first could build things to get out of having to use their brute physical strength, they have.
And this has come to the advantage of both men and women who are capable of doing this.
I'm not saying men and women are one-on-one when it comes to physical strength.
Why haven't they been building shit forever?
They have.
They have.
Maybe not on the same.
I'll tell you what.
Name one single female invention.
I'm trying to think of what is it?
There's a specific tool in agriculture.
What's it called?
Let's Google it right now.
No, no, let's not.
Can you just name it?
No, I am going to name it.
No, no, no, name it.
You can't name a single one.
I can't.
You got to Google it.
Well, what is it?
You're just asking me about specifically.
You said women invent shit all the time.
What?
What are they inventing?
They literally specifically invented like a form of agriculture that had to do with like, what is it?
Oh, like rotational crop fielding, something like that.
Like that's the exact terminology or something.
Can you think of a tool?
I don't think you can even bring back the first tools to like man or woman.
Like I don't think you have like the first, like for the free, I can't think, I don't think it's fair to say the first beer was like built by a man or the first hammer.
Why not?
Because we have no evidence of that.
We just have evidence of humans using the film.
Yeah, we know who brewed the first beers.
There were monks.
Yeah, we don't know.
Yeah, but we're talking about very basic tools.
We're talking about tools that either a man or woman can do.
Now you're obstacating him.
No, I'm not obscuring.
Your claim was since the beginning of time when we figured out the pulley and the lever system, which I would say we probably had access to even from an evolutionary prism for like 50,000 years or more.
Sure, yeah.
If that is the case, this was not knowledge, which was just limited to men.
Okay.
So if that is the case, where's all these women building all these fucking societies knowing how to use that pulley and that lever system?
Because society, well, let's start here.
You do know that there are societies and that there were societies before Have to Google a single female invention.
I have female accomplishments from the top of my head, but regardless of that, separate from that.
Okay.
You do know there were societies that existed before the invention of like a concrete building, right?
You do know this.
Okay, cool.
You know what a nomadic society is?
There were?
Wait, wait, wait, cool.
They didn't have concrete buildings?
Yeah, cool.
So you know what nomadic society is.
Oh my god, debate over.
I concede.
You know, okay.
I didn't know that now.
You didn't know nomadic society.
There were societies which existed without concrete.
I know it's very hard to believe.
Go ahead.
So you know about nomadic societies, right?
Yeah, sure.
Okay.
So you know for like tens of thousands, if not a lot more years, the way that humans lived for the mass vast majority of societies humans lived in were nomadic societies, right?
Yes.
That's just yes.
So wait a second.
We're not sure.
Here's why.
We do know that we had civilizations up to 10,000 years ago, real civilizations that had governments and writing and sophisticated individuals who ran inside those civilizations.
So when you say most of these societies were nomadic, I'm not sure because we've lost tons and tons of information on even the societies which existed 10,000 years ago.
There could have been great societies which existed before that.
Not sure about that.
Okay.
Not sure I'm willing to concede that most of them, even up to 20,000 years ago, were nomadic.
Okay.
At least according to most like modern anthropologists and even those beforehand, what seems to be when you use that tone like this, it actually doesn't help your case, but it is annoying.
Well, I want to maybe annoy a little bit because it's just my voice.
It's the destiny toad.
Why do you all do that anyway?
So we look at that.
And that that, right?
So when we look at most societies, I'm just going to keep doing it because we keep calling out, so it's harder to even like forget.
Basically, throughout most human history, we were nomadic creatures.
We would basically hunt and travel in groups essentially.
And then it usually became like once the agricultural or the first agricultural revolution came where we were like, oh my God, we could actually stay in this area.
We can actually grow things here.
We don't have to constantly move from one place to another.
Animal husbandry and all of this.
I don't know what this has to do with anything.
Because you're saying, oh, why weren't women essentially building like these intense architectural cultures?
They've had at least 10,000 years.
10,000 years of recorded history.
The fact is, we've had societies for, you know, tens of thousands of years that just weren't based on like having to have physical structure to function.
Like that's just it.
Like we like this came as that would be for men.
So what I'm saying is when we did, which is at least 10,000 years, at least 10,000 years, we've had standing buildings with structures that had some kind of government in them, this type of thing.
At least you would agree, 4,000 years ago, we had great structures, cities, nations, the whole nine yards, up to 2,000 years ago, which is a long fucking time.
2,000 years.
Where's all these fucking female invention civilizations?
Where's all these great contributions?
Where are they at?
Oh my gosh.
Okay.
What I want to say, or what I want to explain is that.
The ancient world stigmatized women.
Well, what happened was after the agricultural revolution, what it seems to happen is that men got more control of the agricultural supply.
So they gained more level and power in society to institute essentially societal rules.
So if you want to talk about like, why women haven't women done this or why women haven't done that?
Well, how come they couldn't just use their big brains to stop that from happening?
Post-agricultural revolution?
Like, yeah, part of the reason is men did institute these systems of power in place that benefited them.
Because they're much stronger than women?
Oh, yeah, partially because of physical force.
Well, wait, what would we do?
Sorry, no, let's go for it.
Let's go for it.
Yes, physical force.
Physical force because they're much stronger than women.
But that doesn't mean that society was always predicated upon brute physical force.
Because as we've seen before, we've had nomadic societies.
It is predicated on brute physical force.
Physical force.
Okay.
Sure, we could talk about that.
Yeah, let's talk about that.
So this is what we were leading into anyway.
I need to clarify.
Okay.
You're saying, oh, you know, this is just how it is.
This is just how it be.
And I'm trying to say, no, there were, you know, tens of thousands of years before modern-day civilization where we still existed in a society without brute physical force essentially.
Nomadic societies.
Nomadic societies use brute physical force all the time.
Okay.
Nomadic societies as a whole were not predicated on this idea of like, oh no, like men have all this 100% control over women.
What it seemed to be is that we would hunt and gather.
When you say seemed, I need you to take a stronger position than seemed.
See, seemings, seemings are frustrating to me because that's a, I'm not really committing to this.
I'm just saying, I think so, maybe.
So without using the word seem, are you willing to commit to that position?
I'm willing to commit to the fact that the way that early human society formed and was structured was basically around, you know, like nomadic principles of essentially always moving, hunting in packs as groups together, taking care of children together, like basically wandering around the globe in the pursuit of like, you know, yeah, but civilization's predicated on force.
You agree with that?
Yes.
I would say after, yeah.
Okay.
Including this one.
We're talking about modern civilization.
Yes.
Yes.
Okay.
Well, modern being whatever civilization is.
Agricultural stationary.
Post-volume.
Post-agricultural revolution.
Yeah, so that's all predicated on physical force.
Somewhat, but I'll say yes for now.
Okay, so men have the monopoly on this force?
Not anymore, but they did.
How do we not have a monopoly on force now?
What happened was essentially with the invention of modern weaponry, which became like essentially like a great equalizer.
And not just modern weaponry, but also the ability, I guess, I guess we couldn't say bombs are a type of modern weaponry.
You realize modern weaponry still requires physical strength to use.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that.
But the point is, if I have a gun and you don't, you're foxed.
Yeah, but what if you have a gun and I have a gun?
Yeah.
The problem is not everybody is strapped all the time.
Yeah, but that's been difficult.
No, it does matter.
It does.
100%.
It does.
I can demonstrate this for you.
Okay.
It does matter because if I had a gun in this room right now, it would make me basically this czar of violence or whatever.
Well, you would be disadvantaged compared to men who had them.
Maybe.
Well, here's how I can demonstrate this.
I know you're going to talk about recoil and stuff like that.
Nope.
I'm just going to talk about a basic statistic.
Okay, so women have their guns taken away from them in physical altercations where they're defending themselves at like 10 times the rate that men do.
Okay.
So which means that they 10 times the rate, right?
But let's just say it's just double.
Or let's just say it's just, I don't know, half again.
They're still at a disadvantage to men even when it comes to having weapons.
Yeah, there is.
So men still, so even if you use the weapons as being a force multiplier, men would still have the advantage.
There is a multitude of factors that are going into co-inflating in here.
So, right, when it comes to women getting their weaponry taken away from them, it could be argued that, okay, maybe it's because women aren't necessarily socialized to shoot, per se.
Because they're not as strong as men.
And so they're not as strong as men, but because women are taught to be very nurturing.
That's fucking insane.
Look, I'll demonstrate it for you really easy.
I think you're going to have to concede this point.
If not, I don't even know where to go from there.
If a woman who is not you, but has the same amount of firearms training that you do, is twice as strong as you.
Wow.
What a gross misunderstanding of history.
No concept at all of where our foods come from.
Try and go kill a cow with some stone tools.
Princess, how is that not brutal?
Well, that's that's true.
Well, that's the part of the force predicate, but we're getting to it.
If a woman who was not you, but had the exact same amount of weapons training that you did, was twice as strong as you, would she have an advantage with weapons over you?
She had more training?
Same.
But she was more stronger than me.
She was just double your strength, but had the same amount of weapons knowledge.
Would she have an advantage?
She's faster than me?
She's just stronger.
I'm not sure.
Would she have an advantage over you if she was armed and you were not versus you were armed and she was not?
She was armed, I'm not.
Yes, if she's armed and you're not.
She would have an advantage over me.
And if you were armed and she was not, right?
That advantage, well, you would have the advantage from the gun, right?
Yes.
But she would have an advantage over you if you were unarmed, right?
If I was unarmed, yeah.
So think of it this way.
In this situation, if you had a gun and she did not, she would have more of an advantage than if she had a gun and you did not.
You see what I'm saying?
So it would still, her chances of being able to disarm you would still be better than your chances of disarming her in the same situation.
Yeah, the question becomes essentially who shoots faster and more accurate if they're fighting.
Well, fast is a matter of strength as well.
Guns require great hand strength.
You don't believe me?
No, it's not that I don't believe you.
I'll tell you what.
Let's do this.
Walk me through loading a semi-automatic handgun.
I'm not going to walk you through loading a semi-automatic gun.
Okay, walk me through loading a revolver.
I'm not going to walk you through loading.
Walk me through loading a revolver.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
I'm not going to walk you through anything.
Okay, what I will tell you is that if we look at Olympic levels.
I'm not done with the inquiry, and then you can ask me yours.
Can you walk me through loading a rifle?
I'm not going to talk to you about that.
Have you ever even used a gun?
Yes, I've used a gun with you.
What kind?
I've used a pistol and rifle before.
What kind?
I'm not, I don't remember the exact kind, but that's none of this questioning has to do with the basic of what we were trying to get.
Oh, no, I think that it gets right to the core principle of the force monopoly.
What you're trying to do is that you're trying to essentially flex.
I have more, you know, knowledge on specific gunnery.
I don't care about that.
What I care about is the force monopoly and your misunderstanding of it.
No, because what I am trying to convey here is very simple.
When we look at even like Olympic style athletes, Olympic shooting, top of the top, they're thinking about getting rid of individual gender categories because guess what?
Men and women are shooting essentially almost exactly the same rate.
That's because they're using 22s.
Okay.
The point being.
Yeah, if they were using 50 caliber BMGs, you would have gender categories, I promise.
Okay.
The point being is that when it comes to weaponry, When it comes to great force equalizer, unless if we are living in a hypothetical world where everybody is strapped all the time, which they are not, the person usually, even though there are exceptions, there are cases you can wrestle out the gun from the person's arm, whatever, like that does happen.
The vast majority of time, the person who has the gun is at a ridiculous advantage.
And who has all the guns?
Both men and women have guns right now.
Who has the most overwhelming majority, not even close?
Yeah, okay.
Who is it?
Which one?
No, you're going to be like, oh, you see, men have a lot of guns.
This is your case for force multiplication.
My case for force multiplication is one, men can build guns.
Women don't seem to be very competent at building guns.
We've had 3D tech for an awful long time to just build your own.
They don't do it.
I'm not ever incapable of building it.
Well, when you say that, right?
What's your demonstration that they are?
That most women are capable of even building their own gun.
I think because, very simply put, and we can Google the instructions of like how to build a gun.
It's something that most people who have the knowledge and the schematics to do can do.
It's not something that is like, oh, no, you have to be at least six foot five to be able to build a gun.
Like that's not the case.
Why do you think it is that women don't really ever build them?
I think women are usually trained from a young age to not really be into stuff that are violent.
I think that's generally the case.
Wait, that's weird.
There's nations in which women have to do mandatory military service.
They're still not.
But even in nations that have mandatory military service, there's still very specific roles that we generally push women and men to do.
So how do you think that right now in modern society that men don't have the monopoly on force?
How do women have any sort of comparable monopoly on force to men?
What is it?
The monopoly of force.
Even if you say like, oh no, men in general have more guns, therefore they have more monopoly on force.
Well, they have the Monopoly on force from physical strength.
Yeah, I think it's also like...
Physical strength and the ability to produce things that make them even more powerful.
Yeah, I think even the way that you're conceptualizing monopoly of force is, I don't want to say gross misrepresentation, but a little bit.
Here, let's phrase it this way.
Okay.
How do you think war or oh, I think I know what I'm going to get to?
Oh, whatever.
Okay.
You are equating the ability to use brute force to the ability of power.
Or you're saying power essentially comes from the ability of being like physically, physically powerful.
Yeah, no.
That's where we have a fundamentally disagreement.
Okay, so no, so powerful people don't rely on enforcement.
Powerful people don't just rely on brute force.
No, no, that's not enough.
Wait, wait, wait, let me finish.
That wasn't what I said.
I know, you said on enforcement.
And what does enforcement rely on?
Multiple different things.
One of them, one of them, I'll grant you, one of them is physical.
Lol Paladins donated $100.
It's the same reason there are no women Navy SEALs.
It's not because their co-workers will teach you.
It's because we don't want women to be in the Navy.
It's not because Pixie over here couldn't walk me through how to load a gun.
It's because the stigma against women in the Navy is preventing them from completing basic underwater demolition training.
Let's focus.
All right, I'm focusing.
One of the ways to enforce power is through brute force.
That is one way.
No, all power is going to have enforcement.
All.
Yeah, but there's different types of enforcement.
Okay, but all of it's going to reduce to brute force.
I disagree.
Okay, give me a power dynamic that's not going to reduce to brute force.
Let's say you have a person, a guy who doesn't want to pay child support or whatever.
You can have the state throw him into physical jail, whatever.
Or if he's doing his job, he's going to work, you couldn't have a social agreement with a job, essentially, to garnish your wages.
So that is an agreement that technically there's no physical force involved.
Oh, wait.
You can just say.
That's really weird.
What happens if the guy who's paying him says, ah, I'm not going to do that?
Yeah, in a theoretical world, that could result in the problem.
Yeah, what if he says that?
no no no it's not theoretical you're you're you're looking don't go let me finish answering the question You're missing the force.
Let me finish answering the question.
They're asking the question, then you can answer it.
What happens in your scenario?
This is your scenario.
Guy A, who is the payer, right?
And he is paying X to the state says, ah, you know, I'm not going to give it to you.
Let me change my scenario.
What happens to him?
You changed my scenario.
Yeah.
Well, because everything else.
Wait.
The thing that makes your scenario work implicitly is force.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Let me finish that.
Then why would anybody pay it?
Because maybe, you know, we socially agree.
The payer is like, wow, I think it's really fucked up.
That guy isn't paying his child support.
You know, I agree with you.
I'm going to garnish his wages.
That's not, he's not physically.
So it's a social agreement.
So wait a second.
I agree with you that two people can make an agreement external force.
However, any agreement that they make, if there's a violation of it, it's going to require force, no matter what.
But we have clear.
Which means everything that is the pinnacle of what you're talking about, any of the social contract bullshit you're talking about, physical contracts you're talking about, any contract you're talking about, if there's a violation of it, you're resorting to force.
Yeah, but what the point that I'm trying to get across is that I literally, I quite clearly listed an example where it is possible to enforce something without physical force.
Nope.
Physical force is implicit.
No, there's no implicit thing.
The person doesn't have to garnish his wages.
The person can be like, no, you know what?
Take him to jail instead or whatever.
You could theoretically.
That would be force.
Yeah, no.
But the point is, again, I think you're missing the forest.
No, I think you're missing the forest of the trees.
All of that requires force.
No, because the point is, you could theoretically have an example where none of it required force.
The person just had to.
You give me that example.
I literally just gave it to you and you're like, no, there's an implicit.
Because the example here of consent, of wait a second, we can make a contract with each other.
And as long as we both follow the contract.
It's not even a contract.
It's just an agreement.
An agreement's a contract.
No, but a contract basically presupposes that there's going to be some level of, what is it?
Terms, essentially.
You get this.
I get this.
And if the terms get violated, then, you know, then whatever happens.
There's force.
So the thing that gives that contract validity.
You can have an agreement with a person that, you know, but you basically get you what you want without any implicit threat of force.
You could literally have the person.
The point is that the person then police would have to have to enforce it.
They would have to.
Yeah, the problem is that you're not going to be able to get your argument.
I'll steel manage the argument.
And instead of spurging and screaming, just like listen to what I'm saying.
I love spurging.
I know, and screaming.
But instead of screaming, like, don't be the screeching feminist for a second.
I love screeching.
Okay.
Yeah, to steal, to steel man.
Lol Paladin's donated $100.
Perfect example.
She can agree to buy you in and out by making a bad bet contract.
But without force, she isn't ever going to activate.
I don't think she's going to.
That's the problem with banned contracts without force.
So the thing is, is I'm going to agree to this principle.
The agreement of the principle is that if I agree or enter into an agreement with you of any kind, any kind, and I hold up my end of the agreement, you hold up your end of the agreement, we can have something where there's no force.
But what I am going to say is that there's an implicit underlying kind of thing here, which is saying if you don't agree, because otherwise why would we need agreements, or if you change the agreement, there's going to be some kind of repercussion.
Otherwise, why would you even need an agreement in the first place?
So if I say to you, okay, we're going to take this guy's fucking money.
I agree with you.
I'm going to garnish this wage.
I'm going to give it to you.
Great.
You're right.
There's no force at all that's applied there, but there is the threat implicitly of force.
If I suddenly say, ah, I changed my fucking mind, right?
Now it's, okay, now there's going to be a repercussion.
So I still think that that's forced doctrine.
I'm not sure you've given me an example where it's not force doctrine.
Do you think we can have, let's say, in this theoretical society or whatever, you as an employer have either the right to agree with me or you can say, oh no, you know what?
You're going to have to take it up with him instead or individually through the state, whatever.
As an employer, I'm going to choose to step away from this and not, you know, touch his wages or whatever.
Such a society could exist, right?
Where an employer opts to not deal with the state in a basically, oh, when it comes to like garnishing their wages, you know what?
Instead of me doing it, instead of me doing it, go to the bank instead.
The first route would be.
Yeah, I guess the guy could exit himself from this entire situation.
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
So in such a society where that is an option, there is no implicit threat of force for you not agreeing with me or yeah, for you deciding to not garnish your agreement.
Because there hasn't been any agreement.
Yeah, no, but you could say, hey.
So yeah, I guess in a society in a society where you make no agreements.
Well, no, that's literally not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that you could easily have a society where, you know, you disagree with me.
You're like, yeah, that guy fucking sucks.
I'm going to garnish his wages.
Don't worry about it.
No, that society would still need force.
Yeah.
I'm not saying this.
I'm giving you an example.
I'm giving you a society.
Yeah, I know, but even in this specific example, it sure seems like the implicit threat of force.
Well, no, I'm telling you literally, hey, you know what?
Like, we can basically institute this rule without any force.
And then if you decide to step away from it, I'm not going to put a gun in your head and say, no, you have to garnish your wages.
I have to go to the bank instead and do an agreement with that.
And maybe that might involve force.
But the point that I'm trying to get across is this is one example where we're able to institute a change without any force or implicit threat of force because you don't have to say yes to me.
In order for you to be capable of having a society which even exists where you're allowed to have an agreement with somebody that they can back out of and then you have to go external, you would have to have protectors of that society, right?
Oh, yeah, sure.
And would those protectors be like armed military guys with vests and fucking helmets and tanks and bombs and you have to have an enforcement arm?
That wasn't the original question, essentially.
No, the original thing was that society has all societies operate off of force doctrine and men have the monopoly on force.
And all you've done is demonstrate that that's true.
The argument that you were originally presupposing or supposing, whatever, was that it is not possible to basically exert power without physical force.
And I gave you an example.
Yeah, that's not exerting power.
No, yes, it is.
There's an implicit threat of force there.
No, but I literally gave you an example where you were not threatened by force.
How could you, for instance, how could you lead a community, an entire community of hundreds of people, absent a force doctrine?
How could that even be done?
That's not what is it?
That was not the original.
Well, that's power.
That's exercising power.
Okay, that's not what we were originally talking.
Well, that's basically you're extrapolating to a larger example because you can't contend with the fact that I did give you an example where no physical force had to be involved to execute the personality.
It was implicit in the contract itself.
We literally disagreed that the person was not implicitly threatening that they could say, I don't want to, and it would have to go back to the corner.
Person Back somewhere else.
Okay, person B can back out of this entire arrangement and use no force.
Yes.
Don't disagree.
However, that still leaves with person A who wants the child support, person C who wants to support the support.
Yes, and that might involve force.
Stop.
I'm not sure.
Stop.
Okay.
So person A still exists.
He still wants support, still wants to get it from personal C.
We still have force.
All you've done is say, if you back away from making an agreement of any kind socially with anybody, you don't have to worry about force doctrine.
Okay.
So what?
That's not an exercise of power.
In fact, the power dynamic here is the collector.
He's the guy who has the power.
The guy he's trying to collect from does not have the power.
So guy A still has, still has the power and is still exercising force.
First of all, and now the example that you just gave me of guy A garnishing the wages, therefore he has the power.
That's also an example where it's not physical force, where he's using physical force.
He's using essentially money or like the ability to like give money to leverage his power, which is another example of power not necessarily needing physical force.
Okay, listen, let's go through this scenario again.
Guy A, he's our collector, right?
Guy A is collector.
Guy B is our middleman.
You agree, right?
Our middle guy, he's the guy you're collecting from.
And then guy C, he is our agent we're taking from.
Okay, so we'll call him, well, we won't call him agent.
We'll call him victim.
Okay, so he's our victim.
So our collector goes to our middleman and says, I want C's money.
Okay.
And B agrees.
He's like, great.
I'll give you C's money.
I don't give a fuck.
Right?
Now we've entered into an agreement.
Now guy B says, okay, I don't want to do this anymore.
You're saying that under the laws of the land, guy B can back out of that.
Guy A can give him no repercussions for doing that.
However, guy B was never the guy who had the power here to begin with.
He did.
He never garnished it.
Guy A was the guy who was collecting from guy B. Guy B only had the power to ever walk away from the arrangement, but had no power over the arrangement itself.
Guy A is still in power, still has force, can still go after guy C. Wait, that doesn't make any sense.
That's the only thing that makes sense.
Guy B obviously still has power because he obviously could garnish the wages.
He obviously has the ability to monetize and control someone.
Guy A. Pass me another thing.
Absent, absent guy A. Guy B is not garnishing shit, right?
Oh, okay.
I don't see that.
Guy A. Guy A is absent.
Guy A, guy B isn't garnishing anything, right?
Okay, you're saying collector, middleman, and then our victim.
And the middleman is the one who can garnish.
No, no, no.
Guy A is asking middleman to garnish.
And you're saying the middleman doesn't really have any power.
Because the collector who's approaching him, he has the power in the situation because he's saying, even if you move away from this, I can still just directly go after guy C. Guy B, just because he agrees to work with guy A, doesn't actually have the power in this situation.
I fundamentally disagree here because what?
Yeah, no, we do.
On what?
Because the middleman has the ability to garnish or not garnish wages.
That is a form of power.
