Welcome to a debate edition of the whatever podcast.
We're coming to 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 super chatting.
As YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut, that's streamlabs.com/slash whatever link is in the description.
We do prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs over Super Chats.
To read a message is $99 and up.
We will pull those up in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
Also live on Twitch right now.
Pull up another tab.
Go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one.
Without further ado, I'm going to introduce our two debaters.
I'm joined today by Jim Bob.
He's a political commentator and political cartoonist for the Washington Washington Examiner.
Also joining us today is Kyla, or as she goes online, not so erudite.
She has an undergraduate degree in psychology and a graduate diploma in psychometrics.
She's a content creator, streamer, and political commentator.
Thank you both for joining me today.
The topic of today's debate is feminism, and we've kind of spontaneously possibly added a few other prompts to you will each have up to a five-minute opening statement.
The rest of the show will be open conversation with a few breaks for audience messages.
At the end, you will each have up to a five-minute closing statement.
And Jim Bob, we're going to have you do your opening statement first.
Sure.
Go ahead.
All right.
Well, feminism, at least broadly stated, is the advocacy of equality of sexes.
Definitionally, that would be a movement away from a society that has men in power.
I would call that patriarchy.
Men holding the power and women are largely excluded from those positions.
I see an immediate contradiction.
It would be up to my opponent tonight to redefine feminism to maybe get away from this contradiction.
But if feminism is some type of movement away from male power or a patriarchy, then any form of feminism that I can point to, or I think my opponent can point to, relies on that same power.
So for example, if we go back to even the 18th Amendment before they had voting, they appealed to men, right?
When the 19th Amendment came along, they were actually still appealing to men.
So the question is, well, is that a movement toward feminism or is it just affirming the power that men actually have and sort of asking like a parent, can they have a larger allowance this week?
I think it's the latter.
The funny thing about feminism is that while it's rooted in this sentiment that the patriarchy is this authoritative oppressive regime, if we look back maybe around the 80s and onward, the voting patterns, ironically, from women are highly tilted toward expanding authoritative government power, which is kind of a funny irony.
The sentiment, again, is men oppress.
We got to break the oppressive patterns of society.
And yet all of their voting patterns actually points to the opposite, expanding government authority, which another irony is that that government authority is mostly men.
The feminist screeches about liberty and autonomy then votes for more government intrusion.
Now, while we heard plenty from Andrew Wilson on the force doctrine, it is definitely an undefeated argument.
Even if you got a gorilla to deliver the argument in sign language, it would still be better than any feminist argument I've ever heard.
However, we won't beat that horse to death, but I do want to include it in the debate.
I also want to include that feminism largely defined today, the metrics for feminism, the metrics for liberty, the metrics for well-being, is often placed on just mere maybe economic liberalism or some sort of outcome-based system that's measuring materialism, some type of wealth, some type of mobility economically.
And it's rooted in consumerism, which is kind of funny because the movement that feminism made throughout the last couple hundred years coincided with a predominantly male-run industriist part of society.
The industrialists, maybe they looked at the women and said, huh, that's a whole other taxable income right there.
They're just sitting ducks, right?
And, you know, safe in their home, raising the children.
We've got to get them out of it.
Let's get them in the workplace.
Let's get them with debt.
And lo and behold, many years later, women, I think now that the percent is about 75%, women hold 75% of the consumer debt now.
So my opponent might define feminism as a good thing because it produces well-being.
I would argue, even with the debt, holding debt, even the stress of debt as a man holding debt, the kind of stress that could put on you, I don't think that would add too much to your well-being.
There's other metrics you could look at to argue that the well-being is actually not great with the pursuit of pure materialism.
So if my opponent tonight offers a metric for the good rooted only in material outcomes, consumer outcomes, purchasing power, this type of thing, I would just point out that the goodness of a society cannot be reduced and should not be reduced to strict materialism.
Let's see what else.
The other question is what's the payoff?
So when we advocate, the basic feminist talking point is liberate the woman from this terrible home situation that they're in.
They're a slave to their man.
They're a slave to their husband.
They're a slave to their children.
I don't see many alternatives.
The alternative that I've seen in the last 30 years is mostly being a slave to more of a stranger of a man who's a CEO.
And your home becomes the office.
And I'm not sure what the trade-off is because what happens with feminists is they basically forfeit their fertile years.
And then 20 years later, they wake up, they're 44, they have wine-stained teeth, they have seven cats, and they're wondering where all the men are.
Where are all the good men?
Well, I'll tell you where the good men are.
They're already married, and they're married to women who rejected feminism.
And lucky for them, they have children, they have a legacy, they have something bigger to live into than strict material wants and desires.
So with that said, I just want to point out one more time the contradiction that's in feminism, and I don't know if my opponent will be able to get out of this.
If feminism is merely the advocacy of equality of sexes, but it depends on a structure that is demonstrable inequality.
It demonstrates inequality of the sexes.
That is the society we live in.
So in a weird roundabout way, any concept or application of feminism appeals to patriarchy.
So in a rhetorical sense, feminism is still patriarchal.
It can't avoid it.
Patriarchy is a natural description of reality.
To argue for feminism is to argue with reality.
And I think the way feminists generally argue, the way they generally live, seems to be consistent with a constant rejection of reality.
Okay, Kyla, what about you for your opening statement?
Awesome.
So I'm super appreciative.
Jim and I talked beforehand just to make sure that for the viewers, we gave them a slightly different conversation, because I know this is like feminism two for people who watched the previous debate.
So maybe what I'll try to do in my intro is maybe outline where my feminism maybe differs from others.
And we can kind of get into that and kind of break down basically what I would view as like good feminism versus bad feminists.
So feminism to me is a like a construct and an idea.
And so within the idea there is people.
There are feminists and some of them are great, like Simone de Beavois, love her.
And Dichi is an incredible writer.
And there are bad feminists, just like any movement and any idea.
The idea to me of feminism, I think it started out as this idea of equality for sexes, and I think that that was important for the first initial waves.
I don't think feminists are being super honest with themselves if they say that that's what it's for now, because I think we've achieved a lot of equality.
Women, by and large, have the same access to opportunities as men.
There are a couple of like soft cultural limits that I would agree to.
There's some certain cultural patriarchal elements that I think might still inhibit women a little bit.
But by and large, women can go to school, they can get a job, they can apply for any job that a man can.
They essentially have all the same freedoms of opportunities that men do, which is awesome.
I think what feminism is doing now and should be focused on is essentially what I label feminism as, which is a empowerment of women and a promotion of femininity.
And maybe for this conversation, we can focus specifically, at least for me, on the promotion of femininity, because I think that that's the area that needs the most work.
I think third wave feminism did a really good job at stretching the boundaries of what it meant to be a woman.
I think it opened up a lot of more masculine, traditional roles for women that women couldn't really occupy before.
But I don't think that feminism's done a very good job of building its own table.
And that's what a lot of fourth wave feminists kind of advocate for, is this kind of building of a new table and a promotion of femininity that isn't reliant on just like engaging in hyper-masculo structures.
Feminism that I don't stand by, there's a lot of feminists, for example, that basically dismiss all male-related issues.
They think Bassandri doesn't matter.
I reject those feminists.
We don't agree.
There are certain kind of Dorkanites, for example, who I would say just miss Andrew feels like not even enough to describe the level of hatred she has for men.
I am not a Dorkonite.
I don't apply to her ideas.
And like Gloria Steinem, she's a classical third wave kind of lib feminist.
She's very fixated on just like women getting into careers and that's kind of it.
She's very fixated on women and careers.
And I don't care about that other than if women want to go into careers that they can.
So that would be my form of feminism.
I know that I didn't address a lot of your opening statement, but I did write it down.
So if you want to go back to anything, we totally can.
But yeah, I think the feminism that focuses on promotion of femininity would be the most good for women now.
Okay, so you said empowerment and femininity.
So let's do empowerment first.
Could you define empowerment from your perspective?
Yeah, so for me, empowerment of women would be like removing obstacles for opportunity.
Okay.
So from your feminist view of empowerment plus femininity, would you say it's empowering for women to stay home and be mothers?
It can be if that's what they choose, yeah.
Okay.
And so is it if it's empowering for women to choose and they're choosing based on their femininity, if it actually produced a large disparity where women actually found positions in society that were maybe lower in power,
administrative, helping, teaching, mothering, if that was the outcome of pure choice, you wouldn't declare that there's some inequality or injustice between the disparity of men in power and women in lower positions.
I think you bring up a really good point.
In more egalitarian societies, we actually often see women trending towards more femme traditional roles.
Like women tend to want to be nurses and teachers more often.
You see this in like Scandinavian countries.
And I will say, for the caveat, some people dispute that evidence.
The evidence, when I look at it, seems pretty robust.
So yeah, I think women will often still trend towards some of those traditional gender roles, which I'm totally for.
I just want to make sure that they're choosing it and that the women who wouldn't be choosing that have the opportunity to choose something else.
Okay, and then is there any reason from your view, choosing to be a mother at home and a wife, is there any reason you could see that that's actually more empowering than an alternative?
For instance, let me give you a strict example.
If a woman that you knew and loved, for instance, relative or friend, said, you know what, I'm really drawn to being a mother.
I really am drawn to the traditional structure of life.
I could just really see myself raising like five kids.
But there's this other impulse of me that wants to just start in OnlyFans.
I don't know what it is about it.
Like from a feminist view that you're defending today, is it either or is fine?
Or is one better for her and better for society?
I think that's a good question.
So when I think about like what's the best choice for somebody, I break it into three things, which is the choices you make should be something that your past self, your present self, and your future self will consent to and like, right?
And so I think when you're posing this question, the OnlyFans option has a lot of potential acute short-term gain.
A fuckload of money, obviously.
But the important question is, will your future self consent to that and like it?
And I think that's a really big question.
And I think the answer for some women is yes.
I have met like Ayla Girls, a good example of somebody who I think has said yes to the OnlyFans sex work thing.
And it seems to genuinely bring a lot of fruit to her life.
But I think for like a lot of women that kind of get romanticized into sex work, they forget about their future selves because they think their future selves will be grateful for all the money.
When in reality, most women that don't do OnlyFans don't make that much money.
And also you have to deal with the fact that your sex and body is popular.
From the answer, it sounds like the lens you're using to determine your answer is purely individualistic.
It's decently individualistic.
I would agree with that.
So if it is mostly individualistic, and if your position in this debate anyway is you're taking the affirmative that feminism is good for society, which is beyond individualistic, right?
So now you have to add in one more variable when you're coaching your friend here because what they determine they might like or not like in the future may not be tied directly necessarily to what's best for society.
Yep, I would agree.
The caveat to that that I would basically poke is if individualism doesn't lead to a flourishing society, then why is it the case that the most individualistic country, i.e. America, is one of the most predominant countries in the world.
And so I understand what you're saying.
There's a certain level of responsibility we should have to our community, essentially.
I just think that individualism often seems to somehow, I'm not even sure exactly the process, do this to some degree, which is why we have most individualistic nations being the strongest, most kind of happiest, highest GDP, all the factors of good best for the society.
I mean, if you define good as merely productive, you could definitely do counter arguments of like, let's say Epstein Eilin got off the ground and it's actually logically and practically possible for you to do horrific things in a society and still produce a high GDP.
But the other aspect of what you just said is that individualism, if it produces all of these goods, but what's best for society as a necessity is replacing your population.
Would you agree that we're not doing good in replacing our population?
Yeah, I think birth rates being low is very tied to kind of like liberal financial success.
And it's harmful.
I just don't think it's fundamentally tied.
I think actually going to Israel and seeing all these like liberal, left-leaning Jewish people having 90,000 babies is a very, it's very interesting.
It's a very big counter to the standard liberal of like the more money a country makes, the less.
Well, the reason I brought that up is if the next generation of children and the generation after that is a necessity, a necessary component for a good society, regardless of what we agree on good is, if that's necessary, I would argue that every form of feminism that I've seen, which is largely tied to individualism, doesn't actually have a way of advocating for that in a meaningful way.
So the philosophy itself is missing what I would call deontology or in simple terms, any duties.
So any feminism you don't like that I also don't like, there's no duties.
There's no real true duties to say you're a feminist.
And even in the version that you're proposing, that's anti those other crazy ones, right?
You're against these crazy ones.
Even your position, there's no real duty for a woman who's a feminist to produce the next generation.
And so this is why I measure it up against other cultures or other worldviews, in this case Christianity, has a built-in, not that this debate is feminism versus Christianity.
I just want to bring it in as a reference.
Is the missing element of duties, there's no obligation for you to influence another woman to have a child in a meaningful nudging way, right?
You know, like nudging.
I'm not talking about force.
I'm not talking about punishment for not having.
Promotion of it.
Yeah.
Super propagandized, right?
You would agree that feminism largely from the start until now is not only, I wouldn't say indifferent to family, but actually advocates against it.
The one you're arguing for, as I understand it, you're like, no, I've met a lot of feminists who want to have kids.
They're not this antinatalist group.
But you'd have to concede that the most part, the propaganda that we see, The dominant narrative is basically anti-family, anti-children, pro-boss babe, go get it, girl, sell your body, girl.
If you got it, flaunt it, this kind of thing, right?
And the reason I bring this up is that that kind of narrative, that kind of worldview is purely self-centered and doesn't actually produce what's necessary for a thriving society.
So even if I granted you, I don't concede to your metrics of what's good, but even if I granted you the whole thing, like, oh, well-being, happiness, this, everything you could add, right?
Money, housing, whatever you want to add in there, it's all fairly meaningless if there's not a component that values reproducing society itself as a virtue, even.
So feminism itself has no virtues.
I wouldn't say feminism has no virtues.
It definitely has virtues.
I think there's a valid critique which is saying feminism doesn't celebrate motherhood enough.
I agree with that.
I think it's complicated when you look at antinatalism because antinatalism isn't a purely feminist thing.
There's a number of different philosophies and worldviews that are antinatalist, right?
Communism would be another example of one that tends to often be very anti-natalist.
And I think antinatalism is death culture behavior.
I think it's very hard.
Can I interrupt you?
I want to ask you, why do you think it is that feminism, I agree there's antinatalists that maybe aren't feminist, but why do you think it is that most feminists and the history of feminism is largely, inextricably tied to an antinatalist sentiment?
That's a really good question.
So this might be where we first differ pretty significantly.
I think a large reason for why feminism has been so antinatalist is because the family and the duty of motherhood has been weaponized historically as a chain to enforce women stay home, not be able to work, and not be able to basically like to be able to do that.
Can I stop you there?
Sure.
Before and during the suffragette movement, do you know that primarily the women who were being challenged to maybe grab their vote, they opposed it willfully, happily, and they weren't under the impression that they were chained to their husband's lazy boy, right?
They took a position that not only one, they didn't want the guarantor position of, let's say, credit.
They didn't want to be able to be also drafted and put into dangerous situations.
They also had a nice, hardy moral lens that they all shared.
They were sort of like the moral barometers of the time.
And so they were actually, I would argue that pre-feminism, especially during that timeframe where the, let's face it, the really ugly women who couldn't find husbands were like, we need power, right?
They have power.
These other women are getting married.
All of the married women that you say are chained to their husbands, right?
They came out and said, we don't want the vote.
The suffragette movement actually stopped, tried to physically stop them from showing up to vote against their own vote.
So why is it that the majority of women at that time didn't share the sentiment that they were enslaved?
If they were enslaved, wouldn't they be coming out and saying, free us, free us from this terrible atrocity called motherhood?
Well, it's a little bit of a misnomer to tie their aversion to getting the vote to them claiming that they're not chained necessarily, right?
Their aversion to the vote was specifically because of drafting and some concerns about debt.