Okay, but being able to execute financial control over someone is a form of power without force.
This is the opposite.
Guy B, if he disagrees, what happens to him?
Nothing happens.
That's what we've established here.
And so then guy A just bypasses him and goes for guy C, right?
Yeah, it finds a different way to.
So how did guy B ever have power here?
Because guy B can decide whether to garnish the wages.
And by the way, if you were, let me ask you this.
If you're guy A, right, and guy B can tell you no and you can just directly go after guy C, why would you use guy B?
Because, as we've stated before, there's forms of executing power that don't include brute force.
So brute force might be the last option.
It might be not the most reliable option.
You know, there's a chance the other guy might fight back.
That's why we have so many forms of power in our society that don't rely on brute forces.
What?
I can't really think of it.
Money is the biggest one.
Money is the biggest reinforcer.
Money is the one that is like most easy to control and manipulate other people.
Utilizing incentives, right?
I agree that you can accumulate some kind of power, which is then going to have to have some kind of enforcement arm to keep no matter what.
There's no power dynamic I can think of that's not going to require some kind of force or enforcement.
Even you getting divorced is going to require enforcement.
Even you having child custody is going to require enforcement.
You driving down the street requires enforcement.
You sleeping at night requires enforcement.
Everything you do has an enforcement arm behind it.
Yeah, I think what we're, or maybe our major disagreement, or I'm not even sure anymore, but basically there are forms of executing power that don't rely on brute force.
Now, if you don't get what you want, now if you don't get what you want, you might eventually end up doing brute force.
But there are still ways of controlling other people that don't involve a gun to your head.
I'm not saying that you can't make incentive programs or agreements which people can follow or that people will volunteer for.
What I'm saying is that there's no power dynamic that I'm aware of where force is not implicit.
If the contract is broken or I can't use money or I can't get you to agree, then we use force.
Otherwise, we would have no criminal element.
We just bribe them out of being criminals, right?
And you can't do that.
You can't bribe everybody out of being criminals.
You got to still, because no matter what, even in your communist socialist utopia where everybody's singing fucking kumbaya and they're all, you know, playing guitars around trees, there's going to be some fucking element there, which is going to require enforcement no matter what.
Yeah, I think.
And who are those people going to be, do you think, for the most part?
Men or women executing that enforcement?
Yeah.
It's basically the people who hold weaponry.
So if the vast majority, yeah, no.
Oh, it's the people who hold weaponry.
Yes, it is.
Because as we've stated before, for the vast majority of cases, even though, yes, women might be more likely to get wrestled out, it doesn't matter because the vast majority of cases, the person who holds a weapon is a person with advantage.
So let me ask you a question.
Let's assume for a second that you were in charge of a prison, right?
Each one of your prison guards, they have a weapon, right?
In this case, a fucking club.
And some of them who sit up in the guard towers, they have rifles.
That's true.
Okay.
And what their job is, is to make sure that this collection of really, really strong fucking men who are in there for a variety of very violent crimes, they were kept under control and guarded day and night.
You could choose the most qualified security team possible for this.
The women are just as trained as the men as prison guards, right?
They have the exact same amount of training, the same skill set.
Would you go with all women or all men?
This is, okay.
Obviously.
This is okay.
It's not an argument.
No, no.
No, to me, this is just, what is it?
The deflection, or I'm not sure if deflection is the right word.
The point is, as we've stated before, when it comes to brute physical strength or even weapons that matter.
Let me finish.
Even weapons that do include a greater amount of strength.
They're not great.
Yeah, but no, there's a huge difference between me having to sway around like a javelin or something.
Let's use something like that as an example.
Versus me, but it still just requires a level of strength, but being able to shoot somebody from across the room.
Oh, really?
So you don't have to carry ammunition, magazines, tactical vests, a sidearm, helmets.
You don't have to carry hundreds of pounds of equipment with you while you're using these things.
The point is, it's when the bullet goes through you, the children.
No, that's not the point.
Yes, it is the point because the vast majority of people, once that bullet fucking goes through you, you're going to be down for the guns.
Which sex is more capable of handling these weapons?
And so thus we'll always have a monopoly even with weapons.
When it comes to weaponry itself, let me finish my turn.
Inside of a prison, for instance, you have guards who hold mini 14s.
Okay, mini 14s do require some strength to wield accurately.
And you're going to be loading up fucking magazines.
It takes a lot of hand strength.
Even sees the pagan donated $100.
See is hung up on enforcement doesn't mean exclusively physical force.
If you get a speeding ticket, the courts have the enforcement power to compel to pay.
Refusal then brings involuntary compliance.
That is physical force.
So actually, that is a physical force example.
If you refuse to pay, we're going to use physical force to make you pay.
But here, what I'm talking about inside of a prison, you think that guns themselves are just up.
I have this light weight little tiny gun.
Well, what are you trying to say?
No.
What I'm trying to say is that for the vast majority of people, if a person is weaponless and another person has a gun, specifically a gun, the person who does not have anything is at a disadvantage.
Yes, but I don't even disagree that that's a good thing.
Sorry in advance, but all women understand this.
I'm a big, strong man.
I want Pixie.
The only thing keeping you safe from me is force.
Right.
Sleep comfortably tonight because force is protecting you from me.
Okay.
Yeah, so here's the thing.
I'm going to give you these two scenarios to try to take this to its logical conclusion as fast as we can.
All the gun distribution in the United States right this second overnight, okay, disappear from the hands of men and are redistributed to be redistributed to all women in the United States.
They now have every gun inside of the United States.
That's what they have.
The men have zero guns.
They have none.
Not a single one.
Okay?
And the women collectively decide we're going to enslave men.
Okay?
That's what they decide.
They have all the guns.
They should be able to enslave all the men, right?
No, I don't think so.
I think, well, I don't think it's the other way around either.
I think there's a reason.
Triangle.
I'm doing the triangle.
Reason why, even what most, oh, yeah, there's a reason why even most patriarchy of patriarchal societies fall down, even if men do have the monopoly of violence in those areas as well.
And the reason why is because the way that warfare patriarchies are falling down, they're doing fine.
I don't know.
Well, do you think the United States is the same patriarchy it was 100 years ago?
It's never been, it was a republic from the gate.
Okay, do you think a patriarchy and republic are fundamentally opposing?
I thought it can be, yeah.
But what I'm saying is that this wasn't set up as a traditional patriarchy.
This was set up as a weird, kind of bizarre Protestant enlightenment experiment.
Yeah, has a patriarchy ever fallen down before?
Well, yeah, but there's only ever been patriarch.
There's never been no matriarchies.
I'm not saying it has to be matriarchy then.
I'm just saying it's a good idea.
So I mean, if the pool is 100% and some of them fall off, I don't even know how that would be.
I'm saying it goes from a full-on patriarchy to basically a much more egalitarian society compared to before.
I don't know that you can even avoid patriarchy.
I have fundamental disagreements that a society can even exist really absent a patriarchy.
But let's get back to this.
Wait, sorry, can I say that?
No, you can't.
I'm not going to let you deflect.
Why is it that the collective of all women inside of the United States, if they had firearms and decided to enslave men, why is it that they couldn't?
I don't think either way, maybe temporarily.
I think that's a good idea.
I mean, definitely men could do it.
No, I think what again.
I can give you societies right now where they've done it.
Yeah, no, please let me finish.
Okay.
I think it would be possible temporarily to enslave maybe the other half of the population, but the way that most warfare works out is not even brute force, brute strength.
There is, I'm going to give you an example.
Okay.
The United States in the 60s against the Viet Cong, the average American was a lot better nutritioned, stronger, even the scrawnier ones, whatever, than the average Viet Cong person.
That is incorrect.
I do not believe that's incorrect.
Not only is that set up right now.
Yeah, go ahead.
Here.
So the Viet Cong operated on a fish-rice diet.
They were extremely strong.
They were very lithe.
And they were able to operate for way longer periods of time absent food than the American soldier was.
They were not weaklings by the metric.
I didn't say they were weaklings.
I'm saying that, yeah, it did not seem like the nutritional standard was necessarily the same.
It was better.
I don't know about that.
Rice and fish?
Can you guys go?
Are you serious?
Rice and fish?
That's like the staple for how these people live to 120 years old.
Regardless, we could use another example.
Okay.
We could say the average American soldier versus the British Army.
That's another example.
You mean when?
In the 1800s, like when we were, or sorry, before 1800s.
You mean in the 1700s or the Revolution?
1700s.
Yeah, the British were way, way better.
They had way better nutrition.
Men couldn't cook.
Yeah, and we still somehow won.
What?
Because of the French?
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
It had nothing to do with it.
No, not just that.
Not just that.
But also because of the warfare that we were doing specifically.
And we could not just like make sure that.
We lost every major battle in the war almost.
The only reason we ended up winning is because the British were fucking sick of sending troops all the way to fucking North America.
And that was it.
It was a vast ocean.
There wouldn't be a British colony.
What is that?
I'm pretty sure there were various battles the United States won, significant battles.
Regardless of the fighters, but I'm saying that almost in almost every engagement, let me finish.
Let me finish.
But in almost every engagement, the British soldier was better trained, better equipped, better outfitted, and had better nutrition.
And they won the vast majority of the conflicts.
Yeah, I don't, I'm not 100% sure if that's true.
That's true.
I also don't think they won basically.
The militia, they couldn't get two shots out of the fucking water.
Let me finish.
Let me finish.
They couldn't get two shots out of the militia.
To my understanding, or to what I remember from reading in history, the way that warfare was carried out between the British and Americas was something that they were not necessarily used to because the American people at that time used what we would essentially modern day called like guerrilla warfare tactics.
That was highly ineffective.
No, guerrilla warfare is known for being super freaking effective.
It was not during that time period.
Here's why.
I'll explain to you why.
Can I just finish talking about guerrilla warfare for one second?
Even though in this particular case you brought up, it's not really a very good example.
But I'm not sure.
Oh, yeah, the Native Americans were great at guerrilla warfare too.
What happened to them?
Yeah, no, but it seems like a lot of Native Americans died because of straight-up disease more than anything else.
I agree.
It seems that when it comes to guerrilla.
I don't know about that seems.
Can we make a committed statement?
Yes.
Guerrilla warfare tactics are highly effective, especially against traditional militaries for a variety of reasons.
The point that I'm trying to get at is that modern warfare is not even 100% like brute physical strength, even machine strength, not necessarily.
Which I'm sure that we could agree that the Americans, at least in terms of like machinery, were much better equipped than the Viet Cong.
Nope.
Okay.
They were better equipped in some ways.
They had helicopter tactics, but they also had... Agent Orange, they had...
They also had M16A1s.
These were invented by Eugene Stoner, and they didn't fucking work.
And the Viet Cong and the Vietnamese running around with SKSs and AK-47s had an advantage for two years of the war because of that.
So, no, our weaponry was sub-par going into the war from an infantry standard.
We went from Thompson's to M16s.
Terrible idea by Robert McNamara.
That aside, you don't even know what I'm talking about.
But here's the thing: no, let you nothing.
You're going to listen for a second.
I am listening because you're just trying to.
I'm trying to explain to you what this, you brought this up.
No, but yeah, you're not letting me finish my freaking sentence.
I was going to say.
Well, when you're done, then say, I'm done.
And then when I say two words, don't cut me off.
Okay, go ahead.
The point that I'm trying to get across is that it seems a lot of guerrilla warfare tactics, especially when it comes to like modern-day fighting, whatever, whatever, are highly effective.
And the reason for that being is that the way that warfare seems to work, or it seems to work a lot of times, is that, hey, if you're able to catch your enemy by surprise, if you're able to use subverted measures, if you're able to basically, yeah, catch them off guard, there is a tactical advantage to that.
So when you're talking about a society that's like, oh, let's say all the men now suddenly have the guns.
Are they going to be able to enslave women for eternity?
The answer is not necessarily because there are subvertive methods of fighting back that do make it impossible for, I think, any one gender to have a long-term forever, forever, for 100% in the future, complete control.
Okay, then we'll limit it even.
We'll limit it.
Do you think that if the United States, all of the guns went over to the women, okay, and none of them, no men now had guns?
None, okay?
These are just gone.
They wake up, their entire clients, all the magic.
Lol Paladins donated $100.
I won't let you besmirch the good name of Eugene Stone.
Absolutely nothing wrong with his rifle.
There was an inception.
The ammunition was popped.
Blame the military for poor draining if you must.
Much like women, lubrication is key.
Nope, that's not true.
Little Paladins, they...
They had the wrong ammunition for the gun, and it was, there's a whole tale of it.
You should read Robert McNamara's memoirs on it.
He really fucked things up when it came to the distribution of the M16.
But that aside, it doesn't matter.
Back to this.
The question is, all women wake up, they have all the arsenal of all of the men in the United States.
They're not looking to enslave them.
They're going to take them all out.
That's what they're going to do.
They're going to take them all out versus the opposition of men collectively wake up one day in the United States and they're going to take out all the women.
Do you think that women would be able to accomplish this?
I don't think either.
Yeah, no, they wouldn't.
I think that men could accomplish it.
I don't think men could accomplish it.
Okay, so tell me what the barrier would be if men collectively woke up tomorrow with the weapons that they have available to them right now and decided to wipe every woman off the face of the United States.
What would actually be the barrier there?
I think what would end up happening, like, God forbid, this is such a bleak scenario.
You'd probably end up having a shit ton of women doing, or men, whatever, whichever one you want to do, essentially like using guerrilla warfare tactics to fight against the other half.
So whether that means making like homemade bombs, whether that means, I'm not joking, the fucking Molotov cocktail.
Like, you don't have to laugh at me.
Do you think that women are going to be making pipe bombs in their kitchen while men are going walking around taking them all out?
No, I think, yeah, I think if we're going to create an absurd scenario where half of the population wants to actively kill the other population with guns, yeah, I think people are going to take extreme measures wherever they can to protect themselves and to fight against the other half of the world.
And so do you think that if men collectively had that will to do that, right?
That's all they wanted to do was just take out the other sex, right?
Would they accomplish that feat?
Or do you think that women would have a good fighting chance?
I don't know about a good fighting chance, but I think that there is going to be a percentage.
Well, I don't think it's going to be ever possible to completely holocaust the other gender just because in terms of not being aware of that word.
You know, you know better than that.
Wait, no, I mean, I mean, you would be purposely eliminated.
Yeah, I know, but don't use the word.
Just don't use the word.
Use any other word but that word.
Was it because of TOS?
Oh, sorry.
Yeah, yeah.
So anyway, so I understand they want to G-word the other sex.
I understand that you don't think that that's possible, but please engage with.
Yeah, I'm even engaging hypothetically.
I'm saying like even in these hypotheticals, I still think because of the number of women and men there are.
Lol Paladins donated $100.
Yeah, I know.
If men wanted to suppress women.
It's exactly what did happen in Afghanistan as soon as the U.S. left.
Yep, took away their rights.
And there's nothing they can do.
Islam is right about women.
Joking, maybe.
That's absolutely what happened.
Whenever men have collectively decided to take away women's rights, they don't have rights anymore.
That's it.
Hang on, hang on.
Before you make the, it's because, well, but long term, there could be social revolutions.
I'm going to go ahead and agree.
There could be social revolutions where you change men's mind.
That's why I'm asking specifically about intent.
Men's minds in this scenario can't be changed.
They have decided you need to be a second-class citizen forever.
And that's all they're ever going to think forevermore.
What could women physically do about that?
So what I wanted to bring up, or what I'm going to bring up, is that now these scenarios have fundamentally changed.
There's a difference between I'm going to try to G-word an entire population and I want them under my subservience.
Either way.
Yeah, no, there's fundamental differences here.
Then engage with both.
I don't care.
That's going to be the same answer either way.
No, because the fundamental difference here is that when it comes to the second one, you are forcibly trying to keep women alive to have them be the second-class citizens.
That is the scenario where you end up with basically women potentially, not always, but poisoning the shit out of men, essentially.
They're finding subservient measures.
Not subservient, basic, yeah, subservient.
Oh, no, not a couple of poisoned men.
Not just a couple.
I mean, there's a reason why it's hard to figure out the amount of women who are serial killers.
And when we even find them, the number is like extremely high.
It's hard to find out the number of men, too.
Well, it's a lot easier because men tend to use, I guess, like the brute force tactics versus poisonings tend to be.
We don't know how many men utilize poisoning, just like with women.
We don't know.
That's fair.
But the point is that when it comes to basically being subversive, trying to fight against systems of oppression, it doesn't always have to be done in terms of brute force.
There are other measures that people can take.
For example, poisoning, which could be very effective and can go a long time without being traced to help overtake status quo or even more explicit methods, but the point is they're not up to your face, like guerrilla warfare.
So if the G-word, if the men decided to G-word all women tomorrow, what do you, and they have the monopoly on force just in its current state, okay?
I would actually like to know if General Daisy, like John Connor from the ashes, rose like a fucking Terminator, right?
Terminator destroyer, and she's like, I'm going to lead you to victory.
I'm going to teach you how to smash those metal motherfuckers into junk, right?
General Daisy is the leader of the female army who's going to stop these fucking men from G-wording them.
What would General Daisy do?
Yeah, to be clear, I don't think in such a society, women will be able to overtake and put the status quo back in order.
I think they would have to live basically the rest of their lives essentially like in hiding.
Now let's reverse the role.
Yeah, I think the same said with men.
Yeah, you think that I, so here's what I would say.
I would say that if all of the weapons, all of the weapons, including the nukes, were handed over to women tomorrow collectively inside of the United States, and we had no access to any of that immediately, and women said, we're taking all the men out, I think we would win in three days.
Yeah, I think that's delusional.
Yeah, okay.
Well, let me tell you what I would base this on.
Okay, so day one, I think that men would grab chair legs and bars and things like this, and they would literally just run straight force at a few women, beat the tar out of them, take their guns, and then they would just continue the slew.
And I don't think women could do much about it.
I don't think if women were even going house to house, they could do much about it.
And here's why I think that.
Because I've seen trained officer after trained officer, right, try to subdue, even with lethal force, with firearms, men and watch them fail time and time and time again against just average guys.
They're not going up against UFC fighters.
They're going up against fat old dudes like me losing time and time again.
How is it possible that these highly trained women who have been learning all sorts of self-defense, subduance tactics, all of this, are losing to just randos.
No training, no nothing.
It's the brute force category, right?
I think there's definitely cases where, you know, women lose control, like we stated before.
I think there's also probably a vast more majority of cases where women are just either shooting or incapacitating the guy or killing him.
So just because there's some examples of women losing control doesn't mean, again, as we've stated before, the vast majority.
The vast majority of female officers have a hard time subduing male suspects.
It's not that they, the point is the vast majority of women with a gun, even with like a male suspect or whatever, if they use the gun, the male suspect is going to be hurt.
No, even in the cases where they're in for the purpose of lethal force, they still often get subdued and have their firearms taken away from them.
What is the exact percentage?
Because last time you said, or maybe I misunderstood when you said that.
I can pull up the exact percentages, but let us be highly charitable, highly charitable, and just say it's a lot more.
A lot more could be 10%, let's say.
It's probably way higher than that.
I don't know off the top of my head, but you would at least agree it's got to be at least 10%.
Just for the sake of this argument, let's say 10%.
Yeah, it's at least 10% of them more than the men who get subdued.
That's enough of an advantage.
I mean, that's really all you would need is 10%.
Yeah, I also.
Now, let's apply that also to the fact that most women, like you, couldn't tell me the process to even load a firearm.
So, even if their collective will, collective will, was all to take out the men, I don't think most of these women could even use the guns that magically appeared for them.
I think what would most likely happen is that if women collectively decided to want to get rid of men, and this is so dark, I'm like, I kind of don't, whatever.
They would probably wait until men are most vulnerable a week, which would probably ideally be while they're sleeping.
And I think they'd still lose.
Yeah, I don't think they'd still lose.
But this is my point, right?
Is that even if we take what you're saying at face value and that women could put up some kind of resistance, you have to agree that men overwhelmingly in this scenario would have a massive advantage in comparison to women in that scenario.
If that is the case, then you are agreeing that when it comes to force doctrine, men are always going to be superior at it than women.
The next thing that we just need to agree to follow.
You're saying that just because, oh, they might have a slight advantage at defending themselves, that means that men always have the advantage when it comes to forced doctrine.
They always have the advantage when it comes to force doctrine.
They're stronger.
That's all you need.
No, no, no.
But you're saying in terms of, if I'm talking about like, again, pure physical strength, sure.
But if we're talking about using like great equalizers, yes, even great equalizers.
We have a massive.
Did you see what happened with Trump when the assassination?
Did you see what the women did with her?
Okay, you're trying to use like emotional appeal to.
Okay, but let's focus.
Let's focus.
Okay, let's focus.
Okay.
Literally, even if there is a slight advantage to be able to defend yourself if you're a man, whatever, the point is for the vast majority of cases, the person with the gun wins.
Just because you are like 10%, whatever, more likely to defend yourself doesn't change the fact that nine out of ten times, you're fucked.
Okay, backing up, you do agree with me that you have to at least know how to use a firearm?
Sure, but people have, I mean, what is it?
You probably will injure yourself if you don't do it correctly.
But yeah, like people.
And you agree that ammunition weighs a certain amount?
Yeah.
Can you agree that guns weigh a certain amount?
Yeah, sure.
And you agree that you're disagreeing with that.
Some kind of equipment that you carry with you.
Yeah, but the point being is that even with all of that, you know, this isn't like a John Wick movie, whatever.
Most people, when they shot, they're down.
So even with all those additional stuff, if I shoot you, you have to be careful.
If you are down, you're fucked.
You have to be capable.
So guns can only work one-dimensionally.
You have to be able to point it at the target and be competent enough with it to actually hit the target, which is as easy to do as you think, by the way.
And the question becomes, does physical strength give you a massive advantage in that category?
And the answer is overwhelmingly yes, it does.
And the thing is, the proofs of this are innumerable.
Not just the military.
Let's take a look at the military training standards.
They have to consistently be lowered for women for everything from sharpshooting to accuracy to just basic infantry standards.
There's, again, still a vast difference, even with all of that into account, with a person who's armed and a person who's not armed at the end of the day.
Obviously, it's very different if we're equally armed, but if we're not equally armed and the other person is not armed, yeah, like even in the cases where you might wrestle it out in time or whatever, the vast majority of the time the person with the gun just wins.
So in this case, when you're saying force doctrine, you're saying that as long as women are armed sufficiently, they can have the monopoly on force.
I'm saying the monopoly on force doesn't rely on man or woman as much as it relies on who has weaponry.
Then why is it that all of the force jobs which exist are overwhelmingly men?
Yeah, we go back to a variety of different factors.
One of them, you know, men might be just more inclined or wanting to do those jobs.
The other one being, oh, you know, some level of discrimination.
The other one being, you know, yeah, I guess those would be the two biggest.
And you know, I could take that stigma argument and I would even agree with it, except for this.
Why do they have to keep lowering the standards in law enforcement for women and in the military for women for physical readiness?
Why do they have to lower the standard across the board in prisons for female readiness?
Why do they have to keep lowering the standards, lower standard, because they can't get enough women to qualify for the regular standards that men have to adhere to if it is just a matter of stigma?
Yeah.
And what I was trying to say before is that just because an institution tries to lower the whatever the requirements is trying to make it easier for women to be there doesn't necessarily mean the stigma is erased, right?
Stigma does not just come from an institution's rules.
Stigma usually comes from the overlying society.
But that would be proof that women could not adhere to the same standards as men when it came to physical readiness.
No, basically.
Or let me phrase it this way.
If I am, let's say we have a pool of women, right?
And let's say only a minority, minority of women, let's say only 20% of women are capable of meeting those standards.
Women.