However, as the suffragette movement started taking off and women realized that black men were going to get the vote, they began flocking towards the suffragette movement and became largely embraced.
So while I would agree that the early suffragettes were some of the most dislikable women on the planet, that doesn't change the fact that as time goes on, it very quickly becomes a deeply subsumed belief that increasingly most women across North America desired.
Okay, and I put it in my opening, the increase of women voting.
The sentiment is more power, challenging the man, equalizing the power, offsetting the disparity of power.
Do you find it a bit ironic that predominantly what women vote for enhances the power of man, essentially?
Because you're talking about big government, essentially, that increases like welfare state.
I just think it's disanalogous to compare these two things.
I don't think that social safety networks, for example, is in any way.
What about gun laws?
Yeah, I would agree that gun laws are more controlling.
The issue is that regulation, the reason that people desire regulation is not necessarily in confluence or in – sorry, I'm getting tired, so I'm losing my words.
It's not in dissonance with wanting freedom, right?
There's this idea, it's actually popular within the church, that to have true freedom, you need some level of structure and systems around you.
And so most liberals who are pro-institutions and pro-welfare states are also very pro-freedom.
These two things aren't inherently disanalogous.
Do you think that there's something about the nature or ontology of women females that they're drawn to voting for more safe things against liberty, against basically, like, here's a way of putting it rhetorically.
When women vote largely, they're voting for basically a daycare center.
They want society because it's their nature to basically look like a safe room where no one gets hurt because they see the world as kind of their children.
And that's actually a good trait.
It's just that it's misdirected.
This is why the question of the nature of men and women, which we'll get into gender roles in society, that the nature of men and women actually directs and informs where they end up in the world in society.
And so I think the feminist movement is some type of reaction that tries to compensate for some perception of inequality, but then overcompensates and throws women into situations where they really, they wouldn't end up if the choice was there anyway, for the most part.
Yeah, but the key, part of the key element is the choice, right?
Like choice and free will and ability to self-determine is like one of the most fundamental, it's one of the most fundamental things to our faith as well, is this idea of free will and salvation.
Can a blind person use their free will to get the pilot job?
No.
Okay, so there are limitations, right?
Yeah, of course there's biological limitations to that.
So that's what I'm talking about.
It's not the will.
If I could just answer you just a little bit at length, because you said a number of things.
So to respond to your like care orientation in voting, I would agree that in general, women tend to vote left and seem to be very care oriented.
I just think that that's a good thing about society.
I think a society that takes care of people who can't take care of themselves very well is good, right?
I believe in social safety networks.
I think that they're valuable to society.
And I think the fact that women brought that into our policies is good, while I'd also grant you that there are elements of major overstep.
For example, gun laws.
I'm not actually opposed to gun laws.
I just think what happens with gun laws, for example, is the people that advocate them have no sophistication in gun technology.
Okay, so, well, yeah, women, generally speaking, don't have knowledge of how to operate a gun or have the strength to even operate a gun for the most part.
And they're voting for gun laws, and they don't know anything about guns.
So that's what I'm pointing to is that their nature is actually towards safety, but they're actually asking men to basically legislate the safety and enforce the safety.
Well, they're asking authority.
Is men.
If feminism is a thing, right, that you're arguing for, definitionally, like I asked you before the debate, is there a correction going on?
So if feminism exists, it starts with the assumption that there's some sort of inequality, something that needs to be corrected, or even lightly, that there's a disparity of power in the balance, right?
A balance of power.
Can I ask you a question?
Let's go back.
In the 1920s, could women own land?
I don't think so.
Could they go to school of their own free choice?
I'm not sure about that one.
I know that some of them could work.
There's a myth that they couldn't work.
I'm not sure what year.
But leading, you know, as time goes on, they didn't even get credit cards until 1970.
True.
I guess maybe a follow-up question to that would be, you probably don't think it's good that women can work or have land.
I don't want to put words in your mouth.
I don't even think it's good that all men necessarily should vote if, like, because land and voting, all these things were tied together back then.
And so the land question is, should women have land?
Well, if you bought the land, what do you have land for?
It's like, you're not going to be the one defending it ultimately.
It's going to be a man defending it.
It's going to be fiat defending it, right?
And I do.
Wait, what do you mean by that?
Well, what I mean by that is this idea where you're talking about the enforcement arm, and we've talked about this before.
I think it's a very silly idea to basically steal the valor of a small select group of young, able-bodied men who have a penchant for violence who are willing to enact order as saying that this is like men doing this thing.
So it's like, well, sort of, but it's specifically.
Do you get any of your feminist policy passed without the young strapping group of men with a penchant for violence?
Yes.
No, you don't.
Yes.
No, you don't.
Yeah, most policy isn't passed through violence.
No, it's enforced with violence.
All policy is enforced with violence.
Hold on, hold on.
If you pass a policy and a law...
Men don't get to steal valor from other men.
Hold on a second.
There's no valor.
We're not talking about valor.
The point is that there's a difference between a group of men and a group of women.
We're not saying that because a group of men hold this position of power, that these other men get some type of privilege, right?
We're saying that men collectively, descriptively, that you're trying to say, oh, a penchant for violence, as if that's a bad thing.
It's not a bad thing.
right so it's like well hold on just to be clear i don't think that's a bad thing well Well, it sounded like a pejorative.
No, that would only be because if you think that I think violence is inherently evil, which I don't.
I like cops and soldiers.
So you agree that if a woman had the money to buy land, you would agree that she couldn't actually defend it from intruders.
Well, with guns, she probably decently could, but the reality is that the man would be able to defend it pretty similarly, especially with guns.
Okay, here's my question.
If the landowning situation is a microcosm of society, does the man, in your view of feminism, have an obligation to defend anything?
If he owns, is he the landowner?
Any men, any man in society, whether it's at the land level or a stranger walking on the street.
This is a really good clarifying question.
Most men don't have the obligation.
The men that do are the individuals who join the enforcement arm as the authority.
That's actually not true.
Typically, the police are required to respond.
Well, no, respond to a crime.
The police actually have no obligation in the U.S. to defend your property or your body.
Well, they do to an extent, right?
Like most cops, well, most cops don't intervene because it's not a problem.
No, no, no.
No, it's a Supreme Court case.
Colorado, there's another one.
It's the whole protect and serve thing.
This is like people conflate this.
They think the cops are legally bound or somehow obligated to protect you and your property.
They're actually not.
Their job is to respond to a violation of law or something else.
So the violation could be someone hurt you.
The violation could be someone stole something.
But as far as defending it, the obligation is for you and your family to defend your life and others.
And so this is why I asked this question.
I want to be clear, though.
This is really muddy, right?
Because depending on the state that you're in, your ability to defend your land is actually very criminally questionable because in some states you can't really defend your land, right?
And so this idea that you're saying like cops don't have to defend you.
And why is that?
Well, hold on, hold on.
Just let me finish my thoughts.
Right?
In the case of cops, you're right.
You can't call them beforehand.
Well, actually, you can a lot of the time.
A lot of times, say you have a trespasser, you don't even have to defend your land.
You can oftentimes call the cops as long as you have a sign-up and they can show up and kick you off the land.
That's when they show up.
Be the cop protecting your land.
That's the best.
That's if they show up.
Well, they usually do.
No, no, no, look.
Anytime there's an do you know how many self-defense instances are reported in the U.S. alone?
Oh, I'm sure super high, which is why there's less.
Yeah, I'm not opposed to self-defense.
Hold on a second.
No, but you are opposed to self-defense.
No, not.
Well, why is it that if you're defending feminism and that includes females voting and females vote with patterns that lead to people's inability to use their own weapon?
Is that a good thing?
You're just creating like this.
No, no, no.
I want to ask you a question.
Is it a good thing if the government passes legislation where a man or a woman has constrained ability to defend themselves?
You would have to give me the exact specific.
Is it generally a good thing for society to restrict one's capability of using a gun in their pocket as self-defense?
Again, I actually can't give you a super clear, because there are going to be instances where I think using a gun for self-defense is bad.
Like, I don't like Florida's stand-your-ground policy.
But there are also things where you should be able to.
If there's over a million, and that's only the ones that are reported, uses per year of self-defense with a gun in the U.S. If that person wasn't allowed to use their gun in those instances, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
That would be, for most of those cases, a bad thing.
Okay.
If women voting results progressively in those instances not being able to occur because of restrictive gun laws, is that a good thing or a bad thing?
This is just too reductive to say bad.
It's not.
It's not reductive because the stats show it.
Women vote in favor, tilted highly, to higher constraint of liberty and especially regarding guns.
They're like, ick guns, scary.
Yeah, but so do like black men at a higher level and black women and older generations, especially this last election, also tend to like vote in this direction.
So when you're like reducing these voting things, which are very multi-factor.
Well, no, If you could just let me finish my thoughts.
No, the disparity between men and men is not the same as women, though.
If you don't mind, just letting me finish my thoughts.
What you're doing, though, is you're taking these extremely complicated, multifaceted policy things, and you're reducing it down to man versus women when that's not really the lens by which you should be analyzing things like self-defense law.
Why not?
Because it's not helpful in any way.
Why are you saying it's multifaceted if I can demonstrate statistically that women collectively voting vote toward gun legislation and other things that restrict your ability to defend yourself?
And men, even if you found men that didn't, the disparity between men and women is astounding as far as those laws.
Sure, but that would then be presupposing that the women voting that way are specifically because they want to reduce your self-defense things.
No, it's their nature.
I'm not blaming them for self-defense.
No, no, no.
Their nature is to vote and act in defense, in nurturing, and protection kind of thing.
Sure, but most women would actually probably be like most feminists, for example.
I think the gun is like the greatest feminist equalizer ever, right?
A lot of feminists are very pro-self-defense for pretty obvious reasons.
Yeah, but that doesn't deal with the fact that when women vote, even if I granted you those awesome women.
They're not voting for self-defense.
They're typically going to be voting for things like abortion policy and like why is it that they vote in favor of policies that restrict your ability for self-defense then?
They don't vote in favor of policies that would restrict your self-defense.
They typically vote for Democrat politicians who embody their values more at a broad caretaking level.
Okay, so got it.
So women vote not based on particular things that they look into, but a general feeling of the person who's talking embodies their value.
That's even a worse argument for females.
I don't know why you're strong-hunting me like that.
What is it they're discerning from the, what's an embodiment?
Well, when you look at a politician and you're deciding to vote for them, most people are like one to three main things that they vote for.
It's usually for women, some level of women's rights, economy, and housing crisis, especially in the last election, right?
And so when they're looking at a politician that they're deciding on, those are typically the top three things that they're deciding to vote for.
They're not like going down the line and being aware of that.
Okay, so man, does this person let me do self-defense or not?
In fact, a lot of women will rail against Democrats when they try to return to the vote.
I know, but this is really bizarre because the narrative from women is that men are dangerous and they, you know, you got to watch out for men.
And I agree, men are dangerous.
You should watch out for men.
But the thing is, it's bizarre to have a narrative that primarily is women need to be protected.
Men are dangerous.
We got to look at this assault stuff.
People are essayed all the time.
And then to prioritize voting based on what?
Like if the outcome of voting is that not only you as a woman can't legally use a gun, but also men can't use a gun to even protect you properly, what are they prioritizing above that?
Things like housing crisis and economy.
That's what women voted for.
I thought feminism sorted that out.
What?
When has feminism had more?
Well, you're always arguing that your argument for feminism being good is based on the economy.
Yeah, but that's not the same thing as women voting for the, like using feminism as an economic economy.
Okay, now let's do it this way.
What do you think from your view of feminism is the most important issue given that you have a vote?
The most, the single most, like the top, the top of the top.
Sorry, can you say that again?
What's the most important thing from your feminist view?
Not the one, not the one.
I don't, feminism is not the main thing that makes me vote.
It's usually economic policy and foreign policy.
I vote for foreign policy mostly.
Foreign policy?
Yeah, I care a lot about foreign policy.
Okay.
Yeah.
Like sovereignty.
I care a lot about sovereignty.
Okay.
So if there was something to vote for for feminists, you're going to say vote based on foreign policy.
I would be most, for most women, I would say probably feminism shouldn't be your number one priority.
I think like the housing crisis and the wealth disparity is a much bigger issue than like cultural patriarchy.
And I think you've got like you're being a gender opportunist.
You're fixating on the wrong thing.
I think feminists voting for like purely feminist stuff isn't even that common.
Again, most women this election voted for housing, economy, and then after that was abortion rights.
Okay, so I guess I'm going to ask you, is there a correct feminist view?
No.
Feminism is like a constant moving concept that's developing through conversation, like most philosophical concepts.
So, if concepts, there's no correct concept for feminism, meaning that means that there's no correct application for feminism.
There's no, when you say correct, I guess I'm answering it in like there isn't a perfectly fixed idea of what feminism is because feminism is fundamentally a dialogue, like most philosophies, right?
Okay, but dialogues don't make societies run.
So, like, I obviously think my version of feminism is the best version of feminism, but that doesn't mean it like that.
Is there any standard that determines your version of feminism is the best or the correct one?
I think it's the most consistent.
I think it leads to the highest level of like opportunity and flourishing for both like men and women, but mostly for women.
Okay.
The thing is, if you say it's just a concept, like premise one is feminism is just a concept.
Premise two, it's a dialogue.
Like, the follow of those two, right?
If it's just a concept and just a dialogue, then when we ask what the application is, that means, like, let's like use an analogy.
I design a car that's just a concept in the computer.
And then I go, okay, it's a concept, but it can be turned into reality.
And so, what I'm asking you is, what is your concept of feminism?
And how is it accurately or appropriately applied to society?
Because if it's just a concept, just concepts, do we agree?
Concepts themselves don't make reality function, right?
Yeah, no, I totally disagree with that.
I think like social normative concepts are like the backbone by which zeitgeist emerge.
Like, I think the way that we view the world is rooted in concepts.
Does a concept act on matter?
Through people, sort of, yeah.
Like, well, no.
Like, it depends on what you mean by act on matter, right?
What are me sitting here talking about feminism?
I'm acting on matter.
Okay, look, are you a concept or are you a material body?
I'm a person.
Okay, are you a material body?
Yes.
Okay.
So concepts.
Do concepts knock over cups?
Are you familiar with Plato?
I'm not.
I'm just asking you a question.
Does a concept knock over a cup?
It depends on what you mean by sort of.
No, my hand does, but like the idea.
Can you knock over a cup with a concept?
No, it's immaterial.
Gotcha.
So if concepts immaterial, concepts being that they can't knock over a cup, a concept can't actually build society.
I'm sorry, what's democracy?
Like concepts.
Democracy is force.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
Democracy started as a political philosophy, right?
Like concepts, I don't know.
I don't know what you do with philosophy if you think that concepts don't emerge and affect reality.
I didn't say concepts don't have a relation to reality.
I'm making a distinction because you said feminism is just a concept.
If it's just a concept, it's a dialogue.
It's an action.
Well, that's what I'm trying to ask you.
What is the action of feminism?
Sure, just to be clear, because I don't know why you're making all these weird distinctions.
A lot of times what happens in the way that I think that how people create, and this is honestly like platonic forms at this point, is we like understand a concept of a thing.
So maybe the concept of the thing that you care about is women are being unfair to men.
And that's a concept just in your mind.
But what happens when you hold that belief is that it shapes how you view the world.
It shapes what information that you take in to reinforce that.
And it shapes how you act.
We agree that concepts inform action, but concepts are not actual things that do anything.
So that's why I'm asking you, if feminism is just a concept, what's this bridge between the concept and its application?
Like, for instance, what does it look like for you to apply feminism in your ideal world?
Okay, so you just want policies?
Anything, yeah, anything.
What does your family look like?
Probably in North America, by and large, nuclear seems to be the best structure.