Within these 20%, chances are 18% won't even apply and 2% will apply.
And maybe from the other people who won't even make it, the other 80%, let's say 5% apply.
Okay.
Now you have more women who are applying, but they can't meet the standards.
Very few who apply in can meet the standards.
But the vast majority of women from both of these camps are just not applying at all because, hey, like their family is not very into it.
They're more like scared for them.
Or their family is more like, no, you should focus more on child rearing or doing this other thing.
It would look better for you.
Like we would be happier if you did that.
That's where you get like screwy numbers, essentially.
I do agree the vast majority of the people.
But the lowering of the standards.
Okay.
No, I'm saying societal pressure exists at the same time.
Let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this question.
If there's a fire in your apartment, would you prefer that a 220-pound male firefighter came in?
Sure, I'm not disagreeing.
Men are generally stronger.
Hang on.
Or would you prefer that a 220-pound woman came in?
Oh, to my understanding, even with the same weight, it seems like men might have like, what is it, muscular?
Yeah, a huge advantage, right?
So you would still prefer that it was the man.
Yeah, sure.
And would you prefer that the people who guarded you while you were asleep by that same logic were men or women?
Yeah, if we're talking about brute force.
And if you're saying that your military is the people who are guarding you while you're sleeping, you would prefer them to be men then, yes?
Yeah, generally speaking, we're talking about brute force.
So then you're saying that even in your preferences, you prefer that men have a monopoly on force to even protect you in the first place.
What I'm saying is that if it comes to brute force, obviously I would take the person who's stronger.
Which is always almost men.
Not on average, on an overwhelming average.
Okay.
But the point that I'm trying to explain here.
I don't want you to like underplay it and say, ah, it's 51% to 40%.
The point that I'm trying to explain here is that if I had to pick between like a 220-pound man and like a 5-5 woman with a gun, I'd pick the 5'5 woman with a gun.
But if you could pick between the 5'5 woman with a gun or 5'5'5 man with a gun, which would you pick?
Yeah, sure.
I'll put pick the guy with the gun.
Right, so actually, I have one more question.
So this, hang on.
I'm saying that they're both exactly equal, right?
Not one is...
I'm saying that they have equal training only.
Okay.
I'm not ruling out their physiology.
That would defeat the purpose of the hypothetical.
Okay.
Because this is another.
And I mean, there's like a bunch of like different studies here.
And I know you said, oh, it's because they're using the same type of rifle, which I'm assuming they're using the same type here.
Because then, what is it?
That's where things get more complicated because it becomes a question of who's a more accurate and faster shooter, essentially.
Because that's.
So you would prefer the woman?
If she's a more accurate and faster shooter.
Okay, so just so that we have the man would still be stronger.
You agree with that?
Sure.
The man is stronger, but the woman's more accurate and faster.
So you would still go with the one.
Bovia's man slave donated $100.
Fixy, name two philosophers not named NEETs.
Derrida, Simone, Foucault, Marx, Satre, Engels.
Before we go.
That your free education grant asked you read.
That you chose to read yourself.
Hess isn't an answer.
Do you have a quick response to the TTS?
I can't read all the names that he described, but from the top of my head, I'm thinking Mills.
I'm thinking, I don't know if he mentioned that.
You could even go ancient, Socrates, Aristotle, if you want.
Of course, you went for the utilitarian first.
Yeah, that's one quick thing.
Andrew, you posed a question to Pixie that I don't think received a response and an answer.
The question was, it was a jail scenario, I believe, where you, if it could be all men or all women correction officers.
I don't think we got a response on that.
Oh, yeah.
Well, if you're in a jail and right, like I would not say batons are the same equalizer as a gun is, then you can.
You don't have to use batons.
You can have guns.
No, no, no.
So the question was, if you could have an all-female or an all-male correction staff, which would you pick?
And I think it was the same exact training.
Same training, same weapons.
Same weapons.
They could be guns.
If you had to pick one, which would you pick?
There's plenty of prisons that use guns.
And they don't even use batons hardly.
They use guns.
Are they the same level of, again, this all goes back to me?
Random.
They're just random correction officers who have the same exact training, same exact training with weaponry, same exact training for control.
Okay.
Just because you have the same exact training doesn't necessarily mean that you're the same levels, or maybe I'm here, you couldn't quantify for this for me or whatever.
Accuracy and speed.
Those are my number one concerns.
I'm going to even grant this and say that the women inside of this correctional facility with their firearms are more accurate than the men and slightly faster in the deployment of those firearms.
You would pick the women?
Yes.
And if the guys were more accurate and faster, because here's the deal.
You can't, you could try, but if you're going to go after someone and try to take their gun and they're a faster and more accurate shooter, good fucking luck, you know?
Like again, just like how this is in a John Wick movie, the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of people, once you shoot them, are fucking down.
That's just it.
So I would, my number one concern is accuracy.
Now, let me ask you this, this counter.
Yeah.
The prison, the prison inmates are very upset about the fact that there's a bunch of armed bitches running around this prison.
And they're like, yeah, you know, they are more accurate than the men, right?
I don't know to what degree, but let's just say twice as accurate.
And they're slightly faster than the men.
And so the prisoners go, yeah, but we don't fucking care because they're a bunch of women and way stronger than them.
Would it be easier for them to overpower those women, you think, than the men?
Well, the reason why I keep saying accuracy and speed is so important is because, yeah, they could try.
Well, I mean, how accurate do you need to be point-blank with a gun?
Not very accurate, right?
Yeah, but if they're basically, my concern about speed is just like, yeah, good luck wrestling the gun away if the person is like, kills you.
And do you think even in that scenario that women would have the advantage over less accurate and less fast shooters than women would inside of a prison environment?
Yes, I think the number one when it comes to guns, if you're accurate fast enough, nobody's going to be.
And how much easier would it be for men then to overpower those women?
Yeah, I think it would be substantially harder because they would do it.
Because they're just so quick, right?
Yeah, because even though they're only slightly faster than the men.
Oh, no, you said, what is it?
Or did you say?
They're way more accurate, but they're only slightly quicker.
Okay.
But even if we doubled their speed, do you realize when you quantify this, that what you're talking about is reloading a magazine from three seconds to six seconds?
That's speed, right?
That's speed.
When you're talking about accuracy, you're talking about the difference between hitting here and hitting there, which who gives a shit?
Who cares if I hit your button or I hit you in the neck?
It doesn't matter.
It's irrelevant.
The men are clearly going to have an advantage over the women in every aspect of this scenario.
Whether you give them melee weapons, you give them normal guns.
It wouldn't matter if they were less trained than the women.
Just the physical strength component of it alone is going to give them an advantage over women.
It's, again, you can be a 6'6 buff beefcake whatever.
If I have a gun and I shoot you before you can reach me, you're going to go down.
No, you do realize that men are less likely to go down than women are, especially if you shoot, even if you're shooting them center mass.
The vast majority of people.
You don't need the vast majority.
You only need a few.
Okay.
The reason why I say the vast majority is because I'm saying like on average, even a guy like that, most people on average are not going to be able to withstand a gunshot and keep going.
It's not the John Wick movie.
Now, let me ask you this.
You can invest in two prisons.
You can invest in two.
Prison one, they're going to hire female security or female prison guards.
Those female prison guards are going to fit this criteria.
Yes, they're going to be far less strong than their male counterparts, okay?
But they have been tested on the range.
And on the range, we have determined they do reload quicker and they are more accurate with shot placement than the men.
And then we're going to give them all guns.
They're going to guard the facility, right?
All females.
Another one, it's all males who have slightly lesser standards, like I said, or even significant.
They're way less accurate.
When they're aiming here, they hit you there instead.
And instead of a six-second reload, you know what I mean?
They have a 12-second reload speed, okay?
You can invest your life savings, but only in these two options.
Would you invest it in the female prison or the male prison?
One more question.
I'm sorry I'm being so specific about this.
It's In the earlier one, you said, oh, they're less likely to respect the woman, so they're more likely to revolt.
Is this the case here, too?
Well, no, I'm only giving you these qualifiers.
Okay.
And the qualifiers are it fits your criteria.
The all-female guards who are going to be guarding the most horrific rapist, murderers, and lunatics that you can think of.
But they're all going to be armed.
And it's going to be the same exact weaponry that the men have in a counter prison in this hypothetical.
In this case, the women do reload swiftly, right?
They can pull the trigger even faster than the men can.
And their shot placements are above par of that of their male calories.
I'll go with a woman.
I'm always going to put my money.
You would invest your money in the female prison.
Yes, I'm going to put my money where whoever is more accurate and faster.
Because good luck being as buffed as you want if I get to shoot you twice or even once in most cases before you get at me.
Now, do you agree that women for these jobs, you mentioned stigma, for a job like a prison inmate, would you agree that female prison guards for the same work probably make a slightly lesser wage?
Probably.
I don't know.
Yeah, probably.
So then how come somebody doesn't just make an all-female prison with these categories where they could pay these women way less of a wage?
Well, I think what we were probably describing before, I think maybe I'm wrong, but to my understanding, like they usually don't want people to result into lethal force, right?
We were talking about like in the examples you gave me, at least my understanding.
What do you mean?
There's prisons all over the world where they only use guns.
I thought we were talking about the United States.
But even, yeah, I thought we were talking about the game.
Even in the United States, there are maximum security prisons where there's guys on the walls with guns.
Okay, let me phrase it this way.
When you gave me the original scenario, what I'm thinking is, okay, like inmates are trying to escape, whatever, whatever.
Yeah, they would be trying to escape in these scenarios too.
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
In real life, usually you, well, first of all, usually I would say probably more men are applying.
I don't think women are very interested in being female guards.
Yeah, sure.
They're not interested.
That's why they're selecting.
They're selecting from this group, right?
Yeah, yeah.
I'm saying, like, you're asking me, why doesn't this play out in real life?
And I'm saying, like, okay, well, in real life, here's a couple of things.
There's not that many women interested.
Bovia's man slave donated $100.
Answer, what is an R. Have you ever shot?
What is the deadliest gun available?
I trained with a Judo Olympian who refused to train with men.
No lethal force.
Have you trained?
Are you more educated on it?
Anyways, I'm not trained.
We've established that I'm not shooting people, regardless.
Back to the original question that you were saying about the guards.
Why doesn't this happen in real life?
Okay, well, not as many women are interested.
That's a pool who are interested.
Yeah, I'm saying that.
You could definitely staff a prison with the selection of what is interested that definitely fits the criteria that you put from the quick.
Yeah, why couldn't you?
Because I don't think.
Why couldn't you go?
Why couldn't you go all around the United States to select for these guards, right?
And say, okay, we want to, we'll pay you a big bonus to come relocate over here and you can be in this all-female prison.
Just trying to go on that massive hunt across United States prisons to find the women who are the top caliber of shooting and accuracy.
Seems like a brilliant financial move.
No, it seems awful financially.
Why?
Because just a startup cost alone.
That's why all companies do this.
All companies scour the world for talent.
Google scours the world for a moment.
Yeah, Google.
Why wouldn't a prison system?
A multi-billion dollar company is very different than your local prison system.
Who's also trying to just probably an all-female force, right?
That I knew for sure I could pay less money than the male counterparts in a similar business around me, I'd be raking it the fuck in.
What are you talking about?
First of all, I don't think it would be substantially enough.
The level that you'd be paying them less would be enough to overset the onset startup cost of finding these women.
The highest cost in a business is payroll.
Yeah.
Like their startup costs.
You know, like a startup.
Yeah, that's what investors are for.
They're looking at the long game, 25 years.
They're not going to get a dime back for 25 years.
What do you mean?
Yeah, and these people also, it would not just be a one-time startup cost because women would obviously leave.
And you're trying to find not just any woman, you're trying to find the top, top, top caliber woman.
Not the top, top, top caliber.
Yeah, yeah.
All we're trying to do is find women who generally, right, can reload their weapons faster and do better shot placement than the women or than the men.
There's got to be millions of those.
Yeah, no.
Well, here, first of all, I don't know how many of those are prison guards.
First of all, as we've established before, I said, oh, the number is probably like pretty low.
Oh, there's tons of female prisons worldwide.
Tons.
Yeah, but how many prison female guards?
Well, I mean, how many would you need?
Let's say you needed 100.
He couldn't find 100?
Yeah, I think you would have to literally, again, as I stated before, spend a shit ton of money scouring for time.
You have to do that if it's all men.
No, I don't think most prisons are looking for top caliber men to be prison guards.
What are they looking for?
They're looking for people who meet the basic requirements.
Which is that?
They're fucking strong, right?
That they can, yeah, that they can't.
That they can manhandle inmates and that they can deal with the rigors of a prison.
In your case, you would staff your entire prison with women, even if we gave them these characteristics.
It seems like you're just trying to avoid the idea that even if you could find them with these characteristics and bring them in, right, and pay them less money, how would that be a bad financial decision?
You've already invested your life savings in such a prison.
No, the reason why is because I'm telling you the startup costs alone of finding those women.
And you're saying like this would have to be like a continuous thing.
So, you know, people would be dropping out, coming back in.
Oh, no, every business ever.
Yeah, I don't think what is.
I don't think in general, unless if you're a multi-billion dollar company like Google, you should be spending a significant amount of your resources scouring for like the number one talent or whatever.
You could get state funding.
It's going to be a small prison.
It only requires 10 male guards on staff day and night.
So you're rotating just 20 people.
That's it.
Okay.
But the state is, they want you to house the worst of the worst.
So they're giving you a larger stipend than they are anywhere else.
Yeah.
If that is the case, and you could cut down in your private prison the payroll cost, you can't revolve 20 fucking women.
I think, what is it?
When you're, you're acting as, first of all, the pay gap is so like exponentially huge, which I don't necessarily think is the case.
I think there might be a pay gap.
I don't think it's necessary.
This idea of you're not going into it because of the stigma also is reduced.
Yeah, it's reduced.
No, it's reduced a pool of possible applicants.
Let's start there.
Not much.
If it's just a tiny pay gap, right?
Well, because there's a difference, as I've stated before, between, let's say, an institutional stigma versus a social stigma.
So you can have a job that still pays pretty well.
It doesn't necessarily take away the social stigma of being part of that job.
Yeah.
So like, oh, let's use garbage people.
Yeah, I just want to make sure.
Yeah, let's, okay, let's use garbage people.
Yeah.
So when it comes to like garbage, let's say specifically like garbage men in New York, they get paid really well.
They get paid like bank.
But I would say that in our society, we don't really value people who pick up garbage.
I don't think that should be the case.
I think those people are very necessary and viral for a society to survive.
Are they a bunch of female garbage men?
I don't think it matters.
The point that I'm trying to get across here is that it's a clear example of something that can pay very well, but still has a social stigma attached to it.
Okay, but wouldn't that be a social stigma for men and women?
Yeah, but it doesn't matter because what I'm trying to get across here is that you're saying, oh, look at this example.
Like, you see, they're paying.
Well, I'm not really sure that there's a huge social stigma against garbage men, honestly.
I think.
I really don't think so.
I don't think anybody's like, oh, your dad, your dad, I don't think so.
I don't think so.
I don't think there's a big social stigma.
I think there's usually, I think it's a lot of people.
I think that women aren't garbage men because they don't want to fucking do that job and it's physically laborious.
Women don't want to do.
Most people don't want to.
You know, the most people don't want to do physically laborious jobs.
I think you're going to have to back that up.
Because as it turns out, men, when they're polled on this, actually do enjoy physically laborious jobs.
And that's why they gravitate towards them.
The idea that kind of the socialists like you on the left say, oh, nobody wants to do a physically intensive job.
Actually, there's quite a few people who only want to do physically intensive jobs.
They get bored at a desk.
They don't like working inside.
Any number of different reasons.
The point is that our society, and hopefully we can just agree on this, doesn't really value physical labor maybe as much as it should.
Yeah, I think it does.
I think maybe women don't.
I don't think.
Maybe women don't value it because they don't do any of those jobs, so they don't know how valuable they are.
I think if that was the case, you would see a lot of people.
A return to the trades, which we're seeing overwhelmingly.
Yeah.
You would see tons of men gravitating towards more of the trades job, which they're now doing overwhelmingly.
I, first of all, I don't know about the word overwhelmingly.
Second of all, I think you would see like basically their pay to be that or equal that of like CEOs, essentially, or scientists or doctors or lawyers.
Yeah, electricians are making pretty close to what scientists are making.
Yeah, I don't think that's the true.
It is true.
In fact, if you look at nurses, nurses often will make pretty close to what like a social scientist might make or close to what a university scientist might even make.
They may not contend, but they make something similar.
Master electricians, they make often what nurses are.
I know what is it?
I know that there's certain physical labor jobs that are getting paid very well right now.
Trade jobs.
Yeah, trade jobs.
All trade jobs.
I don't know about all trade jobs, but even if I grant that, two things.
Again, there is still a stigma that is hopefully changing.
The stigma is still kind of there.
From who?
Second of all.
From men?
From both men and women, honestly.
I don't think there's a big stigma towards the trades from men.
I think it's a class thing, honestly.
I think it is like a class sort of thing.
Now you're like men or what men versus women.
I think there is some level of upper society that views getting your hands dirty as a dirty thing.
I'm not saying it should be.
Women will often consider themselves in prestigious jobs that aren't particularly prestigious.
And often I think that the stigma towards the trades comes from females who look down on the trades, not because I don't think men are looking at the money.
I'm not looking down on CEOs and other.
Yeah, I don't know.
I feel like you keep making this a men and women thing.
And I just think, honestly, it is a class-based thing.
I also think across the country.
But you said that women are moving towards prestigious jobs.
Yeah, I think both men and women.
So isn't that boosting them up in the class in their own mind?
Class dynamics are very complicated.
You say that a lot.
Say it's complicated, it's dynamic, it's multifaceted.
Yeah, absolutely no.
Yeah yeah, I think society is complicated, but I think most ideas can be reduced to singular core principles or singular core things which the idea expands from.
And what I think happens here a lot is, you say it's complex, it's multifaceted, there's a lot of factors here as a mode of of uh, obfuscation.
Ultimately, I think you don't want to answer so like, for instance, when you say I would invest my life savings in that female prison if I yeah, that was the question I said between these two prisons, would you invest your life savings in this one or that one if you only had the choice between the two?
You say the woman's prison, I actually don't believe you.
I literally don't believe you.
It's not believable to me that you would say that you don't have to believe me.
Um, from my perspective and point of view, when it comes to that example I specifically specified, to me it depends on speed and accuracy.
Yeah, going back to the trade jobs, I also think, when we look globally yeah, most people in, let's say like, let's use China, for example who are working hard labor jobs are not getting paid very well, most people globally who are doing hard.
What is it?
Labor jobs are not getting paid very well.
I think part of the reason why these jobs are have historically not anymore.
Hopefully it's changing for the better.
I agree that they should be more respect.
Labor is labor.
Call me a socialist hippie, I don't care.
Part of the reason for this is because for a long time it was seen as something that anybody can learn.
Anybody can learn a trade if they really want to, whatever.
Now we've moved so much to a service society that not as many people are learning how to do that labor, so that creates a higher demand for that labor because there's not as much people who are willing to supply that because they can't.
I still don't think the stigma has completely reversed or changed.
I think that there are more people talking about how those jobs should be valued, which I agree with, but I still think that the vast majority of people are told, you go to college.
But I mean that's being pushed towards women, the female dynamic.
I think what is it?
A lot of men, most most women are it's.
If you look at the vast majority of college graduates, it's women right yeah, so so the reason for this is because women are the ones who are being appealed to to go to college.
Men are often appealed to to go into the trades.
This is why this is further evidence, by the way that kind of this social stigma that you're talking about is coming down from women, not coming down from men.
Men are being encouraged to go into trades.
Women are the ones who are being encouraged to go to college and waste their fucking time getting a job, a degree in basket weaving.
I promise you that there is no son of any CEO or any super high paying person in power who's telling their son like oh, go do a trade.
Instead, they're being taught to essentially take over the family business.
Euler sees the Pagan donated $100.
Prisons have had multiple prison riots over the decades.
Many cases, the all-male correctional officers were overwhelmed.
Local state enforcement and military were brought in.
Women would fare better.
Under her logic, they would, yeah.
No, I think, again, as I stated before, we were talking about like top echelon people.
I don't think the average all-woman prison facility versus that.
That wasn't the criteria.
Yeah, that's why I specifically.
The criteria was two things.
What was the criteria?
It was speed and accuracy.
That's not the highest echelon of women.
Okay.
All they would need to do is have an advantage over the men in this criteria.
Yeah, I don't think the average prison guard woman is more faster or accurate than the average.
I don't think that that would be the deciding requirement on being able to run a prison nor quell any prison riots.
Would that be that they were they reloaded faster and shot you here instead of there?
I don't think that those are significant markers.
I think the reason why the significant marker I think is physical strength.
The reason why I bring up speed is not just reloading speed, it's shooting you speed.
It's me pulling the gun or the sorry, the trigger fast enough before you get to me.
Yeah, I get it.
Okay.
Yeah, I still think that physical strength is going to be the dominant power here.
And the reason that physical strength is going to be the dominant power is because even if you have a gun, if four guys are coming at you, even if you're really quick, Wyatt Earp, okay, they can overfucking whelm you very quickly.
Men fare very, very good in those scenarios, women very bad.
And you also have an additional incentive, which is that a lot of those prisoners in this prison you would invest in would want to do what thing to all those female prison guards.
That's why when we brought up the example again, I specifically asked you, is it still the case or is it the case that the women are seen as like caddy bitches essentially?
Yeah, what I granted to you giving you the 200 qualifiers.
The only two for a career change.
Are you fast and accurate with a PPU?
I'm Pixie and join me and my new business venture in alternative correctional facilities are only prisoners.
Show us what you got.
So I granted everything.
You said that there was just these two criteria.
So I gave you only the two criteria.
Yeah, that's why I'm confused.
When you ask for qualifiers, that's why I'm confused.
Stop, stop.
Let me finish.
Asking me for additional qualifiers has nothing to do with anything.
We're saying that they're going to be still females.
They're just going to fit the two qualifiers that you have.
Yeah, that's why I'm confused when the person said the comment, and then you were like, oh, what else do men want to do with women?
Because in the example that we were talking about, you specifically stated no, like the only thing that matters here, like there's no additional factor.
No, no, no.
So maybe I misunderstood what you said.
This is these are still females.
Everything else is equal between how females would be treated in prison and how men are treated.
So they don't.
Minus these two criteria.
I was very clear and specific about that.
Sixie isn't taking force escalation into account.
Men will be better equipped to prevent escalation into a shooting because they have more tools in the toolbox.
Female cops tend to go straight to guns.
Yeah, but we can just grant it.
Because when we grant it and we show that she's only compensated for these two things, which is speed and accuracy, we left everything else equal.
I gave it all to you.
That's why what you say instead is, okay, so even knowing that it's equal, that it meaning every other criteria of a woman would still exist, which is what I put in the hypothetical, you still would have invested your life savings in this female prison because of only these two criteria.
I specifically asked you if it was a case that, oh, you know, the men, the prison men, whatever, didn't respect the women or viewed them as caddy bitches.
And you said, no, they're treated the same as the guys.
I'm granting you that they're like equal in all those senses except the speed and accuracy.
No, they're equal in all of their training.
Okay, so it's not the case to clarify that the prison, the inmates respect the woman the same way they respect the man.
You're saying that's not the case.
I'm just only granting you these two things, which is you want speed and accuracy.
Okay, so you're saying you would invest your life savings based on those two criteria.
Because earlier you said everything is equal.
No, I'm not officing.
I feel like you're not, I feel like you're not.
Do we need to play it back again?
Do you need to give me dinner tomorrow too?
You're literally jumping back and forth.