I would prefer more intergenerational than what we have.
I think intergenerational homes tend to be better.
But I would also be open to more commune-style loving villaged families.
A family, a family unit.
Are you saying a mother?
Is it best for a mother, a father?
by and large are at least two parents that like occupy those types of roles okay so basically a traditional looking reflective of a traditional yeah family so that's good for society By and large, yeah.
And you're saying from your view, that's feminist?
I wouldn't say that that's feminist.
just say that that's like what's good for society okay but if not everything has to be feminism right Okay, so if that's good for society, is that counter-feminism?
Can I actually ask you a question just to see if you understand me?
How, on my list of like top five ideas and things that I care most about, where do you think feminism falls?
Like, do you think feminism is like number one?
Just take a guess.
What do you?
Three?
It's not even on my top five.
I think it's like not that important.
I'll debate with you on it because I'm interested in it.
Feminism is not that important for society.
No, because I think it's done most of what it needed to do.
There's little elements left.
What did it do?
It just convinced a bunch of chicks to kill their babies or to delete their babies?
Well, some of it did that, right?
A lot of it did that.
Yeah, abortion, obviously, which is like a tragedy, but it also did things like let women have access to the workplace, allow them to access education, allow them to self-determine, allow them to own land.
No, no, no, no, hold on.
Paying power.
Women owe leverage for society to have the vote.
You have to let me finish my thoughts.
It's as a prattle.
Hold on a second.
You can't call everything that I say.
I didn't say the word prattle once this whole time.
You literally just said that.
I just said it.
Yep.
You said every time.
I didn't do it every time.
That's a problem.
Sorry, you're right.
I'm having flashbacks from our literature and Jay's debate.
Sorry to interrupt you.
I just want to, because I don't want to forget what you're saying, is that it's actually not true that feminism produced working women.
Women could work before largely what you think feminism is.
Yes, no.
This is a major myth.
Audience, I want you to know this.
The feminist always comes in with this story that feminism saved the woman from the home and then they're allowed to work.
That wasn't actually the case.
Women could work.
It just happened to be the case that traditional values were the norm and rightly so that women valued in their society and in their home the position of the mother as one of the most important still today, one of the most important roles to play for women in society.
They just held that belief.
They weren't chained not working.
They could work.
They just chose the value correctly to stay at home, that the best thing for society and their family is to raise good children, to be present with their children, to organize the house, to make the house a small type of organized government, if you will.
And this is what happened.
Feminism came in and smeared what motherhood is.
It smeared what the role in the family is.
It basically poisoned the well and said, that's icky.
You want liberation.
You want freedom.
And guess what it resulted in?
More debt for women, more sexually transmitted diseases for women, higher body counts for women, and ultimately the thing that they, what do you think the biggest leverage is for women?
What is your biggest leverage point in society?
If men's leverage is force, brute force, aggression, what do you think women's leverage is?
Probably sex.
Sex.
Can I go back to your narrative?
One more.
I promise.
I'll let you respond.
Sex, though.
Largely, I know you take a very particular unorthodox feminist view, but largely if we're generally arguing against feminism, has feminism perverted and sold women's leverage, which is their sex, and convinced them to completely make it for free as if that's liberation?
I would not fully, the sexual evolution, I think, is like kind of shit, but I would not fully agree with that statement.
Is it empowering for women to collect body counts?
No.
Can I go back to actually responding to your entire thing?
No, I don't think this idea of collecting body counts is good.
The issue is that like most women don't think collecting body counts is good.
I think it's a very niche.
Yes, you deal with a lot of OnlyFans models, but that's obviously not the average woman.
You are dealing with a high selection bias.
So just to go back to like this narrativizing that you did.
So women work.
We said women were able to work.
They just chose to be in the home.
Well, actually, women always worked.
They just did farm labor and also domestic.
The main thing is that they never received any ability to convert that work into anything leverageable within society like money or ownership.
Why would that happen?
Because being able to have money and able to liberate some level of autonomy is like one of the foundations to be able to make a choice.
For example, if a woman is in an abusive relationship with a husband who's harming her and her children, back in the 1910s when her farm labor would never translate to any goods and to anything that she can claim as her own, she can never leave the house.
Okay, stay there.
Stay there.
In this situation, let's say she was liberated and she was working.
Do you know who's going to abuse the kids then?
The man is still abusing the kids.
No, the people who are watching the kids because the mother's not home watching the kids.
So it's like, you're like, you set up, no, no, you set up this hypothetical where if the woman could work, then she can set up this like sort of like dowry, escape dowry, right?
But the thing is, hold on.
The thing is, if the woman's out in the workplace, she's not at home getting abused.
Jim, you have to engage with my points, right?
You have to engage with what I'm saying.
That's literally what you said.
That's not what I said.
And if you keep erecting straw mans of me, then we can't talk.
What did you say then?
What I said is that what happens when in the back in the 1910s era is that they were working.
Women have always been working through all of history just as hard as men, just doing more domestic, agrarian-style jobs.
Just as hard as men?
A lot of times they're working all day taking care of the children and then also like milking the animals, helping plow, doing like little work.
Just as hard as men?
Yeah, I would just say it's a different work.
Like, men are in the mines, but that doesn't mean...
Oh, just as hard, though.
It's more like physically destructive on the body, but like in converse ways.
Just as risky?
I didn't say just as risky.
I'm just asking.
No, it's not just as risky.
Yeah.
I don't know why you keep doing these words.
Well, I'm talking about like, well, what's the risk and reward?
But I'm asking you to just engage with me.
Like, just talk to me.
Talk to me about my.
I understand.
I'm trying to summarize what you're saying.
You're saying back in the day, women are working on the land and sweating and taking care of the kids and cooking and all these things.
But what's the problem with it?
Wait, yeah, well, what is the problem with it?
Well, I said that.
Do you not remember?
You said the problem is in the instance where they're beaten, they what?
What's the alternative?
I don't understand.
Okay, so the beaten was an example of why it's really important to have something like purchasing power.
It's really important to have some level of ownership of like goods so that you can like exchange and move and like autonomize within the world.
Like the exchange of goods and basic economics is like one of the most fundamental things that bring like peace and freedom globally.
It's very, very important to be able to own goods, to be able to exchange those goods for other goods, and to have some level of choice as a result of that.
I understand.
Women would work and be barred access to ownership of these things.
That sounds like you're arguing for a norm based on an exception.
Nope.
Yeah, you are.
If you're assuming that there's enough women in that scenario who are going to be in a situation that justifies that they have some sort of escape plan.
Your entire foundational argument is this.
Women should have purchasing power and be able to have money to do things in the event they have to leave their husband or their family, whereas you're basically presenting one scenario and making a rule based on one potential scenario where a woman needs an escape route.
Well, it's a decently common scenario.
That's one of the reasons why it's important for women to have rights.
Another one, if we connect it to the vote, one of the reasons why it's so important to give the society the ability to vote is because it transfers your autonomy and authority to an elected individual.
And that individual makes choices ideally on your behest.
And as a woman, until you have the right to vote, you don't have any ability to have a say in what policy societies have.
Guess what?
You don't have a say.
Historically, you don't have a say.
Of course you do.
No, you don't.
Unless you just don't believe in democracy.
I will tell you right now why you don't have a say.
Can you let me know?
I'll tell you what.
Hold on.
Jim.
You don't let me finish this.
No, you said a lot there.
One at a time.
No, one at a time.
Jim, you interrupted me as I've been.
Let's say 40 words per 40 words, okay?
Okay, let's do it.
Because then I'll forget what you said, and then I won't be able to respond to you.
Okay, so you just said women need voting because they need to be able to influence policy and have a say in the society, right?
That's one of the values of voting.
Okay, so women have a say in the society, but women aren't obligated to uphold and to defend the policies with force.
Nobody is obligated to.
God.
So nobody is obligated.
So you're arguing for women to be able to vote from the allowance of men.
Men permit you to vote.
Nope.
Yes, they do.
Not really.
Yes, they do.
No, a small group of able-buttons.
Well, first of all, again, you're going down the enforcement arm.
Are you a police officer or military?
No.
So you are reliant on the same menu.
That's right.
They're men.
That doesn't matter.
Yes, it does matter.
You don't get to steal the vote.
They're not women.
You don't get to turn to women as a man who's not in any of these enforcement armies.
Why am I taking value?
I'm not giving you the right.
How am I taking valor?
Because what you're doing is you're looking at policemen and soldiers who are doing a duty to their nation by protecting the people.
Well, no, you said it's not a duty.
Well, once they sign.
You contradicted yourself.
It's not a contradiction.
Hold on, do not interrupt me this time.
When men or women join the police force, they take a whole bunch of promises and solidarities.
Just like when a doctor joins the doctor force, they have to take a whole bunch, like the Hippocratic, hold on, oath.
And so the idea of duty, yes, once you enroll in a job voluntarily and agree to both the responsibilities and the benefits and the power and the wage that is conferred by that, now you have duties.
Police officers have a duty to enforce the law.
What?
When you vote, what's your duty?
After you vote.
To be an informed voter.
Okay, cool.
So Haktua, who's not an informed voter, could vote because she's a woman, right?
Yep.
Okay.
You just said she has a duty to be an informed voter.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that like you would take away.
Hold on.
Is there any consequence to not fulfilling your duty in your worldview?
Like not being an informed citizen?
Yeah, Haktua votes.
Yeah, you get a situation where the politicians increasingly don't represent you and then you bitch and whine about how bad the politicians are, but they're bad because you're never actually voting for who you want.
Okay, look, would you agree that the act of voting for men collectively, the act of voting is an agreement that they're not going to rebel?
No.
You don't agree with that?
Just for men?
Well, no, I'm saying men first.
I'm saying when a bunch of men vote and they say, I'm going to vote, they're basically Signing something and checking something off that might become policy, and they're outsourcing the force.
In my case, I'm not the force, right?
When I vote, I outsource the force, right?
Stolen valor, right?
To police.
Gradient.
No, police and the military and everyone else, right?
Sure.
When I outsource the force by voting, I'm basically agreeing with other men in my position that we're not going to take up arms and rebel.
We're not going to start a civil war.
It's an agreement, correct?
This is like not the way- That is the basis for voting.
Representation, right?
If you don't have representation and you're basically representatives don't represent you and they get all wonky, right?
That's why there's a militia.
That's why men can take up arms and actually have a revolutionary fight, right?
This is historical, right?
The problem, yes.
Okay, hold on.
Hold on.
No, the whole, I get to respond now.
40 for 40, right?
The issue that you're doing here is you're again, you're creating this like simplified narrative to work to like your argument when things are not simple.
It is that simple.
It is that simple.
When you vote, all you're saying is that I'm willing to participate to be a citizen.
I'm also got you.
But participating as a citizen is an agreement to not rebel, right?
I suppose you're not going to break the rules.
It's not about nothing.
No, not just breaking the rules, taking over the government with force with other men.
It's an agreement, right?
Sure.
Great, that's all I needed from you.
So when men collectively vote and they say, I'm forfeiting my ability to get collectivized with other men.
Hold on a second.
You're literally not forfeiting.
Hold on.
You can vote and then be dissatisfied with the government and rebel.
You're not forfeiting.
That's right.
Why are you saying this?
No, because you can do that at any time.
Men can do that at any time.
Look, hold on a second.
Hold on a second.
If I vote and I feel disenfranchised or lied to, I could still do two things, right?
I could either rebel or I could vote again the next time, right?
There's two choices.
I'm saying every time you vote, you're choosing not to do violence.
I'm not saying you can't do violence the next time around.
I'm saying in that instance, you're choosing to vote instead of violence, right?
Yes.
Great.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Let me run the argument.
40 for 40.
40 on the line.
I can't because all you're doing is building this really simple.
I am building a strong argument against you.
You're trying to stop it.
You're trying to block it.
Well, this is the issue, right?
We get to, like, dialogue means we both get to talk about it.
The line of argument gives you a volume.
And Bob, if I don't get to respond to anything and you just keep like prattling, I'm already agreed.
I can leave and you can talk to me.
I'm trying to stall.
Go ahead.
Do you want to talk to my chair or do you want to talk to me?
Try to stall the line of argument.
Okay, the issue is that when you're simplifying this, to like voting is just an agreement.
Not to rebel is a massive reduction of what voting is doesn't make it not true.
It it what it actually does?
Is it it bakes a half truth into something to what's the true part?
The true part is that to some degree, you're conferring your authority as an individual to the to like the broader society.
But the issue is that it's not like every single time you're saying i'm not doing violence.
Uh no, every time you vote, whether you know it or not, you're making an agreement that you're not going to rebel and you're actually trusting that the government, With its force and its processes and its legislative branch and all of that, is going to do its thing in favor of your vote.
When it doesn't, you either vote again or you throw a fit and sometimes that starts a war, right?
That happens in history.
The reason I'm asking you to accept this premise is because if it's the case, even from a reduced view, that men, when they vote, forfeit their collective potential to overthrow the government or even try.
I'm asking you, what do women forfeit when they vote?
The same thing.
No, they don't?
Yes, they don't.
Women can't overthrow a government.
Of course they can.
No, they can't.
Tell me one time a collection of women overthrew a collection of men ever.
That is not ever.
Hold on.
No, you're making a false dichotomy.
You said a false dichotomy.
You said it.
If you're going to engage in fallacy, you're going to make a claim and then I'm going to ask you to justify it.
If you're making a false dichotomy.
Tell me one time a collection of women overthrew a collection of men.
False dichotomy.
I can't engage in that.
What do you mean a false dichotomy?
You're making it sound like I am saying that women are overthrowing men and that it's the zero-sum game between the sexes.
When in reality, when it comes to civil war, especially with guns as the great equalizer, civil war means a participation typically of men and women.
It's oftentimes women in support roles like A, but they can also participate in the front lines.
Do you need them as support roles?
Or can you have men as support roles?
It's usually going to be better to have women in support of the role.
Yes, you do.
This is why women are always used as nurses because men are better at the front line, and so it's better to have the support roles filled by women.
Cool.
So can a bunch of nurses overthrow the government?
Yeah, if they all collectivized, sure, theoretically.
Of course, they could.
Of course, a bunch of nurses could.
A bunch of nurses can collectivize and take over a bunch of military expert men.
You heard it here.
That's how delusional feminism is.
Again, false dichotomy.
This is not what it is.
Can a collection of people overthrow the government?
No, women.
Yes.
Can a collection of pure women who are nurses overthrow a collection of men?
Again, are we doing a zero-sum game where you're saying that?
Can you answer the question?
Can 100 women who are nurses overthrow 100 men who are not nurses?
This is like 100 men versus guerrilla at this point.
No, in a bear fist fight to fist fight, women are weaker than men.
This is retarded, Jim Bob.
This isn't how the world works.
Yes, it is.
It's exactly how you're doing.
No, it's exactly how it works.
Every major historical event is always a combination of effort from everyone.
It's not equal.
I'm sorry.
The reality is that everyone has participated when it comes to the civil war.
Oh, really?
Is that why men are drafted?
Yes.
No, because if the manager- Are women drafted?
What the fuck are you talking about?
Nobody is drafted anymore.
The draft still exists.
Not really.
Yes, it does.
Not really.
The draft still exists.
No, it's the Vietnam War.
We basically overthrew the draft.
Draft is so basic.
No, you can absolutely just elect out of the draft at any time.
No, you have to sign up.
You still have to sign up, first of all.
And women don't.
So the fact of the matter is, there's never a time in human history that you can point to where solely a collection of women took over a collection of men.
Whereas, hold on.
Of course not.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Jim Bob, I'm not holding on when all you're doing is making a straw match.
Is there a time in history where a group of men collectively took over a group of men?
Yeah.