I'm trying to ask a clarifying question and then you're I don't know how else I can clarify this.
All other criteria are completely equal to how it would be viewed in modernity minus two attributes.
Stop.
Minus two attributes.
The two that you demanded speed and accuracy.
If the criteria is equal, then you're also saying the way that the inmates are treating the women.
That's why you got to talk less.
You got to talk less.
You do have to say all criteria are equal.
Let me go back a minute, please.
Pixie, I said all criteria are equal as to that in general society.
You only heard part because you can't shut up long enough to listen.
Stop talking.
Stop.
Let me finish.
All everything is equal to how it would be in general society with men and women minus however they're viewed, right, by anybody at any time in any given arena, it's equal to that now minus these two attributes.
That's it.
Okay.
I was very clear about that.
And you're just kind of wanting to change the scenario.
I'm not.
I'm trying to understand what your scenario exactly is.
It's just too complex.
Because you're using how many attributes do we have?
Your wordplay is literally.
How many attributes do we have that we're looking at?
You're saying that there's two.
So you're saying all else is equal.
Yes or no?
No.
Well, no, when I say all else is equal to what?
All else is equal to those two attributes.
No, to general society.
To general society.
You did not say general society before.
You said you're granting me.
You're just two attributes before.
Yeah, you're saying you're granting me everything except the two attributes that we're changing.
And now you're going back and saying.
No, no, no, no.
General society.
I'm granting you that there's the same women.
They're the same everything.
People can allow them to jump back and forth.
I have said these two attributes 50 times.
These are the only differences.
Yes.
Can you understand how it might be confusing when you say these are the only two differences?
Yeah, the only two differences.
And then when I ask you for clarification, if men and women are being treated equally, you're saying, oh, no, the only two differences are the accuracy and speech.
Your clarification came post-question.
That's one.
And two, here's the thing.
You already answered it before you asked for the clarifier.
You had already answered it.
That's why I asked for the clarifier.
So let's do it again.
Let's do it again.
These are the two attributes that you want to see.
Those are the only two that matter to Pixie.
Yes or no?
Because you said yes.
I said, we're saying if everything else is equal, if men and women are being viewed equally the same, treated equally and same, and the only difference is that the women are faster and more accurate, then that's a different answer versus, oh no, the men and women are still viewed differently.
They're viewing the women as credit.
All of the men inside of this prison, right?
Yes.
They want to kill all of the men and they want to kill all of the women.
Doesn't matter who's guarding them.
They want to kill them and get out.
Okay.
Doesn't matter.
Both sides.
Okay.
Okay.
There.
We got that clear.
Okay.
Repeat it back to me.
You're saying the prisoners in either scenario want to just kill and get away.
They want to kill them and they want to get away.
That's all they want to do.
They're going to plot it.
They're going to do whatever they need to do to do that.
Okay.
The two attributes.
We have the two attributes.
The women have an edge on those attributes.
Okay.
Okay.
One of them, they're much better.
Their shot placement is not here, right?
It's much, much more centered.
Okay, and the men are kind of hitting all over the place inside of something like this.
No, they still hit, but they're hitting all over.
Their group is much wider.
However, these women are much quicker, and they are much more accurate.
We have the two attributes.
We know now what the prisoners view them as.
You have everything.
Which prison are you investing your life savings in if you had to invest it in one?
I have an additional question I just thought.
Of course, you know, I'm not, this is not me to be bad.
This is total.
Okay, it's not men.
No, fine.
Go ahead.
What is it?
What's the question?
Okay.
They're usually linked, but not always.
Stamina.
Uh-huh.
Are the men, do the men have more stamina or do the women have more?
meant by stamina um if after shooting five times or whatever it's harder for the women to keep they're basically the accuracy the accuracy So as it turns out, they're still women.
Yes, they are still women.
So they have the same on-average stamina that a normal prison guard woman would have.
But they do, they are indeed faster with their guns.
They do indeed have better shot placement with their guns, but they are still women, unfortunately, in this scenario.
And yes, the prisoners want to escape, right?
They just want to get rid of these guards and go.
Okay?
That's what you know before you're investing.
Which prison are you investing in?
Okay, now this becomes a math problem.
My first instinct is still accuracy and speed, but if you're saying their stamina is significantly lower than the men, then now I'm leaning more towards the men just because it would be really bad if the scenario, well, the scenario would eventually become their stamina would affect their speed and accuracy, essentially, because it's hard to do the same action over and over again if you're losing stamina, essentially.
So if they had similar levels of stamina, obviously, as I thought the original question was, only speed and accuracy were changed, then speed and accuracy would still win.
But if you're telling me the stamina is significantly lower, then the person who has their stamina.
No, I was.
They're women.
But wait, I thought as long as the women could shoot better and were faster, that's what you really cared about because all that matters is when the bullet hits, they're down.
Yes.
Then why?
So are we going to go ahead and invest in the woman's savings or not?
The reason why I bring up stamina now or the reason why it's as important is because if you have.
I thought all it was important is that the bullet hit them.
Yes, that is the most important part.
But speed and accuracy.
Yes, but here's the deal.
Here's the only scenario where that would change.
Okay.
If you have one, two, three, four, five, let's pretend this is 10 men.
This is not 10 men, but let's pretend.
Let's say you have 10 men.
We got 10 men.
Yes.
And you have the person shooting, right?
But let's say after the fourth man, they're too tired to continue shooting.
Then they're fucked, basically, essentially.
So which one are we investing in?
So if you're telling me the men are less accurate and less fast, but their stamina could take over all the other guys.
I didn't say that.
I said that these are just going to have the normal stamina of a female prison guard, normal stamina of a male prison guard.
Okay.
Yeah, I don't know.
Like, I'm going to assume that the normal stamina of the guy is more than the normal stamina of the men.
It seems like a safe assumption.
Okay.
Then I would say the guy.
So which prison are you investing in?
The male one.
The male one.
Okay.
If the stamina is that much significantly more important.
So then men are, even if the women are more accurate and can shoot better, you still would invest in the male prison because there's still going to be better prison guards overall.
The only problem I can see is it doesn't matter how much stamina you have if your accuracy is shit.
Oh, yeah.
So, which one?
Well, no, it's a fucking math problem.
That's the problem.
That's where you have put me at.
I would literally have to like sit down.
I'm not even joking.
I would have to sit down.
I would have to look at the average staminas.
I would have to look at like the prison inmates themselves, essentially.
And I'd literally have to figure out.
Okay, that's fair.
What would your intuition tell you right now based on the information you have?
My intuition would say that, hey, if there are stamina and they're, let's say, fairly competent or whatever, then I would go with the guys because they have more stamina.
But again, if in this scenario they have stamina, but their accuracy is shit, then I would go with a woman because if your accuracy is shit, it doesn't matter if you have a lot of stamina.
Somebody gets it.
So here's the knowledge that you have.
These are women.
These are men.
You can make whatever assumptions you want from there.
But you do know for sure that the women can shoot better and they have much tighter groups.
They're faster and they can shoot with more accuracy.
You can put your life savings in one.
Which one would you put it in?
Okay.
I'm going back and forth.
It's a math problem.
I would say right now I'm going with stamina is the number one thing because it doesn't matter how accurate and fast you are.
So we're going with the men.
Okay, sure.
Yeah.
Is that right?
For now, yeah.
Okay.
So you think that men, even if women can shoot better and are faster, still would have an advantage.
What do you mean?
Okay, you're saying, oh, with the what is it?
Female prison guards or whatever.
Yes.
They would have an advantage even then.
If, okay, are you talking about, sorry, male guard versus woman guard?
Are you talking about male prison prisoners?
I'm talking about in, okay, so we're not going to obfuscate anymore.
I don't know if you need to take an Adderall pill, but I've been super clear.
So we have two attributes, right?
One and two are our attributes.
Okay.
We know only that you have males in one prison who are going to guard it and females in the other prison who are going to guard it.
Okay.
But you do only know that these two attributes, one and two, those two attributes for the women are going to be superior than that of the men.
In some cases, significantly superior.
Okay.
In the case of speed, it's going to be significant.
Significant difference.
Last question.
What's the ratio of prison guard to person?
I do have to move this on soon.
Whatever the average is, let's say it's six to one.
Ah, then, yeah, accuracy and speed.
Accuracy and speed.
Now let's say it's 20 to one.
Stamina.
Okay, now let's say it's 100 to 1.
Stamina.
Stamina again.
Yes.
Okay.
So if you had a 100 to 1 ratio of prison guard to prisoner or 50 to 1, you would still take the men.
If the yeah, stamina.
Even though we've created now many, many more targets, right?
So I guess speed, I guess speed and accuracy is not our most important attribute, but strength also.
It becomes, yeah, like it becomes basically essentially like math problem.
Like if we're just doing one to one, essentially speaking.
So your intuition though says you would invest in the male prisoner?
If the population is large enough, then yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
So, I mean, when it comes to force doctrine, even if we take your two criterion for guns, turns out, ah, not really the truth that that's your real criterion here for force doctrine, is it?
Because, no.
I'm sorry, I do have to move it on a little bit.
We have been on the topic for a long time.
We do have a super chat here from Paul James.
OMG, I'm losing brain cells listening to her argument.
Something that goes round and around like a merry-go-round.
Dumb down your ego, stop arguing, it makes no sense.
Always trying to one an escape, stop talking, king, and listen.
Okay, thank you, Paul Jane.
Appreciate your super chat.
Now, I did have a question for you, Pixie.
So you're a feminist.
You believe in equality.
What are your thoughts on the buying the in-n-out later?
What are your thoughts on the buying?
What are your thoughts on that?
I mean, are you going to hold your bet?
You didn't.
Okay.
I can actually also, we can give you an out here.
For the rest of the show, we have an in-and-out hat.
You don't have to buy us in-and-out if you wear the hat for the rest of the show.
That seems fair.
Is that a fair compromise?
I don't think I owe the in-and-out.
I kind of do want to see the hat, though.
There's also a, I think there's a...
It doesn't owe the In-N-Out.
What's...
There's a doesn't.
Definitely owe the idiot.
There's the in-n-out.
You definitely owe it.
You guys did make a bet, didn't you?
For physical application, and I was literally physical application engineering.
Physical engineering.
You said physical application.
You want to grab the in-and-out?
I think you would look good, honestly, in the in-and-out hat.
Calm down.
You want to just grab it really quick?
It's right next to the fedora.
So it's like white.
It's just white paper.
You'll see it.
It's right by the Game Boys.
Nuts.
There's the Fedora.
Yeah, that one right there.
Perfect.
Boom.
I'll do it for the memes.
For the memes.
You don't have to wait.
I mean, you don't have to wear for the whole show, but.
Be in-prison.
Boom.
Ready for duty.
Look at your future, Pixie.
Looks good.
All right.
I kind of match it.
I look like a sailor a little bit right now.
That's a good look.
It's a good look.
So really quick, so currently the state of affairs when it comes to the selective service system, the draft, men are required to register for the selective service.
Women are not.
What are your thoughts on this?
That's fucked up.
I don't think men should be required to be drafted.
Well, assuming in a country where the draft would not be able to be legislated the way the government will never relinquish, relinquish its right to draft from its citizenry, do you think then that women should also be drafted?
Yes, but.
And would that be equality and equity?
I guess.
I'm indifferent, honestly.
I think, what is it?
I don't think anybody should be drafted.
I know you're saying in a system where you have to either pick one or the other and then the other option is essentially gone.
Then yeah, I'd rather have both men and women have essentially like equal suffering in that retrospect, I guess.
I don't know.
Would you assume that in such a system where a draft was there, that men would still be deployed into combat situations far more than women would, even if women were to get drafted?
Probably, because what is it?
I don't know.
Because if you're saying in such a society or whatever, we would assume.
this one.
If we had a draft tomorrow where then...
Yeah, I think men would probably be picked more.
I think part of an example of how, like, people think that the patriarchy doesn't negatively affect men, and I think it does in certain ways.
And I think this is like one of the ways where men are expected and essentially burdened to have or have like these basically expectations of having to protect always, even in the detriment of their own life.
And I don't think it's fair for the government to be able to dictate that in such a way.
I mean, aren't men going to make better soldiers?
To me, it's not a question about whether men make better soldiers or not.
To me, it's a question about should the government have a right to put your life on.
Yeah, but we're assuming they have the right.
Yeah.
Like, Rand, for instance, you don't really believe that.
Like, if the United States was attacked, right?
You don't think that the government shouldn't be able to draft its citizens to repel attacks?
I don't.
I don't.
I don't think, what is it?
I think it has to be.
Then how do you have a nation?
volunteer basis like essentially yeah but if you don't have enough volunteers and your country's being attacked you think that then your country doesn't deserve to survive if not enough people are willing to take up arms against a foreign predator
Yeah, but I mean, you do realize that if you were to take volunteer service, for instance, if you, if you have a draft, you can recall people who have been in the armed forces, who have some training that you can immediately deploy, versus brand new, fresh-faced people who then you have to train.
I guess let me rephrase it what I'm assuming we're talking about here is a mandatory draft, so it's, I pick you, you have to go, and if not, the government won't.
Yeah, that's true, but that would also include, as a subset, people have former military training.
Yeah, I think we should differentiate.
I think if those, if the former military yeah, but it's an entailment.
You can't differentiate, it's an entail.
It's an entail.
If those people want to go and fight for the country great, awesome.
I don't think you should force those people.
Yeah, that's great.
But that's not the question.
The question is not whether or not you think that that should happen.
The question is, if you have a draft, the entailment of having a draft is that people who have formerly served are going to get drafted.
Okay, how is that a question?
Okay, that's an entailment.
I need you to agree that that's an entailment of that, because earlier you were saying that it wasn't, so I just want to make sure it is.
What do you mean by entailment, please clarify?
It means that if you're drafting everybody yeah, then the pool of people who have formerly served will also get drafted.
Okay, that's not a question.
No I, it's an entailment.
So I just asked you to acknowledge the entailment.
Okay yes, they will draft people who had former experience yes, okay.
So if you're going to do a draft right, the logic behind it also would be that you can then call up soldiers quickly who have had some kind of training.
Sure, yeah.
So then if you're only dealing on a volunteer basis, a volunteer force, and your country's attacked by a much larger force, then wouldn't you want the systems in place for conscription so that you could quickly field men into battle, starting with people who have former military experience, to stave the enemy off?
As you train new soldiers, you can create a system where those people are basically on standby or reserve.
So then yeah, but if it's voluntary, it would defeat the purpose of conscription.
What is it I mean?
Again, I don't think the draft should be a thing.
I think we can have a system in place, or let's call it draft light whatever, whatever you want to call it um, where people volunteer their services in case there is such a situation.
But I don't think you should be able to force an individual ever, under any circumstances, to put their life on the line for the government uh well no, for their own nation.
There are that's, I I don't think.
I think oftentimes, like for instance you're, you realize governments can be subverted.
For instance yeah, I realize governments and you realize that inside of this type of subversion you can have, like surprise attacks nobody's prepared for, right.
You can have all sorts of different things happen where you would need to call up soldiers very, very quickly, whether they wanted to go or not.
Yes um, I think in the history of the United States, most of the time it is not necessarily a surprise attack like that um, so so what I forgot?
How realistic The scenarios are.
But regardless.
Wait, wait, wait.
That's a very realistic scenario that you could be in fact.
Was Pearl Harbor a surprise attack?
Yeah, one and only.
Yeah, that was a pretty big surprise.
No, not the one and only.
No, not just 9-11 either.
Okay, well, many, many surprise attacks.
War of 1812 started with a surprise attack.
By the way, the Civil War started with a surprise attack.
Can we compare?
No, no, let's go.
No, no, no, let's go.
Let's go.
Stop cutting me off.
I'm not done.
Okay.
The Civil War started with a surprise attack.
How many of those wars can we compare with like wars the United States has been a part of or has directly been involved in that are not surprised?
Those wars don't have conscripts.
So World War II had a concern.
And then if you go back to the Civil War, there was conscription during the Civil War as well.
What about those were our big surprise attacks?
What about Vietnam?
Yeah, Vietnam, there was a draft, but not very many people actually got drafted, interestingly enough.
Was there a conscription in the Korean War?
I think there was.
Yeah.
A two-year war.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There's the point that I'm trying to get across.
But the two major ones, both of them seem to fit this criteria.
The point that I'm trying to get across is that I think that, yeah, you should not force the general populace to essentially, or any individual to be part of a war they don't want to be part of.
I just think that's fundamentally not okay for a government to do.
And the reason why is because I'm sure we can agree there are times where the government doesn't necessarily have the best interest at heart when it comes to going to war.
So I just want to take this to its logical conclusion then.
So if Russia had some fucking big windfall of wealth and came to the shores of the United States and said, okay, I'm going to bribe all of you to join our military and invade by giving each of you, every man in the United States a million bucks, okay, to join our army and take over.
If the citizenry of the United States agreed to that, men, right, or even just a large portion of them, let's say the fighting age, like 10%, okay, joined the Ruskies and attacked us, you'd be okay with that because of voluntarism?
It's not that I'd be okay with it.
It's just basically at that point, I guess, yeah, the nation deserves to die at that point.
If your nation does not have enough people who are willing to volunteer to fight for it and is willing to give up to another nation.
So if another nation bribes a portion of ours to go turncoat and join their military in order to take ours out, you don't believe that our military should or our government should be able to conscript its citizens to fight this nation off.
I think a nation that doesn't have enough people willing to line up to fight against these people is a nation that's already dead to begin with, essentially.
I don't think.
Also, wait, wait, wait, let me finish.
Let me finish.
In what world is the example that you're giving up or giving us would not be applicable to the people who got drafted?
Like, because if Russia has this large windfall of wealth or whatever and it's like, hey, guys, you're in the military and we'll give you like a million dollars.
Would it not also be in Russia's best interest to say like, hey, defect from the military and we'll give you a million dollars?
Yeah, but then you have patriotism and consequence of patriotism.
Yeah, and patriotism and consequence of patriotism should either exist in the country before but under your scenario, they're not traitors.
What do you mean they're not trainers?
Well, what are they doing wrong?
I still think they're traitors.
Wait, wait, traitors to what?
To the nation.
They're going for an enemy concern instead.
They've decided that.
So they're traitors, but you don't care if they join the enemy because you deserve it.
It's not that I don't care if they join the enemy.
It's just that I believe that the strength of the nation should be strong enough to have people be willing to take up arms and volunteer.
And if you haven't decided to do that, then your nation isn't.
So let me give you the major scenario then.
The major scenario is you cannot reveal to the public how strong the enemy actually is because it would be strategically disadvantageous.
You can't actually tell them how big this threat is.
You can't tell them where this threat is.
And the reason that you can't tell them this is because then the enemy will know and then they will use that to their advantage to destroy your army.
So because you have to keep that secretive, right, you might not be able to give the general public enough information to know why it is that they should be joining to protect their country.
So in that case, wouldn't conscription be a viable option?
I there's still something unethical about it.
Mainly saying, vainly speaking, that you're essentially taking away people's choice.
But shouldn't you sometimes need to do that?
I think there are times where you can take away choices.
I don't think you should ever be able to play roulette with a person's life without their consent.
Yeah, but again, this goes back to, I mean, I've just got to know in this scenario.
Yeah, no.
The government sees that there's an overwhelming force, but cannot announce this to the American public because if they were to say to the American public that they knew about how overwhelming this force really was and why it is people needed to volunteer to protect the nation, that that would give away that they knew this critical information.
And so instead they used conscription and quietly began to conscript people into the armed forces.
Why would that be a problem?
Final thing from Pixie, and I'll move it on.
Go ahead.
Because ultimately, what you're doing is that you're taking people's individual right to determine essentially if they're going to live or die.
I think at that point, what you should do is you should offer basically extremely high incentives for them to join, which is basically like, hey, after this war or after this, we need them now.
Okay.
I'm sorry, I do have to move things.
I got to have her answer to that last thing.
We need to.
I don't think you should be able to play roulette with a person's life under any circumstance.
I just, I don't know.
All right.
I do want to touch on briefly the topic of get back to feminism, get back to patriarchy.
One question for you, though, Pixie.
If you could, would you ban men from being able to vote on anything related to abortion rights?
No.
Okay.
That was my question.
Really quick, I think this would be good.
I guess bringing it back to the very beginning.
How do you each define feminism, Pixie?
I'll tell you.
She has not actually defined it.
I'll have you go first.
We're using basically the working definition that we said earlier before.
No, I'm asking for yours.
Basically, again, feminism is super duper broad.
The way I personally would describe it would be the movement/slash ideology of trying to create a system where men and women have equality or equal opportunities, essentially.
So if the system was patriarchal in order to achieve equality, you would need to dismantle patriarchal systems, right?
Yeah.
Okay, so then my definition of feminism is the movement towards egalitarianism and the dismantling of patriarchy follows, right?
Yeah, it does follow.
So then you basically utilize my definition of feminism.
Well, that's why we agreed in the beginning.
I said, yeah, let's go, let's use that definition.
Yeah, but saying let's use it doesn't mean you agree with it.
It's because I'm not, and I know you're like, oh, you're obfuscating.
Like, you're making this so much more complicated than it is.
No, I'm fine with that if it has a point and it's not actually obfuscation.
Okay.
The reason why I'm not being super strict with the definition of feminism is because since feminism is such a broad topic, somebody can easily bring up, I don't know if this will happen, I can't think of one from the top of my head, but if another definition is brought up, that also makes sense.
I would be open to using that definition as well.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm not, the only, I'm just holding you to some kind of standard we can operate off of.
Yeah.
I understand it could be broader than the standard, but at least a standard gives us something to talk around, right?
Yeah.
Okay, so whether it's mine or yours.
So I wanted to move past the you're granting me mine into this is a definition that at its core you kind of agree is also true.
Okay.
So that would be the definition.
Do we live in a patriarchy?
Yeah, I'd say we do.
Yeah.
Otherwise, what could she dismantle?
Yeah.
And what is did we define patriarchy earlier?
What is a patriarchy?
What is the patriarchy?
Basically, the patriarchy is, I don't even say necessarily like a system of governance, but a system of like societal structure where men have more power on the basis of being men.
Men have more power on the basis of being men.
Yes, like basically being a male in the system by virtue or whatever, because of the way that society views it, grants you with automatically some level of power more or respect more.
Is this all men or some men?
Oh, that's a good question.
I kind of want some men, honestly.
Because even if you try to argue that, like, oh no, men in general, or even if we say men in general, the point being is that there are certain men out there who do not meet the standards of what it means to be a man, like societally.
And as a return, they're treated very, very badly, looked down upon, like at the same level of like woman, essentially.
That's why I would argue that there are some extreme cases like that.
Yeah, I don't think patriarchy has anything to do with status.
So my definition is just of the father.
So this just means that men are in charge of shit.
They're in charge of something.
Yeah.
That would be a patriarchal system that men are in charge of it.
Yeah.
I think.
So status itself to me, how society views it, I don't actually care about.
I don't actually care about the entailment of the societal viewing of men having more or less status because arguably right now, I would say that men are not looked at as having more status than women in this society.
Would you?
I think in certain areas.
Like?
I think men basically women can exhibit some of the same behaviors men have and they'll be looked down upon it essentially.
Like straightforwardness, assertiveness, just domineering behavior.
But they're looked down on often by other women for that.
And men, both.
Yeah, but I mean, men and women also look down on men if they're not exhibiting proper masculine qualities.
Yeah, I agree.
But why would that be patriarchal?
It's patriarchal because it puts men in an inherent benefit for all the ways that aren't demonstrated.
You haven't demonstrated the benefit.
You just said they get puny.
There's a punishment for it, but the same with men.
The benefit is that if, what is it?
The benefit is basically they're more likely to be promoted, to be, you know, yeah, essentially put into power because they're acting like men.
That's the point.
If I'm a woman, if let's say, you know how we were talking about human characterization?
Let me see a demonstration of that.
Okay, easy.
Let's take a man and a woman.
And let's say they're both trying to get this CEO position, whatever.
They're trying to apply for it.
And they're getting interviewed by the, like, basically they're interviewing the subordinates to see who's better, blah, blah, blah, blah.
If the woman is as assertive as a guy is or has been towards her subordinates, they're usually seen as bitchy, or they're usually seen as a pain in the ass or whatever.
While the guy is more likely to be seen as, no, he's just assertive.
He just knows what he wants.
So, based on this, the woman is more likely to be penalized, to not get that position, to be looked down upon because she is exhibiting the same attribute that the man is.
Yeah, which is being assertive or not.
That doesn't demonstrate because we view men and women a certain way based on their ontology and the physicality and the way that they actually operate, that there's no advantages that are equal to this advantage you perceive in the CEO aspect to women.
And if that is the case, then the idea that men have certain advantages and women have other certain advantages still wouldn't make it patriarchal if we're looking at status.
Well, we're well, first of all, can you give me an example?
And then, second of all.
Yeah, let me give you tons of examples where women's status is very helpful to them just by being women, where it's not for men.
Before, I said first of all, but then second of all.
Can we do one at a time so we don't get bogged down in this, we have to answer five points at a time.
Let's do one at a time.
No, it's just they're intertwined.
Because I was going to say, like, second of all, even in cases where, oh, a woman has an advantage because she's acting womanly versus a man who's an advantage because he's acting like manly or whatever.
The argument here is just not: are there advantages to being a woman or a man?
There are advantages to being both.
One is which one is more likely to put you in a position of power.
Okay, but when you're talking about status, you agree with me that power comes in many forms.
Yes.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Okay, so if we're talking about status, don't you think that it's a very powerful position to women for women to be in to be the default when it comes to custodial agreements of children?
Yes, but it's usually not because they're women.
It's usually because they're the primary caretaker.
Nope.
It's traditionally just been because they're women.
In fact, there's laws which governed this for years and years just because woman instant custody.
Because women take care of it.
That's carried on the same exact way that it is in the CEO idea.
So this is going to be case-specific.
Some men aren't going to look at women applying for a CEO job and say, oh, she's being a bitch, therefore she's gone.
They might prefer assertive women in those positions.
Some men, maybe not.
And maybe it's the majority of those some men who don't want that assertiveness that they would prefer in a man.
Great.
Okay, so maybe that gives men an advantage in that particular criteria.
However, the status of women is also advantageous in other areas.
So I'm not confident that using your definition of status proves patriarchy if women are advantaged in different areas.
Okay.
I don't think.
Well, here's a few things.
The first one I want to ask you is: if you could give me a specific study so that I can look at specifically of like in recent era.
Here's one we can agree on easily.
For the same crime, same crime, including violent crimes, women get lesser sentences than men.
Yes, absolutely.
That is an advantage.
It's an advantage.
Massive advantage.
I said that's an advantage, yes.
And again, as I said before, there are certain advantages women have under the patriarchy.
That would fall under status, yes.
That your status merely as being a woman is assisting you.
Yeah, I agree with that.
But that's also because women are viewed as weaker.
They're not viewed as much as a threat.
They are viewed, it's a status that is lower.
It's essentially saying, like, oh, you know, I view you the same way I would view like, you know, like a cat trying to like claw me.
Like, you're not that much of a threat.
So I'm not going to punish you as much because, you know, who the fuck cares?
You're just a woman.
So that is maybe it's an advantage towards women, but it's fucked up and it shouldn't be that way.
Who cares?
It's still a status, which is enjoyed and a privilege by women.
But it's not a status over men.
Okay, first of all.
Again, here's our conflicting definitions.
When you say status, right?
I say patriarchies of the father, men are in charge.
Okay, that would be a patriarchal system.
Women often, as judges in these cases, hand down lighter sentences just like the men do.
This is not a purely male phenomenon at all.
So how can it be patriarchal?
What is it?
Again, it's patriarchal because the view is that men should be taken more seriously than women.
They are.
By including women.
Yes.
I'm not.
So how could that be patriarchy?
Again.
Is the patriarchy brainwashing them to believe that?
No, unironically.
Yes.
Unironically, yeah, no.
Women are, women do uphold the patriarchy.
I've never disagreed with this.
The whole idea of the power.
I think that women are upholding the idea that women are less of a threat.
I think that women uphold the idea that women deserve to have custody.
I think that women use the stats, including feminists.
No, feminists specifically use stats all the time, everywhere.
I'm sorry.
Hang on, let me finish my argument saying this.
Saying that men are hyper-predatory because they're hyper-predatory.
This is why they're viewed as being predators.
They should be viewed this way.
Women should get lighter sentences.
They don't do as much crime as men do.
Women enforce this narrative, not men.
I think both men and women.
We literally had a conversation for the past two hours where you were telling me how men, you know, if they decided to go and kill everybody or kill all women, they could because they have the monopoly on power.
So you are enforcing the same patriarchy that now you're saying, oh, no, it's women who are actually doing this, not me.
I'm giving you a logical argumentation that rights themselves come only because men allow women to have those rights.
Do I think that the default is that men will be in charge indefinitely in some capacity?
Yes.
But your definition is status.
Yes.
Status.
So men could conceivably be in charge and women still have a higher status, which would make it, in your definition, not a patriarchy.
I think, what is it?
Power and status are often interlinked.
Not always.
Yeah, more often than not, though.
When you are.
Okay.
Who is the most powerful person in the world right now?
I don't know.
I'd argue the president of the United States.
Yeah, and that would be an argue.
Yeah, I guess.
Historically speaking.
I wouldn't say that that's a high status job anymore, though.
Okay, well, we'll agree to disagree then.
Do you think when Trump was in office that the presidency was a really high status job?
Yeah, I think it still was.
I think it literally being the president of the United States.
And who's about to be, Kamala?
Is probably, it's the most, I would argue.
Is Kamala right now about to be the president, possibly?
But if she is, then is it a matriarchy then?
Because she has the highest status?
As, again, I stated before, it would be like a general system.
Just having one CEO, one woman CEO, one woman president, one woman in power doesn't necessarily dismantle a higher system.
Yeah, no, it would have, or similar.
It would have to be pretty.
I don't understand how come tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of women can enjoy the status and privilege of custodial agreements, getting lighter sentences, having their doors open for them, making sure that all of their meals are bought for them, making sure that society in and of itself caters to them in a way that they do not cater back to society.
They're not doing the most dangerous jobs in the world.
The mortality rates inside of men's workforce versus women are astrophotonomical because women can't do the jobs men can do.
Seems like you have a much higher status in society than men do.
We're viewed as interchangeable, expendable widgets.
You know, if women really had like that same level of status that men do, you would expect that to carry out more in the workforce too.
You'd expect them to have, let's say, like more positions of power.
You'd expect them to have more positions of governance.
You would expect it to be like around similar numbers.
But for some reason, we don't get that.
Yeah, because you don't have to say that.
Because you don't do anything of status.
How much status are you going to have as a kindergarten teacher?
You don't do anything.
We're talking about women and men who are similar, if not the exact same qualifications applying to the same exact jobs and having the men still being picked more.
Oh, no.
Is that so?
Do they enjoy some kind of hiring status quo?
The fact that they don't get fucking pregnant and so they won't have to leave their job for nine months out of the fucking year and they won't have to stay home and take extended vacations, which is what women demand and men don't.
From an employer standpoint, male or female, makes sense, doesn't it?
That's not the same thing.
Oh, it doesn't.
It really doesn't make sense because one, you're presupposing that every woman who applies to the job ever is going to get fucking pregnant.
And then, second of all, for the society that I'm advocating for, both men and women would get equal levels of paternity and maternity.
Oh, great.
That's nice.
But unfortunately, it doesn't work out that way equally.
Hang on, my turn.
I just listened.
My turn to respond.
So, just so you know, if you are running a company which is hiring a lot of men and women, you would probably just make general policies, general policies, not individualistic policies.
You and I can both agree that only females can get pregnant, right?
Yeah.
Only.
Only females can get pregnant.
No males ever can get pregnant ever.
Can I?
Oh, I don't want to derail.
No, no males can become pregnant.
You can answer the question.
You can answer it.
Okay.
Do you consider a person with X Y chromosomes male or female?
No.
You can be a male and have a double X chromosome depending on your biology, but you can still be a male.
You only have two.
How do you define male?
That would be somebody who follows the typified pathway for female or male.
So your organs, your body can only have X amount of organs.
Those organs are going to be, even in chimeras, this is true.
You're only going to have one reproductive pathway that's viable.
And so you can determine the sex that way.
So you agree that I'm just curious.
I'm just generally curious.
So there are people who have X Y chromosomes that can get pregnant.
Yeah, so what?
So they're a woman or men?
No.
Again, didn't I just say that it had nothing to do with chromosomes?
No, no, that's why that's not correct.
Stop, Repeat back to me what I told you.
You said what is a male and a female from my definition.
You said it depends on the reproductive status, essentially.
That's not what I said.
So let me try it again.
Let me try it again.
You can only, as a human being, have one of two viable reproductive pathways.
That's why I literally.
I didn't say reproductive status.
Okay.
Because there's women without uteruses who are still females.
Okay.
Sorry for missing.
It's important that we make this distinction.
And do you know why it's important to make this distinction?
There's women who obviously can't have children, but they're still quite female.
Okay, so it's a reproductive pathway.
Yes, it's the one of two reproductive pathways your body is capable of going down.
And there's only two.
Okay.
And so, okay, I'm just curious.
And because of the whole trans athlete, well, they're not trans, but you mean the female?
Huh?
You mean the female athlete?
Yeah, and that there were a bunch of people.
Oh, that was a female.
Okay, cool.
Awesome.
I'm glad we agree.
Yeah, I mean, I used it as a great way to bash on the T's because I like to do that.
But yes, that was a female.
Okay, cool.
So one of two reproductive pathways which are available.
No men can become pregnant.
And let's assume for a second that because you're like a blue-haired social justice lunatic, that there's at least that there's 10 who could, 10 males or 20, or 200 males, or even 2,000.
We could say with great confidence that almost every company on planet Earth is never going to have to deal with one.
Okay, sure.
Okay.
So if that is the case, then we can reduce this to females only are going to be the carriers of the children.
So if you are in charge of a company and you are setting a standard for who you want to hire, right?
Why would you not set the standard for people who are going to require less in the way of leaving the company for extended periods of time based on pregnancy, based on this, based on that?
I understand what you're trying to say.
I just think fundamentally I would focus more on who has more qualifications or basically who I believe to be more qualified to lead.
Yeah, I mean, but who cares what you personally would like?
You can envision from the employer standpoint, you're in charge of 500 employees for the revolving door.
From the employer standpoint, you can make generalizations about gender, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're hiring the best person per se if you're making those generalizations on gender.
So you might be missing some of the top applicants just because you're assuming that they can get pregnant.
So maybe your job, I have to say, I want to listen to what you have to say.
I just have to also run in the bathroom.
I'm not going to be able to.
Sorry.
We'll take a little break here.
Yeah.
I'll have a smoke then.
Do we have enough time for that?
Maybe not.
Maybe this would be a good opportunity for us to plug debate university.
Unfortunately, I can't really pull it up.
Here, hold on.
Andrew, I'll run to the computer and we'll plug it real quick.
Sure.
If you can.
Oh, yeah.
You have to carry the show.
Well, I hope you guys are enjoying the debate so far.
It's been enjoyable for me.
I don't often get to tangle with the Twitch politics lunatics anymore as much as I used to.
You can get bogged down on some very specific quagmires, but they're all good to get bogged down on because it just kind of shows how fucking crazy they are the more you go, right?
We're going to have all female prison because you can shoot slightly better.
Fucking crazies, dude.
Crazies.
But what can you do?
Except have the debates because they're fun to have.
What can you do?
By the way, you're looking at verbal combat.
This is a course put on by myself and it has been partnered with whatever podcast and Brian Atlas.
Verbal combat, if you're enjoying what you see today, that is part of verbal combat showing you exactly the case-by-case for how to have informal debates.
Ton of fun to have.
It will help you in all aspects of your life, though, when it comes to verbally jousting with any opponent.
This could be family, friends, boss.
It could be a lunatic blue-haired feminist like is in the room now who's only missing the destiny die.
So I would highly recommend that you go as fast as possible, pick up that course.
We sure hope that you will.
You're going to learn a lot.
There's over 80 videos, six hours of content.
We have a bunch more content we're going to be releasing in the next 60 days or so.
And those of you who have bought the course, of course, you're going to have access to that at no additional charge.
You can become a member of the debate group.
We'll be in there a couple times a month hosting QA sessions for anything that you guys want to talk about.
So that's debateuniversity.com.
And the course you want is Verbal Combat.
Hope you guys pick it up.
Okay, so we're back to this.
Now, where the fuck were we?
What is it?
We're talking about it.
Did you go?
Did you run in the bathroom and read your text message?
You did, didn't you?
No, I love my phone here.
You can look.
We'll go.
All right.
All right.
I'm just fucking around.
I know.
So, Brian, we're going to about 30 minutes wrap this up.
Okay.
Please, I'm so hungry.
Yeah, I know.
That's why she knows she's dying.
Yeah.
We'll get centered for you, Brian.
Is that better?
Turn the mic a little bit.
This way?
Yeah, that's the.
Are you sure?
Scoot a little closer to you.
The microphone's kidded to the edge.
Well done, well done.
Continue on.
Congrats underscore you underscore played underscore yourself donated $100.
100% of what you scam as the patriarchy derives from female sexual selection.
Men must climb hierarchies plus attain power.
If you didn't demand IT, it would go away, plus, you'd have any real shot at equality.
Yeah, this is a good point that is brought in: that if women essentially demand based on sexual selection that men be high status.
I'll tell you what, though, you can prove me wrong, right?
The dating prospects that you're going to have in the future, lower or higher status men?
Ideally, same, or somebody who matches me where I'm weak.
Yeah, based on your history, the men that you've dated have been equally yoked to you, or they have been higher status.
I would say equal.
Equal.
Yeah, I would say.
And have you ever dated a prominent Twitch or YouTube streamer?
No.
Never?
No.
Not even once?
Not even.
I disappeared off the internet for like three to four years.
So what'd your last boyfriend do?
My last boyfriend was a philosophy student.
Okay.
I was in college.
Okay.
So in the future, you'd want somebody who's equal to you.
Not going to be taller, not going to be stronger.
No, equal or I would say equal or higher.
Equal or higher, yeah.
But it's just weird because I don't really view relationships in terms of higher or lower.
I usually view as who's going to help.
This sounds so weird.
So I want to have children in the future.
I want to have three children.
And I want somebody who's ideally good at the things I'm not good at, you know, because I want to be able to raise my children like equally.
What are those?
So for example, I suck at cooking.
I'm really bad at cooking.
You want your man to cook?
Yes.
I would be the happiest woman alive if my man knows how to cook.
So you want to stay at home, dad?
No, not completely.
So he would take over probably cooking.
I would probably take over more cleaning to even things out.
We don't have to make the same exact salary.
I could make some more or he could make some more.
But then I expect that to be reflected in the amount of like home labor that we take over.
So if he's making more, I would do more home labor.
And if I'm making more, I would expect him to do more home labor.
Okay, that's fair.
So now let me ask you this question.
Yeah.
And you can go ahead and lie as much as you want.
I'm almost, in fact, I will bet you the milkshake that you lie to me right now.
I will bet you a milkshake that you lie.
Do you think that most women prefer to have men who have a higher status than them or they want it to be about equal?
No, they want equal or higher.
I think they prefer higher, and I think the reason for this goes back to- Social conditioning, right?
Not just social conditioning, but I guess maybe this is a form of social conditioning, labor in the household.
So right now, the problem that you have for a lot of women is that they're making either the same as their guy or in the scenarios where they're sometimes even making more, but they're taking basically all of the household labor.
So it's like, fuck, like, let's say we're both, you know, let's say I'm in a relationship with somebody and we're making the same, but now at home, I am doing all the cooking, all the cleaning.
I'm taking care of the children.
Well, fuck.
Now I'm doing basically twice the labor that you are.
I'm doing the labor in the home and I'm doing the labor outside the home.
It seems like it would be preferable to have like a man who could just hire all that out.
I think for a lot of women, yeah, I think for most people.
So higher status.
Well, yes.
But then is that based on social conditioning or is it just based on the fact that they want men to be able to provide the life they want?
Yeah, sure.
Provision.
But I also think there's a lot of women out there who's not going to essentially go for a guy just because he has a lot of money.
If they generally love a guy, then they don't need the guy to be like freaking rich Mr. McKee money pants.
They just need the guy to be able to carry their weight.
Yeah, but the social status that you're talking about, if you want to be desired by women, the higher your social status is, the higher you're usually desired by women, yeah?
Yeah, for sure.
Well, then if that's the case, then this commenter, when he says, okay, and by the way, you do owe me the burger, but I don't owe you the milkshake because I feel like you were actually honest there.
Then the commenter is correct that men have every incentive to climb the hierarchy because of female expectation that they do climb the hierarchy.
How would that be patriarchal?
Based on status, if the status is demanded by women, wouldn't women be imposing a matriarchy then?
No, because I'm saying that women can demand whatever.
Women.
They can demand whatever from their partner.
One, it doesn't mean that the men are actually meeting that expectation.
And then two, women themselves are not reaching that status.
I'm talking about individually.
Am I on the same level status as this other guy?
I'm not saying like what I demand of my partner or demand of the other person.
I'm saying like from my merits alone, can I reach that status?
Yeah, but men don't give a shit if you're a Starbucks barista and you're hot.
But I don't think that's true.
I think a lot of men care about beauty.
Don't get me wrong.
I think, okay.
Do you think, okay, so let's see if we can figure this out in five seconds.
Go ahead.
Really, really, really fucking ugly rich chick, really, really hot Starbucks barista, 35-year-old guy, go.
I think a lot of guys, especially like nowadays, would be gigglos, 100%.
Now you definitely owe me the milkshake.
Definitely owe me the milkshake.
Lying through your teeth.
Who would they take?
Come on.
They're going to take the fucking really heinous, ugly millionaire over the barista who's hot, really?
Yeah, dude.
I think they would 100%.
And they cheat on her, too.
They cheat on her.
I think, oh, what is it?
Well, whatever.
Even if we disagree.
No, I don't think we disagree.
So let's try this again.
I just want to make sure that I'm crystal clear on this because you're saying it publicly on a massive platform.
So I want to make sure I can clip this a thousand times and distribute it everywhere I'm going to.
You think that if a man, an average 35-year-old Joe, had the option, right, of being in a monogamous relationship with a hideous, ugly, unattractive as fuck millionaire chick or a really fucking hot 24-year-old barista, they would take the really hideous millionaire.
I don't think they would be monogamous.
I think they cheat on her.
Okay, but they don't want you to cheat.
So because of that, you know, they don't get the millionaire, right?
I think, what is it?
They would just, they would 100% cheat on her.
I don't think that's the question.
That's not the question.
I think most guys would fuck the 24-year-old chick.
No, which one would they want?
I don't know.
I want to say.
I want to say the millionaire.
I do.
I think, what is it?
It's cat being like, oh, no, they won't cheat on them.
I think they will.
I also think I'll take the fucking millionaire over the beautiful woman I get it.
They care that much about status.
No, I think, what is it?
It's just, it's more about the stuff they can buy than the status and stuff.
do you think that it's wait can i do Do you think that, yeah, you can ask whatever you want.
I just have one quick follow-up, right?
How is it possible for me to debate with somebody who's delusional?
Like, how can I?
I think I'm delusional.
How can I craft a coherent argument if we keep on the basics?
Average Joe donated $100.
I'll take the broke hottest Americano.
Of course.
Who wouldn't take that?
Who wouldn't take the broke hottie?
Should I do a poll in the chat?
Didn't you mention?
I'm pretty sure there was one time.
Ask a wicked, wicked fucking witch of the West who's a millionaire with a hump on her back and she's gross as shit.
If she's the grossest person alive.
No, not the grossest alive.
She's just really ugly.
Yeah.
I think.
So what's the poll question?
Which would you pick?
Really ugly chick?
But I know the two differences, but which would you pick?
Which would you date?
Which would you.
Which would you pick for a monogamous relationship?
Which would you date?
How about that?
Keep it simple.
Which one would you marry?
Okay, sure.
Yeah.
That's fine.
Which would you date slash?
They're all going to say the hot one.
Well, I know, but you know, they secretly, though, all of them secretly want the millionaire.
I think what would happen is it's ugly, fat, ugly, fat, rich woman versus ugly, fat, old, rich woman.
Yeah.
Versus young, hot, Starbucks barista.
They take advantage of her wealth and then sleep with whatever young woman they want.
That's what I think.
Yeah, but if they could choose one.
Yeah, what is it?
I don't think.
Yeah, but if they could choose one.
So without changing the question, if they could choose one.
They would bang.
If they had to pick one to bang, it would be the 24-year-old chick.
No, if they had to pick one to day to marry.
Day to marry.
To live their entire life.
Maybe I'm too female-brained or whatever.
I would find it very hard for so many men to just be like, no, like I actually would pick the 24-year-old barista.
They would.
Well, anyways.
And I'm not saying, no, I don't want you to be confused by this.
I don't want you to think that I'm saying 51% would.
I don't want you to be confused and think that I'm saying 60%.
I'm saying like 99.
I want you to understand that it would be 90 plus percent of men who would pick the young, hot Starbucks barista.
And I would like to know from your worldview why you think that is other than because you would value the status of the millionaire.
I think guys like to think of themselves as, and I shouldn't say guys in general because it's not in general.
I think there's a subsection of men who like to view themselves as, you know, valiant, like, oh, I'll protect her.
I'll take care of her.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
No, they want to fuck.
They want to fuck it.
You know, I just want to fuck, whatever.
No, they want.
Do you know why they want to fuck young hot women?
Do you know why they want to be?
You're going to say because of the reproductive.
Yeah, what else would it be?
Yeah.
I think right now.
But the primary ease is to breed.
Like, what else would it be?
Okay.
Do you think looks is all that matters?
No, of course not.
What else?
Well, I think it's situational.
So I think that it's conditional upon the situation of man that some things could change when it comes to that.
But I would always say this: that primarily attraction does have to be there.
And attraction not only does have to be there, but it has to be there long term.
Both people have to be attracted to each other or it won't work.
You can't falsify attraction.
So yeah, attraction is still going to be the number one edict.
Do you think there are factors for men that influence attraction outside of physical appearance?
Yes, but not nearly as much.
So it's overwhelmingly going to be this one category first.
You couldn't have umbrella trains from it, right?
But the thing is, is that I want to, for the rest of my life, want to be attracted to my wife.
Why do these other factors influence for a variety of reasons?
Because men have external preferences to just singular things.
No, no, no, but I'm saying what, okay.
When it comes to physical attraction, there is a basis, right?
You're saying reproductive value.
Is it fair?
That's why you value youth, yeah.
Yes.
Is it fair to say that other factors are also influenced by reproductive value?
Like basically outside of beauty.
Eula sees the pagan donated $100.
I would marry the hot barista and then steal her tips.
See, I can force in outliners too.
Anyway.
Speaking of which, really quickly, we do have the poll results in.
There's a pro-I mean, they're still coming in, but there's over 900 votes.
Which would you date Mary?
It's 93% hot 25-year-old minimum wage woman versus oh, it just shifted from to 92.
8% say the ugly, fat, 35-year-old rich woman.
Yeah.
Now it's back to 93.
Okay, so basically, wait, wait.
Remember, I told you earlier, not 60%.