Cool.
What's the symmetry breaker between the two?
This is an on-point.
What is the symmetry breaker?
You're acting like gender is this zero-sum game and it's just not.
This isn't how history has worked out.
Yes, it is.
All of history is based on force.
All of it.
All of it.
Do you think that when the military men go off, that women just have no role in any of their moments?
Things nobody said for 500, Alex.
Wow, that's amazing.
Okay.
No, I didn't say that.
I'm asking you, this is why I asked you, if men collectively, being that men can collectively take over other men, because it's happened in the past and it'll happen in the future, when we vote, we forfeit, we're basically agreeing.
We're not going to collectivize and take up our AR-15s and take the government, or try to even, right?
Cause a ruckus.
If that's a trade-off that men have, I'm asking you, what are women forfeiting?
You say the same thing.
No, it's not the same thing because women can't collectively do the same thing.
So what is your leverage?
The issue is, again, you're making this a zero-sum game where you're acting like men and women are these separate classes that are working independent.
Unless you're a feminist like me, they can't do that.
Men and women are separate classes.
I can demonstrate it right now.
They're separate classes.
Would you agree that this city we're in is largely dependent on men doing all of the service needs and all the brute strength work, sewage, plumbing, fixing roads?
What makes this society actually function, would you largely agree that it's mostly men?
No.
No?
Okay, cool.
If you want to say, well, hold on, Jim Bob.
When you said, do you think it's men that make society function?
And I would say, of course not.
Of course, this is why this gender zero-sum game is so toxic.
The reality.
Yes.
Is that another concept that has no basis in reality?
The same shit that feminists who are being gender opportunists are doing, which is where they're trying to act like if they are doing, good one.
If men are doing something and women are doing something, it must be a zero-sum game and they're just taking from each other when the reality of all of history, this is what you were saying, the reality of all of history is it is a collection of people working together, fulfilling different roles to make society.
Society feminists.
Oliver, that I debated, you kept saying, no.
You have to let me finish.
No, I won't.
I don't need to let you finish.
Oliver said the same thing.
When I distinguish the class between men and women, their ontology, their nature, and how they are different, historically different, what they do in society is different.
The roles they play in society are different.
The roles they play in war are different.
When I point this out, Oliver and Kyla, is that your name?
Kyla.
Do you want me to respond at this point?
I don't even know.
They make it ambiguous.
What do they say?
People.
Society.
No.
That's not actually how it works.
The leverage that men have right now, right?
They could just take over towns if they wanted to.
Women can't.
The leverage that men have right now.
It's not you.
If they didn't show up to fix it.
I don't care.
I said men.
This is what I'm calling stolen valor, right?
This idea that young, able-bodied men with a penchant for violence can do a thing like violently overtake a city.
Yeah.
Can I join in?
You could, but you're not going to.
You don't fight all of the values that you care about.
You're not going to be necessarily joining the civil war.
This is not an argument.
Old disabled people.
This is not a counterpart.
You're suddenly just not people.
This is not a counter.
This is why.
Yes, it is.
No, it's not.
When you're treating men as a class.
How would you feel if you ate breakfast this morning?
All your...
What?
How?
How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning?
Oh, God.
I'd be hungry.
Okay, cool.
So you're capable.
So the counter argument that Brian or myself won't or probably won't, you're just making shit up.
You're not, I'm not.
You're not a police officer.
You're not in the military.
Brian is not in the military.
Brian's not a police officer.
I'm talking about that.
Yes, you are because you're talking about violent, penchant men willing to do it.
And that's not you.
Are you not listening?
That's not you.
And you don't get to steal.
I moved it off of the violence and I moved it into the working sector.
Okay?
Hold on.
Underwater welding, tunnel building, road laying, erecting massive buildings with air conditioning so Kyla can go number two in a nice environment.
This kind of stuff.
The leverage for men is still actually right there present.
If they stopped working, do you think a collection of women could take up all of those hard labor jobs and maintain society?
No.
I think they're advocated for it.
So they have leverage.
Can I respond at any time?
That women don't have.
Well, women have tons of leverage because they're the ones having your children.
They're not.
They're killing off their children because of feminists.
If you are having your children, you obviously need women to have children.
Not feminists.
You obviously, Jim, do you need to be afraid of your family?
I need non-feminists.
You got to engage with me here.
Do you need women to have children?
Yes.
Okay, great.
So women are the ones raising your children.
They're having your children.
They're taking care of all of the nursing.
They're taking care of the elderly.
They're doing the dominant amount of volunteer workshops.
They're feeding, feeding the poor for free.
They're doing the dominant.
Are they feminists?
Some of them.
No, the ones having most of the children are feminists.
Get out of here.
That's what I'm going to do.
Jim Bob.
Is the debate about feminism?
Now, watch.
She conceded before that the best thing for the family is a traditional-looking family, right?
That's more reflective of a Christian view, Christian praxis, not a feminist one.
That's anti-feminist.
When I asked her, should feminism push against that traditional family value?
She moved over to another topic.
Now, when I ask her about the roles in upkeeping society, right?
Whether or not they're equal between men and women, she concedes that they're not, right?
But then she points to duties, right?
I agree.
Duties?
Hold on.
These are the things.
Oh, so it's not.
Working the sewer is not a duty.
It's not a duty, okay.
No, it's not a duty, but it is a job that some people unfortunately elect in the middle of the day.
So how do you having a being a mom is not a duty?
It's a good thing to do.
How do you advocate for rights, whether it's men or women, and not advocate for the duty to defend those rights?
You don't.
I've never disentangled these two things.
What?
What?
I want, listen, I want human rights.
I want women's rights.
But there's a duty.
Jim breathed.
Do we have a duty?
Do we have a duty to give people rights?
You got to let me respond to you.
Do we have a duty to give women rights?
From your view.
You personally don't.
No.
Does anyone have a duty to grant you rights?
What do you mean by that?
Rights are a set of behaviors that are permitted.
No.
Yes, they are.
Rights are not behaviors that are permitted.
No, they're prerequisite behavior that we think everyone should have access to.
Rights are.
They're permitted.
Can you use force to not permit a behavior?
Yes.
Give me one right that the government couldn't actually prohibit.
Faith.
Faith?
You have a right to believe in something in your head?
You have a right.
Yeah, you have a right.
Freedom of religion.
The government, no matter what, can't take your ability to believe in something.
To think, yeah, to think.
Great.
That's one thing that you call a right.
I would say that's more of a duty or an internal working.
What does duty mean to you then?
An obligation.
Well, this is the thing.
You're unironically equivocating because duty started as specific things that you must do.
Believe in God a woman's right?
But it's religion.
It has nothing to do with religion.
Look, look, you're coming to the table specifically with feminism, so you're pointing to rights specific to females that maybe men have and women don't.
So when I'm asking you the question, should women, let's say voting, is that a right?
Is voting a right?
Yes.
Okay, can men take away your vote to your vote?
Yes.
Okay, so they can take away your right.
But again, it's not men, it's the enforcement arm.
Can the enforcement army?
Unbelievable.
No, this is a fundamental distinction because every single time you say every single time.
Can the enforcement arm be made up of rabbits?
Do you think, so say, for example, you've got a society and the entire enforcement arm is made up of a slave caste?
Maybe it's a society where it's all black people.
Does that mean black people run the society?
Why can only black people be slaves?
This is a weird world in Narnia where only black people.
That's weird.
It's not weird.
That's weird.
It's not weird, Jim Bob, to reference black people being slaves.
That's like one of the most standard historical things.
It doesn't mean it's good.
Nice try, though.
Well, if they serve as the enforcement arm, it might be good.
Okay, so if say we have a world and white people have all of the control, they're in the governance, but the entire enforcement arm is a slave cast of black people.
Would you say then that black people run society in that society?
I would say black people have a chance and they actually demonstrate.
Hold on, that's not what I asked you.
Do black people run the society?
Not currently, but they could actually fight it.
So in this world, do black people run society?