I know, I know, okay.
Not 70%, not 80%, 90 plus percent of men would prefer this.
And these are probably trolls who are voting for the she has an audience.
They've got to be offsetting it with that other 7%.
No, my audience is nothing.
I'm kidding.
Go ahead.
Anyways, those are just Andrew haters right now.
Go ahead.
Do you think that basically the other factors outside of physical appearance are also influenced by the reproductive value they have?
I'm going to use intelligence as an example, right?
The whole idea why, oh, you know, like, I want to mate, I want to reproduce, whatever.
So, theoretically speaking, a guy would value intelligence in a woman because it means that genetically, they don't value intelligence in women.
Oh, okay, interesting.
Is it enough to just reproduce for men?
Yeah.
It's enough for most men.
Yeah, to be with a hot chick.
That's enough.
Yeah, no.
But what I'm saying is that I think that they don't want their women to like be knuckle-dragging retards.
But when you're talking about hyper-intelli or high-intell, I think that you're talking about like they want them to be really, really smart, right?
That's like an attractive feature.
What I'm trying to say, kind of.
What I'm trying to say is that it's not.
I mean, I think that they have to be able to do basic things like cook and clean.
I'm not sure that they need to be fucking neurosurgeons.
No, I don't think they care about that.
No.
Yeah.
Men care about not just their child only being born, but their child surviving, right?
Otherwise, that defeats the entire purpose.
If the child reproduces and dies two seconds later.
Yeah, okay, so we agree.
It's not just enough for the child to be born.
The child has to survive and thrive.
Because otherwise, there's no point in reproduction.
It's the, wow, they're born and they die two seconds later.
No.
Okay, so now that we've established that.
Yeah, but how hard is it to keep a kid alive?
Yeah, okay.
Literal fucking retards can do this.
Now, what is it?
The question becomes, and it's who, what's going to be better for the kid to thrive?
A smart mom or a dumb mom?
You're thinking way far past what men are thinking about.
Yeah, I don't think so.
Like reproductively.
You're thinking like a woman.
Like genetically.
You're thinking maternally.
You select men based on the fact of how what is the longevity of our children going to be like?
Men don't select you for that.
They don't need to.
Okay, reproductively speaking, if it's not enough to just have your child be born, your child has to thrive because otherwise there is no purpose of it being born.
It's going to die and not actually be able to reproduce.
Almost every woman can do this because it's not difficult to do.
Okay.
Do you think it's a good idea?
It is super not difficult to keep a baby alive, in other words.
Okay, but it's not just that, right?
It's not just keeping the baby alive.
It's having the baby thrive eventually so he can spread your lineage.
Yeah, but he thinks that the baby's going to thrive based on his ability to produce, not your ability to keep it alive.
That doesn't make any sense.
Why?
Because just reproducing, as we established before, is not enough.
If the baby is born, and even if the baby meets a minimum standard of being alive, that doesn't necessarily, according to your view of like, you know, essentially like hierarchy, the baby has to be able to climb or get higher in the hierarchy so that they can then reproduce and continue the family lineage.
In those terms, you're wrong.
You're saying evolutionary, we agreed evolutionarily that men want their children to thrive.
It's not enough for it to be born.
Stop.
The mechanism for which that occurs, we have two very distinct opinions about.
So let me explain.
I firmly 100% believe, having raised many children into maturity, that keeping a child alive is fucking easy.
And it's even easy for a woman to do because they're designed to stay alive.
And so what happens is even 70, 80 IQ, dumbass women can keep a child alive.
Men don't bank on the fact, never bank on the fact that, oh, well, you know, when this baby is fucking five or six, what are the values she's going to install?
They don't think like that.
What they think instead is, is the kid going to be healthy?
I can do all that shit.
I can instill the values.
I can instill the program.
I can instill all of that.
Okay.
What child is going to be easier to install these values or programs in?
Average.
Well, actually, if the mom is kind of stupid, that would make it way easier for you to download your programming into the kid's brain.
Okay.
Because then what's the mom going to say?
Genetics are 50-50.
What's that?
Genetics are 50-50.
Yeah, that's true.
Okay.
Mike Davis donated $100.
Andrew, forget this debate for a minute.
I want to hear you speak on that fat juice head fake tough guy who tried to alpha you on Fresh and Fit.
Roast that bozo.
Well, apparently he just got swatted and he was caught on the steps of some fucking apartment or something crying his eyes out and that was all caught on film because he is a well, I mean, like you said, I guess he's the alpha of the alphas.
But anyway, I don't endorse any of that, by the way.
No swatting ever.
That's gross.
But him crying, that's funny.
Yeah.
So if genetics are 50-50, then the mother's intelligence matters just as much as your intelligence.
Yeah, but this is a logical argument to preference.
I'm talking about what men prefer, not whether or not it's logical.
Yeah, and I'm saying that they prefer that.
What is it?
I'm saying if you are arguing that men care about beauty because or for because that's linked to fertility and that's linked to your child surviving, they should not just should.
I do think they do care about intelligence, even though you're saying not.
This is where I don't think you're saying the truth.
I'll tell you the truth.
I'm going to be unequivocally as truthful as I can possibly be.
Okay.
Men don't give a fuck about you being a doctor or a lawyer or the potential to be a doctor lawyer because you have some big high IQ.
They don't fucking care.
Here's what they care about.
They care that you have a really nice ass and a nice pair of boobs and you look like you're going to bear children.
And the reason they value the big boobs and the nice hip ratio and all of that is because intuitively, they can see genetically, ingrained in them, they know that you can bear their offspring.
So what happens is from the evolutionary standpoint, right, when they see you, it makes their penis hard and they go, I want to have sex with her.
And that's as far as they're usually thinking about it.
Very simple question.
You have a 25-year-old hot woman.
You have another 25-year-old hot woman, equally hot.
One is more intelligent than the other.
You're saying to you.
This underscore Bish underscore projecting donated $100.
You said he'd exploit her plus cheat because that's at its core what women do to men.
It's her nature, so you assume we are the same.
Right, exactly.
Right.
Evil shit boot.
Smile fucking care.
Smiley face.
Smiley face.
Yeah, so anyway.
Wait, wait, wait.
Let me interrupt.
Go ahead, Tyler.
Yeah, no, you were saying.
Go ahead.
You're going to equalize the primary value.
The two 25.
You have a 25-year-old hot woman and another 25.
Let me finish.
Let me say the full segment.
The answer is the intelligence.
You would select for the intelligence at that point.
Okay, yeah.
So if you had a 25-year-old hot woman, another one, 25-year-old hot woman, equally intelligence.
Yeah, you would select for intelligence.
Yeah, but why?
Because.
Because you've equalized the primary value.
So now, now, let me give you the counter to this because it's really simple.
Now we don't have the equalizing of the primary value, okay?
So the one chick is less hot and more smart, and the other chick is less smart and more hot.
Who does the man go for?
Yeah, I think it depends on how big, because I'm pretty sure there's some guys who would take a slightly less attractive woman.
Who's going to guarantee that their child is basically going to be the next Elon Musk?
Wait, I'm basing it in the same exact hypothetical you gave me.
You said we're going to equalize the primary thing that men are interested in.
We equalized it.
One is more intelligent than the other.
I'm giving you the exact same hypothetical back with the only differentiation being, okay, now the primary edict here has been lopsided to the same degree that the intelligence was.
That's all I'm saying.
Yeah.
So you're saying one is smart.
No, however smart you in your conditional hypothetical are claiming the one woman is is exactly how less attractive she is in mine.
So which one is he selecting for?
Yeah, now you're reversing it.
So I'm not going to be able to do that.
I know what you're saying.
I know I understand what you're saying.
That's exactly what I'm doing.
So answer.
Okay.
Like I did.
So yeah, a lot, yeah.
A lot of men would pick the hotter one.
There you go.
But there's easily scenarios where you have a woman who is maybe slightly less attractive, but super freaking smart, and a woman who is, you know, more attractive, less smart.
There's a lot of men who would pick the smarter one.
20% of men would take the fucking 70%.
If you could guarantee, or, you know, very high likelihood that your child is going to be the next Elon Musk, would you not take it?
If I had a crystal ball.
Let's say this woman is so intelligent and you know that.
Yeah, let's say.
But she was ugly.
Not even ugly, just slightly less attractive.
Well, no.
In that case, maybe I would equalize it that way.
But really, so if you had a woman who was hotter by slightly different.
The question, you, when you say slightly right, that could mean like um, I don't know, her nose is in a slightly different position than what I would prefer.
Right, when you say slightly, what does that mean?
Yeah, it means that we have two women uh-huh, one's a little hotter but dumber, the other one is a little less hotter but a lot smarter.
Yeah, so if you, if you, if you would to take a secondary conditional, like you were to say, We could do this with money too, Oh, this chick is, her nose is in a slightly different position than I would ordinarily like.
But other than that, she's just as hot as this other chick, but she has $2 million.
Sure, we can use that as an offset.
I'll absolutely bite that bullet because it doesn't do shit to my argument, which is that when it comes to selection, the primary edict is going to be the value of the looks.
And when you say that there's these tangentials to this, right, that men select and value for, I've already agreed that that's true, but to a massively lesser degree than the primary edict.
In this case, you've taken the tangential, which I've already agreed they value to a much lesser degree, and put it at a massive higher degree than the slight amount of offset from them being hot.
Because the point is that I'm trying to illustrate the triangle for you.
The point that I'm trying to illustrate here is that you said in the beginning, men don't give a shit about intelligence.
You just care if you're hot.
But we have just illustrated multiple examples where you said, you know what?
The more intelligent one, despite the hotness factor.
So what's happened is the argument started, and I can even show you in my notes, with you saying that they value other things other than this, and me agreeing that that is true.
They do value other things other than this, but that the primary thing they value, primary thing.
For instance, you would agree with me that men would value a woman with $2 million, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
But when put to the poll of she does have that $2 million, but she's not fucking hot, they value the hot one over the $2 million.
So we now have an order of operations of what they value.
We know that they value the looks over whatever this tangential thing is, that includes intelligence and this and that.
But if you were to make a tiny offset, a slight offset to the primary edict here, and you were to take one of these kinds of tangentials and make it overwhelmingly high in order to take care of this tiny offset, then I can literally concede to that and it makes my fucking point.
Oh, hey, I...
Keep going, silence.
I'm talking about it.
It's okay.
Sorry, I got distracted.
Sorry.
The point that I'm trying to illustrate, or as I stated before, well, first of all, I think, yeah, I do think most men are capping when they're talking about like the hotness of a woman versus multi-millionaires, whatever.
Prove it.
I think that's not what they marry.
What is it?
Millionaires are marrying fucking poor women.
Millionaire women ain't marrying poor men.
Okay.
Sorry.
What do you think?
There's actors out there dating 20-year-old hot women who are not fucking actresses, but show me all of the famous millionaire women who are out there fucking dating the Starbucks barista who's a man.
J-Lo.
J-Lo, what?
Didn't she have like a young, like 24-hour?
Yeah, is she married to him?
Probably not.
Oh, I just got him.
Sorry.
I just read physical engineering is a different flavor than applied engineering.
Sorry, that was, let me go back to the main focus.
I agree, most rich women, well, I don't know, because you have cougars.
Like, we have a literal entire field.
We have a name for this of, you know, rich older women that go for younger men.
Cougars aren't marrying them.
I donated this fucking $200 just to get this dumb argument across.
Please let the sink in.
Men don't give a rat's ass about a woman's intelligence.
We just don't.
LLLO.
Don't fucking care.
Like, look, the thing is, is that when you, when you, if you make these value judgments, I'm willing to concede to your value judgments.
I am willing to concede that men value all these different things.
They value intelligence.
They value kindness.
There's a million different kind of like attributes that I would say men value.
What I'm saying is that the primary value that they value more than any of those is the idea that you're fucking hot.
That's what they value more than anything else.
More than any of those tangentials.
Now, you can create offsets.
This is so not true.
I'm sorry.
Stop.
You can create offsets where you say that I can slightly decrease the primary attribute to the point that it's almost who cares?
Like nose in a slightly different position, eyelashes a little longer than I'd like, but I can compensate for that with she has $8 million or she's a fucking 160 IQ neurosurgeon.
Sure, I'll concede to that.
Who gives a fuck?
I want to go back to a couple of things.
You were saying, oh, you know, these women aren't marrying like these younger men or whatever.
They're not.
The vast majority are not, but the vast majority of millionaire men are not marrying the 25-year-old Barisa's daughter.
I have far more of them are thankful.
Yeah, the vast majority of people, though, if we're talking about, you know, society as a whole, we're not just talking about outliers, not just age range, we're talking about class lines.
Most wealthy people marry other wealthy people.
That's just how it be.
So the whole idea, like, oh, look at these subsection of men that are marrying younger women.
But we have to be able to do that.
That's not the vast majority of society.
So this is a really interesting phenomenon, which is that, interestingly enough, women's mate selection, when we see what they're moving towards, it seems to be a smaller section of men than it is for men towards women.
Meaning that men seem to want a much larger pool of women than the opposite.
Why would that be?
Well, it's because women desire a few different traits.
They want men who are taller than them.
Of course, men don't give a fuck if women are taller than them or shorter than them.
They don't fucking care.
Women want generally for men to make slightly more money than they do, or at least on par with the money they do.
Men don't give a fuck if they make as much money as they do, right?
Women prefer probably to have a mate who they think, you know, can maybe fix cars or has a bunch of practical skills and things like this.
Men, again, don't give a flying fuck.
So what happens is the pool opens much wider for men because they're selecting for one primary thing over all others.
Women aren't doing that.
Yes.
Will women marry unattractive men who have really high status or get together with them?
They do it all the fucking time, right?
Men, on the other hand, are not going to settle down generally with a woman who's fucking ugly as shit.
They're looking for some kind of woman who has some kind of beauty standard.
That's it.
As I stated before, the reason why women are looking for people who have around like the same status as they do or higher is because women are still expected to take on the vast majority of home labor and are, you know, basically unhappy with how uneven that system is.
Women do not want to be doing both home labor and out-home labor.
They want to be able to either basically pick one or have it be around equal for both partners.
Then why?
So when you have a society.
How do you explain women saying then their preference?
Lol Paladins donated $100.
She is also conflating intelligence with university brainwashing.
Smart women are rare and nice.
A woman with a degree is actually a negative.
Most women aren't neurosurgeons, worthless texts.
But even if we were to grant it, lol paladins, even if we were just to kind of grant her idea of this, it still wouldn't negate my point.
So who cares?
But I mean, it's a good point.
I'm just saying it doesn't negate mine either way.
As I said before about like home labor, essentially, what was the question that you asked me?
Well, so you were saying that the reason that women are selecting for this is because they don't want to do both the external work and have to do the home labor.
But the thing that's really interesting is that men are showing.
Oh, sorry, I remember what you asked.
Men are showing a consistent desire to have women stay home where they don't have to do any external labor and women are still shutting them down.
They say, no, that doesn't go in with my preference of having my own safety net and having my own career, which is the thing that I desire, not to stay at home.
So this argument that you are making right now, no, no, no, women would definitely hook up or end up marrying these guys if only they wouldn't make them work and stay at home is kind of moot because they don't want that.
Yeah, women basically want to be able to have their own career and have somebody who is willing to take 50% of the outcome.
It sounds like they're demanding a higher status from men than men are demanding from.
Or no, they're demanding somebody to also take at home labor.
So when you look at like a lot of reasons why women divorce, one of them is like basically like differences in the household, unsatisfaction.
What's the number one?
What's the number one reason they divorced?
Irreconcilable differences.
Yeah, followed by the problem.
What do you think those irreconcilable differences are?
Well, usually when Pew Research dove into this, it was really interesting because I had the same question.
What the fuck?
What does that mean, irreconcilable differences?
The woman says, I fell out of love.
He didn't give me the butterflies.
Why do you think that happened?
Well, when they dive into it, they just say over time, in many cases, these women say there was nothing wrong with him.
He just didn't give me the feeling anymore.
Yeah, at least from what I've researched, it seems like a lot of these women, when it comes to especially households where the basically chore discrepancy is large and the women are still making around the same as the guy, they start feeling like they're mothers essentially to their men.
They feel like, oh, you know, here I am being like basically the same level of breadwinner and now having to do the cleaning.
And they're divorcing at the same rates, even if the man is significantly making more money than them.
I am not certain about that.
I just have to see the, what is it?
The exact study.
Well, not only is it certain, but, I mean, if you take the pool, right, here's the edges.
I'm 99% sure people with higher brackets are less likely to divorce.
Here's the edges.
Yes, that's true.
Unless they get a divorce.
In higher brackets.
They're less likely to be divorced because both of them are in a higher bracket.
So why are they?
The thing that's interesting is that because you have the center class, which is accounting for most marriages, not the higher class or the lower class, but the center class.
The lower class, less likely to get divorced, higher class, or I'm sorry, more likely to get divorced, higher class, more likely to stay together.
But what about this massive center, this center hole?
Well, when you look at the preferences in this massive center, which is accommodating almost all of these marriages, most of them, in fact, you find something really interesting, which is that men, their preference is we'll do a little more without, okay, and you can stay at home.
Women say, no, fuck that.
I don't want that.
I don't prefer that lifestyle.
I want to work.
Okay.
So I want to split these chores with you.
And he's like, no, I don't want to split chores.
I want to work.
You do the chores at home.
They want a traditional marriage.
In other words, women are saying, no, they're opting out of that.
So again, if we go back to your idea of status as being the symbol of patriarchy, it appears to me that women are demanding that men reach such a status where they not only are earning the same amount, okay, or more, but are also splitting the housework.
Whereas men, their idea, their idea of this is actually less.
No, it's not equal.
It's a privilege to stay at home.
It's not a privilege to fucking work.
It's a privilege to have to do everybody's chores, laundry, no, you have to do your own fucking laundry.
Why do you think if it's a business?
Being a housewife is the easiest fucking job on planet Earth.
Don't ever try to bullshit me.
I've had one for years.
Okay, if this was the case, if this was the case, why do fucking rich people outsource that labor if it's basically nothing?
What do you mean?
Why not?
Because they're busy.
Labor is not glamorous.
They're busy touring the house.
Glamorous is not, what is it?
Labor is not glamorous.
It's a labor.
When you can outsource it, you do.
So nobody's like, wow, I'm staying at home and I'm making the same amount of money.
This is so much fun.
Like, obviously, if you're making more money, you want the person to do the same level of labor.
I just want to make sure, right?
If you're trying to make the case that labor is labor and labor hard, therefore people don't want to do labor, sure, I agree.
But you do way more fucking labor having a job than being a stay-at-home mom.
What are you talking about?
That's where people would disagree.
Who?
Who would disagree?
Okay, let's go through it.
I would say it's a different type of labor.
I would say at least.
Okay, well, hey, no, no, listen, listen, yeah, let's get through it.
Let's get through it.
At least when it comes to labor in the house, like outside the household, I am guaranteeing a level of wealth for myself versus if I'm just doing internal household labor, it becomes significantly harder for me to make my own business or to continue making money.
So it means it's less stable.
It means I am now.
That's because you're doing less work.
Yeah.
And I thought our whole issue is labor.
Not just less work, which honestly is contentious.
Well, yeah, but let's start with the money.
No, You are not making money.
You're not making.
You can be, you can have.
You can paddle all you want.
No, it's not bad.
You're not traveling, but you're not going to get away from it.
I can be at home.
Let's say I live in a pig style and I have to do 20 amount more labor than if I went out to work.
That doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter how hard the labor is at home because the point of the matter is I am not making money at home.
Great.
So now let's get back to this idea first before I address point two and three because you always bring them up in fours because you gish gallop a lot.
Let's just start with the first point.
Can you explain to me how being a housewife, can you walk me through your labor day?
Go ahead, walk me through the labor day you think a housewife goes through.
I'm basically cooking, cleaning, taking care of, well, it depends on what type of household you're in.
But let's say for the very basics of very essentials, you're cooking, cleaning, and most likely taking care of children.
Okay, so let's say you have two kids at home.
Yeah.
Okay.
One is five and the other one is 10.
Okay.
Walk me through your housewife day.
I wake up.
What time?
What is it?
Probably early because I have to get the kids to school.
What time?
Either 6 or 7 a.m.
Okay, so you wake up at 7 a.m.
Gotcha.
Okay.
I. Kids get on the bus, right?
Well, no, first I have to cook breakfast.
You don't have to cook breakfast.
Most housewives.
Most schools have free breakfast.
That's definitely not true.
Most schools definitely do not have free breakfast.
That's why they're trying to pass bills across the state.
Okay.
But even assuming that you give them a fucking go-gurt and a bowl of cereal.
You give them a bowl of cereal on their way out.
Okay.
Whatever.
You're asking me my day as a housewife.
I'm telling you.
Okay, you tell me.
I cook breakfast for them and for my husband.
And what are you cooking for breakfast on an average day?
Let's say I'm making, you know, eggs, bacon, pancakes every day.
You're making that every day, huh?
Maybe not every day, but a few days.
How many days do you think a week you would make eggs and bacon and sausage and toast for the kids?
Let's say two or three times.
Oh, you're going to make it three times.
Okay.
Three times.
Okay, so then what happens?
Then I have to get the children ready for school, which means that I have to make sure that they put on, like, basically like, oh, get ready, like, put on your clothes, whatever.
We got 20 minutes.
They're brushing their teeth.
Yeah, 20 minutes of them.
Making sure that they have everything in there.
What is it?
That's more than 20 minutes, by the way.
To get kids ready for school.
To make sure that they're, what is it?
Lunchbox has everything because I have to pack their lunch too.
You pack it the night before.
Okay, well, we can add those minutes of labor at the end, anyways.
What is it?
I also have to make sure that.
So you're up at 7 a.m.
You've cooked breakfast, eggs and bacon and sausage.
I'm going to give you a generous 30 minutes for that.
20 minutes of getting them ready.
Now they're at school.
Okay.
Now, how long do you not have to take care of kids while they're at school?
You're going to say, oh, they're at school for eight hours.
So eight hours of labor gone.
No, because in between that time, I have to make sure I'm like cleaning everything.
Okay, so let's go through.
How big is your house?
Let's say it's an average, or this is not average, whatever.
Let's say it's a three-bedroom.
I'm involved.
Okay, so how many square feet is the three-bedroom?
I don't know.
I can't think from the top of my head.
Okay, so an average three-bedroom house, I'll just give you the square footage here.
We'll say, we're going to be really generous.
Give you a nice big house, 3,000 square feet.
That's big.
Oh, huh.
Big house.
That takes time.
Also.
So hang on, walk me through your three-bedroom, 3,000 square foot house.
I want to pause for one second.
I don't want to pause.
I want you to walk me through the house.
Okay, no, no, no, because here's...
No, no, no, no, no, no, I want you to do your day, day, day, day, day, day, day, day, day.
I am on...
Walk me through your day.
I am walking you through the day.
Go ahead, then finish walking through your day.
But here's the deal.
Okay, here we go.
Whatever.
Obfuscation.
It's not obfuscation.
It's not going to be obfuscation.
Just look at the fucking general market.
We know how much we value this labor because when we get, we outsource it to other people.
It costs 17 bucks an hour.
It costs more than 17 bucks an hour to get your house cleaned.
I have a maid service.
What are you talking about?
Okay.
I don't want to be that person.
Whatever.
I grew up with a family that could afford that.
It costs $17 an hour.
They come once a week and do a deep clean.
It takes them three hours to do a deep clean.
$17 an hour.
Anyway, so three bedroom, 3,000 square foot.
Walk me through the rest of your fucking day.
Kids are gone.
What's the first thing you're going to do?
Probably clean.
Clean what?
Breakfast.
Okay, so you clean breakfast.
That's going to take you, what, 15 minutes?
It's going to take me more.
I mean, what is it?
That's four.
You take the dishes, you rinse them, you put them in the fucking dishwasher.
This is not rocket science.
It's not just what is at that.
It's also like crumbs in the floor, vacuuming, you know, wiping down the table.
What are your fucking kids' animals?
I mean, it's like a cleaning.
Your kids are fucking anti-do they just take their plate and put their whole face in it or something?
No, I mean, what is that?
What are you talking about?
Like, it's just basic, right?
That's not basic.
My kids don't fucking stick their whole face in a plate.
It doesn't matter.
Slop around like the whole thing in the plate.
Yeah, there's no crumbs.
There's not shit all over the floor.
What are you talking about?
Okay.
Okay, so anyway, so you got, but let's just say you pick up a few crumbs and this and that from your animal kids so you can't control because you're a bad mom.
So now we've got, hang on, so now we're what, 30 minutes?
30 minutes to clean up breakfast?
Maybe more, whatever.
Okay, how long does it take you to clean up fucking breakfast?
30 minutes.
Let's say 30 minutes.
I swear I could clean up a breakfast for six men in 30 minutes.
Okay, let's say 30 minutes.
Okay, 30 minutes.
What is it?
Then I'd probably have to vacuum, like clean down, whatever the different rooms in the house.
How long does this kid depends on how big the house is?
You said 3,000.
3,000 square feet, yeah.
You got to vacuum the house.
Oh, plus laundry.
Yeah, what if you have hardwood floors like most, you know, sane people do when they have kids?
I mean, you still have to vacuum and wipe down, mop.
Yeah, so you mop.
So you're going to mop.
You're going to do this every day, by the way.
You'd probably do it.
It depends on what, but basically like every other day is.
Okay, well, let's just use your most load-heavy day.
So this day, you're going to clean the house.
Your most load-heavy day you can think of.
Yeah, okay.
So that would probably take me, I don't know.
It could take be like anywhere like two hours.
It's going to take you two fucking hours, really?
If I'm doing all the rooms and if I'm doing, what is it?
Vacuuming.
You're going to deep clean every room in your house once a week.
I'm talking about like mopping.
I'm then talking about vacuuming.
It's going to take you two hours to vacuum your house.
Fucking 3,000 square feet and vacuum plus mopping.
I'm putting both of them.
And you're going to do this every day.
I'm not saying every day.
Okay, but on your labor-intensive day.
Okay, so we're going to add two hours.
Now what?
Okay.
Then I have to check what, if there's enough food in the fridge, if I have to go out to a supermarket or not, like basically take into consideration that.
Sorry, I'm so busy doing your friend.
So you've taken into, so now you need to go to the store and get something from the supermarket.
Yeah, I have to get food for everybody.
Okay, so you have to get food.
So how long does that take you?
I don't know.
Most people take like an hour in the supermarket.
Okay, so we got an hour.
Okay, what else?
Okay.
Then basically you get back home.
You do have free time now, or you have some level of free time.
You either basically can like lay around, wait.
So you're going to lay around and wait for how many hours?
So, I mean, we've got three.
So now I want you to, I want to tell you where you're at in your day so far.
Okay, this is what I have.
Your day starts.
I'll take out the trash.
And this takes hours, I'm sure.
No, it doesn't take hours.
So that's just another thing to add onto the list.
How long?
Two minutes?
Yeah, basically five minutes.
Five minutes?
We'll just like be really generous here.
Yeah.
Okay, so so far, I have the count at, and I think this is very generous to you.
Four hours of work, and now you're lazing around your house.
Okay.
So hang on.
By the time you're doing this, I want to let you know your day started at seven.
Yeah.
Okay.
So what do we got?
Eight, nine, ten.
So now it's 11 o'clock and you ain't doing shit.
Okay, but the kids get out of school at what time?
Three, three.
They get out at three, three.
Okay.
So we have, so we have four hours of you not doing shit, right?
Okay, wait.
Let me, let's continue.
Okay.
The kids get back home.
Or you have to go pick up the kids, right?
No, you can have the school bus drop them off like every human being on planet Earth usually does.
But even assuming you have to go pick them up, we'll generously add another one.
Let's say even if a school bus picks them up.
Unless of your kids are, unless some of your bad mom basically.
I don't want to say that because there's so many different, whatever.
Your bad mom, if the school bus drops off your kids?
No, no, no.
I'm about to say you're going to have to take them to extracurriculars unless if they have none.
At 10?
Yeah.
What extracurricular?
Is your kid going to be in the Einstein program?
What extracurricular?
Did you not have extracurriculars when you were 10?
No.
Okay, every day.
What extracurriculars are there at 10?
Easy, simple sports like volleyball or soccer or whatever.
You think that kids at 10 years old are out at their fucking teep?
What were you doing at 10?
I was doing volleyball.
At 10?
Yes.
day after school not every day but how many days after school I think like twice or maybe three times.
Okay, so you got to pick the one kid up from school.
And then the other one probably has other different extracurricular activities.
Okay, so you pick them both up.
Yeah.
Okay, so now we've lazed around for four hours.
Now you're doing work again.
You've gone and picked them both up.
That takes an hour.
Now what?
Now you have to drive them to their extracurriculars.
No, no, no.
You've picked them up from their extracurriculars.
Well, no, okay.
You pick them up from school.
Then you have to take them to their extracurriculars.
You went to volleyball absent in your school?
What do you mean?
Didn't you just, when you were done with school, you had volleyball at the school, right?
Not always.
Sometimes when you have like those groups or whatever, they have practices like outside or they have them.
It's fucking rare.
They do it at school.
Not all schools.
Okay, well.
What?
I didn't.
You're in a 3,000 square foot house in the poorest community on planet Earth that doesn't do volleyball training at the school?
I literally, what is it?
Sometimes they do, but sometimes they have outside training.
All right, all right.
Okay, so we got another hour.
We're at five hours of actual labor and four hours of flazing.
So give me the rest of the eight hours here in your labor-intensive day.
So that includes bringing them back from the extracurriculars.
Okay, so I'll add another hour there.
Now we're at six hours.
Helping them with all their different homework.
Okay, so how long does that take you to do a 10-year-old's homework?
Have you ever had?
Yes, I have.
Have you?
I mean, I've helped my younger cousin.
Okay.
How long?
Let's say it takes an hour.
Not because.
One hour, okay.
Yeah.
So now we're at seven hours of labor.
Yeah.
This is your most labor-intensive day.
Better give me some more because we're only at seven hours.
What else we got?
You've got dinner, right?
Yeah, no.
Definitely got to do dinner.
That's an hour.
Yeah.
So now we're at eight hours, right?
And now you have to clean after dinner.
Now we have to clean after dinner.
So that's 30 minutes.
Now we're at eight and a half hours, right?
Yeah.
And now, what is it?
You have to pack their lunch for the next day.
Sure.
You said include at the end.
So that means I get to make lunch.
So what is that?
30 minutes?
An hour?
Sure.
We'll get 30 minutes.
Okay.
So now we're at nine hours.
And then what is it?
None of this includes basically the stuff that you have to do outside of school for your children.
So whether it be, or I guess extracurriculars kind of counts, but that's like part of school.
But now I'm thinking like, okay, like being involved in like play dates, being involved in all of them.
Okay, so now it's bedtime, basically, right?
Okay, yeah, you have to get them ready for bed.
Yeah, you get them ready to bed.
We got 30 minutes.
Now we're at nine and a half hours.
And then you go to bed after chilling for a while, right?
So we got nine and a half hours of labor on your most labor-intensive day.
Yeah.
Can you walk me through your least labor-intensive day and what that looks like?
Okay, yeah, sure.
There's some days where all you have to do is cook and clean.
How many hours do you think in your least labor-intensive days?
In my least labor-intensive days.
Well, no, not just cook and clean.
Bringing them in and out of school on extracurriculars.
But maybe they don't have extra.
Okay, least labor-intensive, I'd say like three hours.
Three hour days.
Okay.
How many of those are you going to have a week?
Depends.
Maybe three or four.
Okay.
So we'll say, just to be conservative, three.
And then on your kind of medium days, we'd split it and say like six hours.
Okay, sure.
Okay, six hours.
And then that's not.
So now let's come up with our labor value.
And to be clear, this is not including basically setting up things like play dates for your kids going to other places or for the kids coming to your house.
You know, ideally, if you can.
We'll add some of that on.
So let's say three days a week at three hours.
Okay.
So now we're at nine hours of total work just on your lightest days, nine hours total.
Then we're going to add in your heaviest day, which is going to be another nine hours.
We're at 18.
Okay.
That leaves us with a split of six at four.
So that's going to be plus six, plus six, plus six, plus six.
So did we, we never included laundry.
Yeah, okay.
How long for laundry?
You put it in the washer and you walk away from it.
Well, no, because you also have to go.
Are you doing it by hand?
And you're also having to stretch.
The kids at 10 put their own clothes away.
Didn't you teach your kids nothing?
Are your kids dumb?
They already are eating out of a trough.
You still have to do your family, your, what is it?
Your husband and yours.
Unless if you're giving your husband labor at home, but assuming you're staying at home, no.
So you're also putting away.
So at a generous, very generous of me, by the way, I'm going to give you in seven days 45 hours of labor.
Seven days.
Okay.
So now let's go ahead and divide that.
Okay.
At seven, you're averaging six hours of labor a day.
What do you think your husband's averaging of labor per day?
Yeah, you're going to say nine to five.
Basically.
No, no, no.
He's supporting an entire family.
He ain't working 40 hours a fucking week.
No fucking way.
He's working 40 hours a week.
100%.
Yeah, okay.
The average income bracket.
This guy's pulling in at least 60 hours a week taking care of a family, right?
I don't know.
Honestly, I don't know.
Okay, well, let's just give it 40.
Let's just give it 40.
He's still doing eight hours a day of labor and way less of a labor window than you are.
Five days versus seven.
He's still working harder than you.
If we give you the maximum amount of labor I can think of, he's still working harder than you.
What is it?
Is he doing physical labor or is his job service?
Any labor he's doing is harder than what you have to serve.
No, I disagree.
Really?
Vacuuming?
Vacuuming and driving to get stuff from the store.
The difference, and I'll tell maybe you're going to jam.
What is it?
Literally.
So basically, and there's been like a couple of studies on this, anyways.
The nine to five job.
Oh, thank God.
There's been studies.
Yeah, no.
You can laugh at me all you want.
The facts are facts.
Nobody actually works nine to five.
Yeah, well, then I'm going to assume you don't actually work this amount of labor either.
Okay.
The point being is that it seems like even though people go to the office nine to five, let me finish my sentence.
Seems it is the case that basically people do not actually work the entire time that they're at the office.
It seems like there's a maximum amount.
No.
Let me finish.
Well, no, I can't.
I can't.
I need you to commit to your positions, not say seems.
I'm committing to the fact that people don't actually work their entire nine to five.
There is a limit to how much human productivity you can get in a day, especially in an office.
Why should we assume that the same is the case for the housewife?
The reason why we specifically labeled it different is because you're, and this is why I specified: is it physical labor or not?
Because you are taking care of both, okay?
I know you're going to laugh at me, whatever.
The mental load in the sense of like, oh, trying to keep track of everybody's schedules, trying to keep track of everybody has their things together, trying to keep track of everything.
Yeah, you don't really clock out.
You got to get your ass.
The difference is you don't clock out.
You just had a four-hour window where you clock the fuck out.
Not really.
On your busiest day, four hours of doing nothing on your busiest day.
Not really, because you're still always responsible for that.
You're sitting on the fucking couch eating bomb bombs, watching Oprah.
The difference is always, always, always going to be responsible for what happens to your children.
So if something happens.
Oh, no.
Yes, if you're clocking out and then you miss a fucking message from the school saying, hey, we need you to pick up Jimmy.
He just like, you know, broke his fucking arm.
You're the one who has to like.
Which happens every once in a while.
it doesn't matter if it happens once every once in a while the point that i'm trying to get across here is that your afternoon nap might get interrupted by having to go pick up jimmy Okay, you're not letting me finish.
Well, I'm sorry.
Listen.
No, you can make fun of me.
I have a huge family.
I've raised a lot of kids.
I've got a housewife.
And let me tell you something.
It's not a hard fucking job.
And the thing is, is that here, let me walk you through a real day of an average housewife, not their coping bullshit fucking day.
Even giving you a 3,000 square foot house, you couldn't fill more than a six-hour window of your day.
And that doesn't surprise me because here's what actually happens.
A cold lunch gets put in the fridge for the next fucking day.
Okay.
Kid comes by in the morning, eats a fucking bowl of cereal, grabs the bag lunch.
He's on the fucking school bus and she doesn't do shit for hours.
That's most housewives because they don't have to.
Because the nice thing about a house, if it's maintained, it's maintained so you don't have to clean it.
The reason it's maintained with a tiny amount of labor so that you don't have to expand a large amount of labor.
Should we have Rachel do a call in real quick?
Sure.
Can you call her on the phone?
I would love.
I'd love to hear you tell Rachel about how hard a housewife's job it is.
No, because I'm not trying to play housewife fucking Olympics.
I'm trying to get across.
I mean, you kind of are because you're extrapolating that the labor of a housewife is equal to.
You won't even let me finish my last like five sentences.
Like, holy fuck.
Go ahead.
The point that I'm trying to get across is that when you are a housewife or a mom or whatever, you are basically constantly 24-7 responsible for your children and responsible essentially for what your husband does at home.
That is taxing.
That is exhausting.
It is a different type of labor than going to the office.
And not only that, but it's a labor where you're not getting fucking paid.
So no matter what, at the end of the day, you are put at a disadvantage.
So when I come home.
Sorry.
So when I come home, when I come home from the end of a day, the end of a workday, and I hear, honey, the drain is clogged.
The pipe is broke.
The fucking door handle fell off.
A kid fucking hit their elbow through the wall.
Oh, I need all this fucking shit fixed.
Oh, and the car is making funny noises.
Am I getting paid for any of that labor?
No, but you're getting paid for the labor you do at the office.
No, she's also getting paid for the labor I do.
Now, let me ask you a question.
Is she eating off that labor?
So she, I'm saying, yes.
And would she benefit from your labor?
Would she have to eat even on the merits of her own labor?
Yes.
Okay, so in both cases, would she have to house herself on the merits of her own labor?
Yes.
Would she have to heat her house?
So the thing is, is she's still getting all of the benefits of the labor, just like I'm getting the benefits of the labor.
The difference is, is that I still have to take on unpaid labor.
She's actually getting paid for her labor.
No, the absolute difference is that, no, absolutely not.
There is an absolute difference here.
And it's that you ultimately do have control of the finances.
If you decide to quit or to leave the next day, she is absolutely fucked.
There's no way out of it.
Think about what you're saying here.
You're saying that because the potential exists, that the relationship may not work out, that you need to create safeguards for yourself and the inevitable conclusion that it won't.
Why would any man want to marry a woman in a million fucking years who says, I demand to have a safeguard for when this doesn't work out if women are the ones initiating most of the divorces?
It's what is it?
It's not even the worst case scenario.
If you die, she's fucked.
Yeah, what about the net loss to the man?
Think about it from a man's perspective of, wait a second, I just worked for 25 fucking years and you spin up huge amounts of my wealth, time, and everything else.
You spent that and I have to spend it on you taking care of you, you fucking drink.
Because she's taking care of your prodigy, your children.
Even if that's the case, you are also taking care of your children.
She has an obligation to take care of her children.
She's taking care of their children more without safety now.
She has that obligation, just like you do, take care of the children.
That is equally yoked.
But he conveniently you leave out, wait, I spent fucking hundreds of thousands of dollars on fucking you, taking care of making sure that you had the heating and everything else in this big house that I would not ordinarily need.
And you got all of that.
That doesn't count.
Fucking compensate me.
What do you mean?
I'm saying that, hey, you know, you can take care of her or whatever while she's taking care of the household labor.
Sure, whatever.
The point of it is that if something happens to you, she is now fucked.
And I'm not even saying be malicious about it.
I'm saying, let's say you get a heart attack.
So the point being is that she is essentially risking everything to just rely on you.
She's taken for everything in divorce court.
Everything.
Get alimony.
Get half of his shit.
Alimony is what?
Get custody of the kids.
Let's find the question.
Let's say that percentage of alimony again.
She could.
Sorry, do most divorces end in alimony?
Stop.
No, let's do it.
Let's Google it.
Not listening to the rest of it.
Fuck the alimony then.
We'll just say fuck the alimony.
She can end up with half of everything.
She could get the house primarily, get full custody of his children.
Then who gives a shit?
His child support is supporting her even fucking then.
And that is most of the ways that divorces go.
He's taking a greater risk than she is, even if she's sitting her fucking ass at home because if she's unemployed, the court's going to award her or her child support from the man.
So he's going to still support the child.
Yeah, but it goes to supporting her ass most of the time.
Let's not kid ourselves.
I'm not kidding myself.
Most of the time, it is supposed to go to support the children.
I know what it's supposed to go to.
That doesn't mean that's what it goes to.
Also, do what is it?
I think you believe the courts enforce child support more than they actually do.
No, I definitely don't know.
There's no way if you decide to run off in the middle of the night and go to a fucking different state that she's going to even have the monetary or legal resources to hire your ass down.
I'm sorry, I do have to, I do want to come in on this.
So a woman can just go to the department of there.
Got to be a neutral moderator here, Brian.
Let me finish up.
Yeah, yeah, be neutral.
I like beating the tar out of people in debates, but it has to be fair.
That's my rule.
So back to this.
Well, it's just clarifying a point.
Yeah, but back to this, right?
Yes, easily, she can be awarded with all of this, and often they are.
More often than not, they're awarded with this, especially if they have no income.
Then the court looks at it and says the children need to have some type of equal life in both homes.
So you need to compensate to make sure that they have that life over there.
What is she losing here?
In fact, she has an incentive to get divorced and go with a new man because now she cannot report his income taking care of her plus gets his.
Sorry, most women who...
Women?
Yeah.
Yeah, most women.
And we could search it up right now.
Just Google it, honestly.
Search up their economic status before and after divorce, please.
How many of them are more financially off better being single mamas?
The vast majority are not better off.
That's just it.
Like, it doesn't.
So what?
So what?
So the fact is this picture that you're painting that women are like, you know, divorcing their husbands.
Prove to me that they're worse off when they're in their 30s and get a divorce than when they were married at 20.
Prove that to me.
Prove that to me that at 30, they're worse off than when they were at 20 when they got married.
I think they're better off still.
They may not have had as good of a life as they had when they were married, but they chose the fucking divorce.
Economically speaking.
Economically speaking at 30, I guarantee you that they're doing a lot better than they were at 20, even if they're fucking divorced.
So that argument is moot.
It means nothing.
It doesn't even make sense.
You're saying, what is it?
Compare.
Well, first of all, I don't think anybody's doing very well if they're getting married in their 20s, generally speaking.
Right.
Huh?
Yeah.
Yeah, no.
Agreed.
So what is it?
I'm 99% sure.
We can like find out right now.
Most women end up, yeah, they end up in a lower socioeconomic bracket after they divorce than before they divide.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that their socioeconomic bracket still isn't higher than it would have ordinarily been had they not been married.
Yeah, I don't think that's true.
Prove it.
Let's find out.
Like, can we Google right now, honestly?
Prove that they leave.
Prove that they go into the marriage at a higher socioeconomic status than when they leave.
I would love to see that demo.
How about this?
While she's looking that up, we do have a super chat, Paul James.
She sounds so wild.
You sound like the vice I can imagine can be an unwait, what?
Oh, the vice president, I can imagine, can be an unburdened what has been, but can be unburdened by what has been, but there are those still unburdened.
The word.
Paul James, thank you for the super chat, man.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Even though I didn't really understand it, I still appreciate it.
I still appreciate it.
Thank you, man.
And then we do have, I'm going to let these, there's some TTSs that were.
Yeah, we got to wrap the debate anyway.
Yeah, we're going to wrap up here soon.
Guys, if you want, the TTS has been dropped to $69.
Unless you guys want to do a 10-minute row session.
We'll do the 10-minute row.
Okay, we'll do listing.
Then we can go to the growth session.
You're saying before marriage.
Hold on, just let these come through real quick.
$69 donated $69.69.
Hi, Andrew.
How are you today, man?
Good.
Hey, Pixie on board.
I was wondering, do you want to daily talk on Instagram and get helpful texts by me?
I give you $69.304.
Pixie, did you hear that?
What did you say?
Do you want to talk on Instagram with this guy?
Jess Gerald donated $69.
Hey, Gerald, good to see you.
I thought you thought running wheelbarrows of concrete for 12 hours was difficult.
Well put, Gerald.
Sorry that it took us a little while to get to these.
They came in about 15 minutes ago.
I just wanted to pause it to allow the conversation to flow.
Gerald, thank you for the TTS.
Much appreciated.
Pixie, any response to 69?
He wants to talk daily on Instagram.
Yes or no?
Uh-uh.
Neither yes or no.
No.
Okay, just once a week then.
Jess Gerald donated $100, and I thought running wheelbarrows of concrete for 12 hours was rough.
There it is again, Gerald.
Thank you for the TTS.
Appreciate it.
Yeah, listen.
Listen.
It's not.
Okay.
Housework, six hours of it per day on your heaviest day is you and your fucking stupid concrete, bro.
You need, you know what, dude?
Why don't you just stop being such a little bitch?
Go do some housework for six hours a day on your heaviest day.
That will teach you the value of real work, sir.
That is the value of real work.
Ulysses the Pagan donated $69.
I'm machinist at a heat treatment plant working 12-hour shifts, five days a week and overtime.
My wife is staying at home, happy, and has a beer ready for me.
She's not serving, just grateful and I heard.
Yeah, but dude, okay, listen, Ulysses, you're fucking ridiculous, okay?
Just because you work way more than 40 hours a week like every other fucking working class man who has a family that I'm aware of at the moment doesn't mean that your contribution is nearly as much as it is from six hours of daily housework.
Why don't you get your shit together, bro?
Get your fucking shit together.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Oh, last thing.
The poll, I think we ended it.
It had about 2,500 votes.
It was 91 to 9%.
Sorry, 91 to 9%.
Bias.
Very, very, I mean, it's sample selection of men.
I'm sure that all of them are lying about their preferences.
I'm not even going to get into sample selection, but I do want to mention When you were earlier stating, oh, you have to compare it before marriage versus after marriage, you also have to compare it to what would the woman have been making if she did not stay at home.
Yeah, but that's a subjective metric.
That's not a subjective metric.
It is.
No.
So the thing is, these chicks are getting married as fucking baristas, and then they go, but I had a dream to be an astronaut.
It doesn't mean she's not.
The vast majority are getting married within, like, essentially their socioeconomic.
No, most of them are getting married at fucking 30 and have hopped between 20 fucking jobs in their home.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Most people, most people get married in their 30s.
Yes.
I thought you said most people, I thought you were saying like guess what?
They've jumped 20 fucking jobs before they got married.
Usually most of them don't even have stable fucking linear careers.
So what are you talking about?
They're still making cash versus if they just stayed at home.
Yeah, but you said that cash offset, they would be spending it anyway.
And in this case, the man is taking care of that same cash they would have been spending.
We're saying they would be making more cash.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove that they would have been.
Prove that the fucking barista would have been making more cash than the fucking machinist.
Okay, all you have to do is like literally compare women who decide to stay at home versus women who just continue to get a career and then also have children.
Yes, but you're not offsetting it with what they normally would have to spend on themselves.
So what I'm saying is that it's great.
Are you two-income households?
No, no, no.
Yes, yes, yes.
So if you're a barista, okay, and you're pulling in, I don't know, 14 bucks an hour or something like this, you agree with me that you have to pay your living expenses.
Okay.
Stop.
Yeah.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that.
Sure.
Yes.
I'm going to walk you through it and then I'll go through your shit, okay?
But you can't spur and just go, I don't want to talk about this.
So you agree that they're going to have to pay the living expenses, their heating cost, their car care costs, their gasoline.
They're going to have to pay for all of that shit, right?
Sure.
All of it.
How much money do you think that the average fucking woman has in her savings account after she pays her own expenses?
Tell me.
Almost none of them have any.
Almost none of them have a savings account at all.
So if that is the case, that most women don't even fucking have a savings account because they don't, because they don't.
Neither do most men.
Most Americans are getting paycheck to paycheck.
Guess what?
That's very helpful to my argument and not yours.
If most people don't have a savings account, then that means that they're spending all of that money on just living expenses and the expenses of being fucking alive.
So if that is the case, then if the man is taking care of her this entire time, all of her living expenses, the things she would have been spending that other money on without the savings account, are being accommodated.
What point of it's her money that you don't understand?
It's still her money.
They're married.
No, it's not.
Because when it's the guy, again, as we've stated before, if something happens to him or if something malicious happens to him, she is then monetarily fucked.
Yeah, so would he be?
No, he'd be a lot less fucked.
He has if she divorces him, takes half his shit.
Again, as we've stated before, most of these women, after they divorce, are in a lower socioeconomic bracket.
So she's not maintaining.
No, let me finish.
Let me finish.
That's an obfuscation.
You're obfuscating the point.
Absolutely.
100%.
You gotta do the L thing when you do that.
You are.
You are obfuscating the point.
Not on the staff.
Because of points.
The point is that if they are, what is it?
Giving up their ability to work for the past 10 years.
And now they're in a worse economic socio position because of the divorce.
Socioeconomic position.
Yeah, they're not going to be able to continue that same lifestyle as before versus if they continue to work and then, you know, got divorced.
Okay, now they're still around the same level.
They still have that same experience.
They are not relying just on, you know, childcare.
Hop from 10 jobs to they would have hopped to 20 jobs and still not had a savings account and still not had savings.
They would still be able to be in the workforce.
They don't lose that.
They still could be in the workforce.
They go back to the business.
Okay.
I don't know when what reality you live in where an employer looks at a 10-year gap on a resume and says, you know what?
You should get paid just as much as this person who worked on the business.
This is an unfortunate argument that you and progressives make all the time, but an employer would actually rather look at a 10-year gap in employment history than see that you job hopped fucking nine times in the last 10 years.
That's not true.
It is true.
No, look at the number one to raise salaries.
Look at the number one way to raise salaries.
I'm sorry, it's job hopping.
That's why people do it.
Guess what?
That is true.
But do you know why?
Employers, because employers need bodies.
And so when you need bodies, you don't have a labor force which can accommodate bodies, you'll hire fucking anybody regardless of their work history.
Let me finish.
I just let you go through your spiel.
Okay.
Okay.
So again, if you have a labor shortage, sure, you can do all the job hopping you want because people are so desperate for bodies.
But the same would be true for a woman who hadn't worked for 10 years as it would be for a woman who job hops every six months.
Do you think an employer, for instance, likes to look at your resume and see that in six months, the chances that you're going to leave the company are almost 100%?
Probably not.
Same thing.
They look on the other hand and see, oh, 10-year age or 10-year gap in employment history, because I was a stay-at-home mom, they would probably prefer that.
Yes.
Absolutely not.
Absolutely, yes.
What they look at is, oh, you're a hot commodity or whatever.
Look at your experience.
We want to take you away from your competitors.
Even in the same fields.
When you said the job hopping, when you said job hopping, usually people job hopping.
No, they don't.
Yes, they do.
Okay, most people are not going from astrophysics to the barista or the other way around.
Well, most people aren't going to astrophysics, nothing.
But the biggest increase in salary from job hopping is when you switch careers.
Careers switching and changing, number one indicator for making a lot more money.
Oh, nice.
I am not going from, what is it?
Doing, yeah, as I stated before, fucking astrophysics to law.
What usually happens is maybe I start as a fucking paralegal or whatever, get my law degree, and then I technically switch jobs into an attorney.
Common people.
Yeah, okay.
Either way.
Here's what's common.
Here's what's common.
Okay, you're right.
You know what?
You're right.
You're not going to jump.
Most people are not going from teacher to nurse.
You know what?
You're not going to jump from your fucking entry-level ass position at the Arby's to the entry ass position at the in-and-out, right?
Both of those positions, one pays in and out, let's say, 20 bucks an hour, and your fucking Arby's job paid $9.50 an hour.
I guess technically you're in the same field, but the truth is, it's a mass career change because everything you're doing within that job capacity, totally fucking different than anything you did.
But the other thing is, is when you're talking about fields, if you're just talking about sales, for instance, okay, is sales dynamically going to change, you think, in the 10 years that you're a housewife?
Is the mechanism for sales going to change?
If you could sell houses or you could sell cars or you could sell any of those things before, could you just not suddenly do that now?
It's just not within your purview.
If I'm going to hire someone, I'm going to obviously hire somebody who has more experience in sales than somebody who doesn't.
Even if they job hopped six months ago, it means that that's a really stupid.
Why would you want to do that?
That's what most people are.
Most people don't want to take somebody who hasn't been in the labor force for 10 years.
When there wasn't a labor shortage, the number one indicator that you weren't going to be employed was job hopping.
Number one indicator.
Find it.
I'm curious.
You can pull it up.
Because I'd be surprised if it wasn't previous unemployment.
Look under the Obama era, especially when you had a huge lack of jobs.
Number one indicator you weren't going to get employed, job hopping.
Do you guys, do you want to look that up?
I'll let some TTSs come through.
About that, the blind archer donated $69.
Women have 44%.
I think Pixie can agree.
At this point, she's not debating on logic anymore, but emotion and nuance.
Do you concur?
No, I don't concur.
She does not concur.
Thank you, Blind Archer.
We'll just let the ones that are going to come through.
Yeah, we're going to wrap.
Yeah, we're almost done.
We're going to wrap soon.
We'll let these guys.
I'm a structural welder at a very prestigious naval shipyard building submarines 12 hours a day, seven days a week.
I live alone, and it takes max three hours to do housework and cook.
It's called multitasking.
No, no, no.
It's the hardest job in the world, bro.
That's it.
So it's super difficult.
Six hours a day?
Four hours of nothing to do.
It's if you guys want to.
This chick makes Desiree from yesterday look smart.
I wouldn't say that.
No.
She's had some good, solid debate points, I thought, tonight that were worth contending with and arguing about.
I don't think Pixie's stupid, annoying, and does the triangle thing a lot, but yeah, not stupid.
I feel the same way, Andrew.
The chat donated $69.
How about you don't get divorced?
Thank you.
The chat.
Appreciate it.
Really quick, guys.
Also, go to twitch.tv/slash whatever.
I'm not able to pull it up.
Nick had to leave twitch.tv/slash whatever.
We are simulcasting over there.
Drops the phone on the prime sub if you guys thank you.
Read your Bible donated $69.
Matthew 537, let what you say be simply yes or no.
Anything more than this comes from Evil One.
All right, read your Bible.
Appreciate the TTS.
Very much appreciated.
No, five more.
We got five more chats coming in if you guys want.
The TTS has been lowered to $30, $30 TTS, streamlines.com slash whatever if you want to get them out.
And tell Wild donated $30.
Where is Maddie to read these super chats?
Brian is cutting his staff like California fast food businesses are doing.
Effie Newsom?
She's just, I think she went out of town.
She'll be traded Catholics, but donated $30.
Pixie, I wish you were as right as you are passionate.
I was a progressive idiot and am now a trad Catholic because I started reading factual literature.
Read from the Austrian School of Economics.
No.
Last day's fair, huh?
RAF underscore PSA donated $69.
See, you presented yourself well.
Even if I disagree with a lot of what you speak on, debates like this are needed.
Good on both of you.
Enjoyed it.
Will C be doing verbal combat course?
She needs it.
But the big thing, the big thing is, is just don't scream as much.
It hurts my face.
Just don't scream as much.
Sorry, it's Hispanic in me.
Someone's stereotype I can adhere to.
Lee is in two donated $30.
Brixian, as a 50th percentile man, this scares TF out me.
No wonder 20% to 40% of men have checked out.
Women like Sea is the reason why looser men are turning to Ezom slash incel slash red pill ideology.
GGWP West.
All right, Leo.
Thank you for the TTS there.
Appreciate it.
Juxtapose 03 donated $69.
Pixie, feel the room closing in on you?
That's the feeling of getting cornered ideologically by your own circular logic.
By the way, how many injuries do stay-at-home moms get?
God bless Andrew.
It's pretty rough.
Pretty rough for them, single stay-at-home or for them stay-at-home moms in the injury department.
Sometimes, as they get their ass off the couch and they're moving over towards the fridge, they trip, snub their toe.
It's a rough life.
Optimus Prime girl donated $33.
Housework doesn't have to be hard or a burden in order to be important.
You're making the point against yourself.
Working moms could never do this if it was that hard.
Pixie, no echo today.
No echo.
Don't know.
Sorry, I thought there were more.
You might have thought that that was a point for you, but actually he was dunking on you slightly.
He was saying, you know, Andrew, you're being too charitable by saying that this is even valuable labor to begin with.
If it was actually difficult, women wouldn't even be able to fucking do it.
That's what he's actually saying.
That was very cleverly worded, by the way.
Very cleverly worded.
If you guys want, you can get in your final TTS messages before we wrap up here.
I'm just going to pause it temporarily to allow Pixie and Andrew to make some closing statements.
So if you guys would like, go ahead, make your closing statements while we have Pixie go first.
And then well, she went first.
So usually the person who goes first goes last, right?
To be like maximum fair.
Sure, sure.
Brian's still learning how to do the debate.
Yeah, I'm still learning.
All right, Andrew, why don't you start with your closing story?
So first, thank you for coming in.
I really appreciate it.
And in the spirit.
Good sportsmanship across the table.
I appreciate it very much.
There was a chick whose hand I wouldn't shake yesterday, so I made sure to shake your hand because I was afraid I'd get the same outcome if I didn't.
So anyway, so back to the closing statement.
We went all over the place this debate.
We started with epistemology and foundations of ontology, and it went all over the place when it came to feminism.
But I did appreciate the spirited argument back and forth.
It was a lot of fun for me because I don't get to do it as much as I used to, especially with you Twitch pole nerds, because you guys are fun to argue with.
A couple of points of contention that we had.
Don't think you demonstrated in any way, shape, or form that feminism is good.
Your definition of patriarchy really sucked when it came to status because I was able to demonstrate that women have tons of statuses that men do not.
And if the case was in the power dynamic, I was able to demonstrate that women have much more power in some of these dynamics than men do.
So I don't think that that was a really good point for you to make.
And I thought that got blown out pretty hard.
I thought on the stay-at-home mom, you made the valid point of what happens to women, though, if the marriage goes south, right?
What is your answer to this?
I thought that that was a much better portion of the verbal sparring and that your points were a lot more solid there.
But going back, circling back to the force doctrine of men and women, completely erect there.
Fucking insane take to say in any way, shape, or form that you would invest your life savings in female prison guards.
Nobody's going to fucking believe you, including you.
No fucking way, even if we gave them more accuracy and quicker trigger fingers, you would put everything on men every fucking time.
And I wouldn't blame you.
Neither would anybody else.
Force doctrine does exist.
Your example of force doctrine also sucked from the A to B to C guy.
And the reason was because there was still implicit force there.
So we never were able to demonstrate that women could ever really grasp force doctrine away from men.
So just like a lot of your arguments, I would probably shore them up.
But I thought you did pretty good on the last round, right?
I thought that that was some pretty good jousting.
Rest of the debate, not the greatest points I ever heard.
But I do appreciate you being a very spirited interlocutor.
So I'll just yield with that.
Pixie?
Also, God is real and Christ is God.
I just wanted to let you know.
So obviously we disagreed on a lot of stuff.
I still don't agree with how you view power in society.
Although there is explicit force, I still think that a lot of it is done in ways that are not just brute force.
A lot of power in society is wielded through essentially social contracts or through indirect force, essentially, and can be done by just essentially private contracts to a level.
I appreciated our conversation overall.
I think, what is it?
Yeah, I'm trying to think about specifics, but honestly, I'm just very, very hungry right now.
So it's fine.
You owe us in and out.
I do not think I owe you in and out, but I am going to get pizza afterwards and we'll treat you guys to a slice if you want.
A slice?
Yes, a slice.
A singular, singular slice.
It'll be a sad slice, too.
I'm going to think it's sad as it's.
One slice of pizza.
Also, you can't get a salad at the pizza place.
Well, you can.
It's just like, it's just a whole tomato with lettuce.
No, have you seen that family guy?
Yeah, totally.
It's exactly like lettuce.
What's your closing?
You got to finish your closing.
Yeah, I appreciated the conversation.
I do think you made good points.
I am very tired.
But thank you so much for being here for me.
Good sport.
And for making this a fun time.
Glad you had a good time.
All right, great.
We'll allow those.
I just got a feeling we're going to end up covering dinner, though.
I just know it.
I just fucking know it.
Female privilege, Brian.
Thank you all, all of you out there and the whatever podcast.
I know we weren't able to restream to the Crucible tonight because there was another debate that was going on there that was pre-scheduled.
I think Rachel's streaming.
Is she?
Was she able to?
I don't know.
I don't know exactly the particulars.
I thought that there was another debate going on there tonight, but I do appreciate everybody in the whatever audience coming out, showing support for the stream, and of course to the host, Brian Atlas, for having us moderate and very kind of you.
Of course, I will allow the last TTSs to flow through and then we will wrap the show.
With Ghost donated $30, the stay-at-home mom is getting a salary.
It's called her husband's income.
Or do you think we don't give our wives money to buy what she needs?
Also, life insurance and accident/slash disability insurance.
The underscore bomb donated $69.
Comment on the bomb debate.
When asked to join the Manhattan Project, Lisa Meidner said, I will have nothing to do with the bomb.
Not a question of capability.
Women not inclined to do certain things.
I would also argue, not capable of doing certain things, honestly, but at least not en masse.
The bomb.
Really appreciate your TTS.
Thank you.
Trad Catholic Spud donated $30.
I hope that Theotokus will guide you away from the progressive crowd.
Thank you both for being respectful.
I am happy to see you both speak in a relatively cordial manner.
God bless to you all.
Intel Wild donate to the same.
Her voice is extremely annoying, but Pixie, please stay away from the blue-haired, coomer-grenling cat guy named Destiny.
Intel Wild, thank you for that.
Roman Hispanic donated $30.
We was job hoppers and sheet.
Working as baristas and she it.
Making cash and shai it.
By the way, nice haircut, Andrew.
I didn't get a haircut.
Oh.
You just haven't seen my family.
Female Speaker 1 in a while.
Imagine being a parental engineer.
W. Andrew, W. Brixon.
07 to the both of you.
07.
Thank you, Nemesis.
Good to see you in the chat.
That's one of our mods.
Shout out to Nemesis.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Well, she donated $30.
The wine-drunk housewife meme is a meme for a reason.
Love you, Andrew, but I had a manager who was married to a billionaire's ugly daughter and would cheat all the time.
Make divorce shamed again.
Hey, pointing to the outlier doesn't make it true.
30 donated $30.69.
No offensive, but see you ugly 304.
I'm not sure why you have an ego.
You are nothing except one night stand anyway, $69.69.
You lose $69.69 free, Andrew Tate.
Hey, husband, Unterstrecht and Unterstrech father donated Dreisig Dollar.
I am venturing our guess that a lot of men would go through head and do all day every day if it meant they had a loving family at home and a wife that supported them in that context.
Because they do do that now.
How would Pixie feel if she didn't have breakfast this morning?
How would you feel if she didn't have breakfast this morning?
I didn't.
I figured you'd feel that way.
What was the cool voice?
That motherfucker donated $30.
Quit yapping with that human Pillsbury though, boy, and show the whopping that fatty.
Drop it, drop it, little girl.
Bust down, Tadiana.
What that mouth do, though?
What the fuck?
Rat underscore PSA donated $50.
Brian, you didn't lint rocksy once.
Just saying, would you rather be in the woods without a lint roller than a bear?
Which one, Brian?
Without the lint roller or a bear?
Without the rent, rent lint roller, of course.
Really?
I thought you would take the bear.
Jess Gerald donated $30.
I called my boss.
Construction isn't challenging enough.
Timber framing, steel erecting be damned.
I'm going to be a stay-at-home mom.
The hardest job in the world.
Hardest job in the world.
Mr. Boulevard.
Mr. Boulet.
Pixie.
Thank you.
I'm disappointed in you.
You conceded the argument for only prisons.
The business plan was set.
Investors lined up, including Wes Watson and our first big sponsor, Tactical Soap.
Good show, guys.
Thank you, Mr. Boule.
Dane underscore Snyder donated $30.
My wife is a refinery mechanic 17 years.
No sexual harassment.
Doesn't flirt, giggle, have inappropriate conversations.
Acts like a lady.
Treated like one.
Dane underscore Snyder donated $30.
Appreciate it.
My wife is kind, gentle, loving, agreeable, fit, feminine, friendly.
If she wants hot, I'd never have known that.
There you go.
Dan, thank you, man.
BB donated dollars.
Appreciate it.
Andrew, based on your worldview, you are saying that the Christian got outreal because that is just what you believe to be objective truth.
How does someone as logical as yourself believe that, low?
It's like you didn't even hear what I said in my intro.
What I said was that the ability to have an unerring, meaning knowledge itself, I believe that the necessary precondition to even have knowledge is that you have something you can appeal to, which is unchanging.
That is the argument, the philosophical proof for God, which, by the way, if you noticed what Pixie said, she was like, but I have knowledge of all of these things because of my subject, even the box that she put herself in and said, do you agree that I have knowledge inside of this box?
Even that is a knowledge claim, right?
The precondition for us to even have a conversation is based around the idea that we can know something from a standard which is unchanging.
Subjectivists can't.
How can you even have coherent conversations with them if they can give you no standard from which is unchanging for us to even make knowledge claims?
It makes no sense to me.
That is logic.
It's called the transcendental argument for God.
Learn it.
Okay.
Let me see if there's any others coming through.
We are going to do a quick Twitch raid here.
Let me get that going real quick.
We will do a raid on Bob Co.
We're not going to pull it up, though.
All right.
I think that's it for all the all the chats, guys.
But thank you for the super chat, by the way.
Yeah, guys, thank you for all the support tonight.
Really appreciate it.
Thank you for your patronage.
Means the world.
30 donated $30.69.
304 CD Eastern World, aka Russia, who was white Europeans, but not Western-washed.
Last sight, your stupidity, feminist.
Okay, thank you, 30.
Do you want to respond?
George State Greek donated $30.
What's up, man?
Hey, guys, it was so nice meeting you.
Hey, it was nice to meet you too, ma'am.
Good to meet you today, man.
All right.
I think we're all caught up.
Let me just do my little outro here.
One sec, guys.
Okay, GG, well played to the panel.
Say so NZ donated $30.
WTF, the laws of nature are unchanging and fixed.
Zero evidence for God or why that would be any standard of logic.
There are so many gods and none have any evidence.
Quick response.
Oh, Paul.
Intel Wilde donated $30.
Pixie, how old are you and why haven't you found a husband by now?
Gonna have your first kid at 33?
Pixie, I'll have you answer that.
Then Andrew can answer the previous one.
Go ahead.
I'm 25 and I don't want to get married until I am closer to 30 for a couple of reasons.
I also don't want to get divorced.
One kid.
You can have one kid.
I want three kids.
You're going to have one kid and get married at 31.
Most of my family got married around that time and has had multiple children.
So we'll see what happens.
Most of your family got married at 30 and had multiple children.
Yeah, absolutely.
How many members of your family are we talking here?
I have like 14 first cousins.
Most of my uncles and aunts got married like around 30 and have had like three children.
I'm not joking.
Yeah, I did.
I just.
Okay.
And then there's the one that came in right before that, Andrew.
I don't know if you had something quick on that one.
Which one was it?
Zero evidence for God.
There are so many gods.
There's so many gods.
Yeah, I know.
But the concession is just that the prerequisite for knowledge would require a God.
We just start there before we get into the rest of it.
Dylan Hefner donated $30.
Andrew is the GOAT.
The Brian/slash Andrew duo at it again.
Ask Pixie, would you rather be alone in the woods with a bear or with Andrew?
Yes, Pixie, you were way better than the cycle last night.
Way better.
Yeah.
Well, how is the cycle?
Is she just yelling?
She was a fucking nutter butter.
She was crazier than, well, she was fucking crazy.
Apparently, the person I was going to raid just went offline, so I'm going to have to raid somebody else on Twitch.
Who do we have?
So Bear, Bear, or Andrew?
I pick you, Andrew.
That's you.
All right.
Those of you who are still with us on Twitch, I don't know what happened with the raid.
We will send it over.
But I wouldn't do any S fans.
That's the thing, right?
I would just be like, you're supposed to do all the fucking work.
All right.
All right, guys.
Well, so, GG, well played.
Last call, hit the like button, please.
On the video.
Trad Catholic Spud donated $30.
Pixie, you will regret not being married and starting a family now.
As a Catholic, I have regretted not being married yet, and divorce is not allowed.
All right, Trad Catholic Spud.
Appreciate it.
I mean, any thoughts on that, Pixie?
Divorce definitely is allowed by Catholics.
They just pretend that it's not divorce, but it's most definitely divorce.
They just kind of do this weird cope where they're like, annulled.
No, we just were never married for the 10 years we were married and have children.
All right.
It's kind of a weird cope, dude.
You know it's a cope.
You know that that's a Catholic cope.
I do want to thank everybody for tuning in tonight.
You could have been anywhere in the world, but you were here with us.
I appreciate that.
Thank you to everyone who so generously super chats, donates, and supports the show.
Thank you guys.
It's very, very generous of all of you.
You know, a lot of our videos get demonetized, et cetera.
So I really appreciate it.
We don't do, get, we get almost no sponsorship, so this show is primarily fan-funded.
So appreciate it, guys.
Thank you so much.
We will be live again Sunday at 5 p.m. Pacific with another dating talk.
Unfortunately, I think I don't know if I announced this, but the two girls we were, or the one girl who was on the dating talk on Tuesday that we were trying to set Andrew up with for debate, not for anyways.
She likes women anyways.
So she just sent me paragraphs and novels and she backed out.
She, I guess, sparred with some of you guys in the comments section.
And so in any case, she's entirely backed out.
But with that said, we are rating S. Fond over there.
Oh, just rated him over there on Twitch.
Let me just double-check everything.
Like the video one more time on the show.
So Wild donated $30.
Oh, boy.
Okay.
Pixie, that clock is ticking.
Tick tock, talk, talk.
And by the way, it's still a lot of extra content from the whatever this week for sure.
Tons of extra content.
Oh, we got last one.
Ron donated $30.
Pixie, if you want a last minute, then put pineapple on that pizza.
That would be an instant win.
That's true.
Because I would never eat it.
And neither would Brian.
If I'm hungry enough, you know, if I'm hungry enough.
Okay, guys.
Well, I hope you guys have a good night.
Thank you again to both of you for joining us today for the debate.
07's in the chat.
When Pixie was talking about labor jobs, my wife was shouting this blank don't know she.
She.
Do you want to respond to that, Pixie?
No, I want food.
Oh, okay.
All right.
Dane, thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Let me just make sure there's none other coming through.
Okay, I think that's it.
Like the videos.
Like the video, guys, on your way out.
07's in the chat.
I hope you guys have a very good night.
▲
Export Selection