No, but they could fight and actually run it.
But couldn't the white people just fight and yeah, that's white and black.
We're talking about men and women.
Duh.
Okay, so you realize.
Talking about men versus men?
You prove my point.
If you swap out the blacks and they're women slaves, guess what?
Can the women actually change the nature of the world?
No, but the group of black men could.
They couldn't?
Yeah, they.
Oh, yeah.
You're going to fight a bunch of men?
No, they get to sexually select who they're going to be with.
They get to who has progeny.
That's not true.
Women don't get to select the menu.
No, not in a slave situation.
What are you talking about?
We're not talking about the slave situation.
You just brought up a slave situation.
And you moved on beyond that to go back to the broad.
Yes, because we were talking about blacks and whites, and then you moved into men at a broader category.
I kept the slave situation, replaced the black slaves with women, right?
In your example, you said, who's running the show?
Well, the one who has the most force.
That's who's running the show.
Hold on a second.
Black people.
Hold on a second.
In a scenario where there's an oppressor, a strong arm, and a group of men who are the weak arm, the winner is the one with the most force, correct?
So the black people, right, in this scenario, the best tactics can take over with the power.
Well, actually, that's a really good point, right?
When you look at, for example, wars, it's not always just the one that has the best force that wins.
Israel and the Six-Day War is a really good example of a country that was positioned against all of the Arab nations.
They technically had less force, but they had superior mind, and so they won, right?
So this idea that it's just blunt force that wins out in these things is the most, that is what you are saying.
Look, you just said, Jim Bob, pause.
You just said between these two arms, whichever one has more force wins.
And the answer is that's not entirely true.
Let me just say that.
It's actually who's most.
Can I fix this for you?
If there's two groups of two military groups and they're both equally smart, if the one who's smart, just as smart as the other, has superior force, who's going to likely win?
Yeah, sure.
In the case where tactics are identical.
So force is the actual decider.
No, because in the middle of the day, give me an actual real-life example where force is perfectly equated.
What do you mean, perfectly equated?
You're saying if tactics were perfectly equated, then force wins.
Give me a situation.
Power is never perfectly equated in boxing.
You just said, give me a potential example where it's equated and then the more powerful one wins over the tactic.
No, typically in boxing, it's oftentimes like most of the greatest boxers a lot of times are people who are incredibly talented and tactical.
Like Mike Tyson wasn't just good because he punched really hard.
He was also really good because he could weave.
He had good footwork and he also win it without the power.
Yeah, I think like Floyd Mayweather is a good example of somebody who doesn't have a super strong punch.
He's not easy.
Hold on.
You didn't let me finish.
Floyd Mayweather is a great example of somebody who doesn't have a high level of force.
They're not the strongest guy out there, but they have incredible footwork and they're insanely fast.
And so he still wins all of his fights.
One thing really quick here, guys.
We've got to take a brief break for little chats to come through.
If you want your chat to be read, we're doing Streamlabs, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
We're going to do $99 and up for those.
We have Intel Wild here.
Thank you, Intel.
Appreciate it.
Intel Wild to nature.
W. Jim Bob.
Da-da-da-dals in the chat.
And not so bright, stop showing us your armpits.
Gross.
Okay, this guy, do you know the armpit meme about me?
No.
No.
So I have a neck injury, so when I was streaming, I would often go like this because it relieves like pressure in my neck, which means Intel Wild probably watches me.
He's a fan of it.
Because it's like a niche, it's a niche meme about me.
Wow.
There you go.
There you go.
We discovered it.
And you made like 300 bucks from him tonight.
Something like that.
He's a Kyla enjoyer.
Okay, we have Chef Dill Pickles.
Thank you, man.
Chef Dill Pickles donated $100.
Erudite, you said that women should have barriers removed to allow them to choose what they want.
Tell me, do you think we should have listened when the majority of women said they didn't want suffrage?
You want to respond to that one?
Yeah, probably then.
We shouldn't have been forcing women to have the vote.
They should have won it through like persuasion.
I think the suffragettes were kind of shitty.
I just think that we inevitably would have resulted in a situation where we wouldn't have the vote.
All right.
And then we have Giovanni.
He's back also.
Giovanni, thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Giovanni Jade, you donated $100.
Can Christianity knock over a cup?
No.
Then Christianity can't build a society.
Two gay sophists in a row.
This woman sucks and you dodged the substance of the convo this hard.
Gay and cringe.
Wow.
Okay.
Giovanni is a hater.
He's an evil opportunity.
Yeah, that's actually false.
Christianity actually has applied duties.
The worldview of Christianity, dumbass, is actually expressed in matter.
In fact, without the matter binding it to the philosophy and the worldview and the praxis, it doesn't exist.
But that's why I'm pointing, Giovanni, you retard, is that feminism doesn't actually have a praxis that's correct and Christianity does.
Correct, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have praxis.
It doesn't have anything.
Of course it does.
It leads to women having the vote.
You mean patriarchy?
Platonic force.
Your praxis is patriarchy.
Your praxis is literally patriarchy.
Okay.
Feminist praxis is patriarchy.
The shadows on the wall.
I won't want the thumb.
They're not real.
Oh.
Okay.
It's a platonic joke.
Okay.
Oh, got it.
Okay.
We've got Brian S. here.
Thank you for the big $200 soup chat.
Women were always able to vote in banking.
How else did widows maintain their inheritance?
As to voting, they were subject to the same limitations as men.
The metric wasn't your sex, but whether one owns property or not, men or women who didn't own property weren't allowed to vote.
And who could buy property?
Not women.
Word.
Thank you, Brian S, for your big $200 soup chat.
You're a legend.
Guys, W's in the chat for Brian S.
That was a very generous soup chat from him.
Reminder, guys, if you want to get a message in, you can do, we recommend doing so through Streamlabs, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
YouTube takes a 30% cut.
And then if you're using Apple, an Apple device and using a YouTube app, Apple takes 30%.
YouTube takes 30.
So if you had sent that as a iOS YouTube app super chat, YouTube would have taken 100 or YouTube and Apple would have taken $102 total of that $200, leaving us with a paltry $98.
Also, you can support through Venmo and Cash App.
100% of your contribution will go towards us without any of these platforms taking their cut.
Also, if you're enjoying the stream so far, like the video, guys.
Also, if you're watching on Twitch, twitch.tv/slash whatever, drop us a follow and a prime sub.
Let's just get right back into it.
Let me see.
Oh, Chef, it's below the threshold, but I'll read it super quick.
He writes, why not?
It's below the threshold, but why not?
He says continued.
A freebie.
You know what?
If we drop it to 69, I'll pull it back up then.
How about that?
we'll pull it back up then um okay i think you guys were talking about to respond to that one If you want to, sure, why not?
I just got to say, if your best insult on me is using my own self-created meme of not so erudite, do better, okay?
There's better low-hanging fruit you could reach.
Wait, why did you choose that name?
Because it's funny.
Yeah.
Also, for the, I forgot if we announced this at the beginning of the stream.
If we hit our super chat goal, we need 50 yellow super chats where it's 16 of 50.
Kyla will wear a MAGA hat.
So that's that.
That's cool.
If we do an ahegal with it, if Brian will give me 50 bucks of it.
You want Jim Bob to do that?
What is that?
No, no, no.
I'll do it.
Oh, it's that face, that girl right there.
Oh, that.
Oh, yeah.
That thing.
But you have to give me 50 of it.
50 bucks.
Wait, what?
Sorry.
I'll do the ahigao if you give me 50 bucks from the pool.
Wait, for the goal?
Yeah.
To do the goal?
Yeah.
I don't know if the viewers want to see that.
Yes, they do.
Intel Wild for sure wants to see that.
Maybe Intel.
Intel might.
Anyways, back to the discussion at hand.
Do you guys want to just pick up where you left off?
You guys were talking about.
I wanted to go back to.
Wait, hold on.
Favorite boxer.
Actually, if you don't like boxing, favorite MMA fighter.
Well, Mike Tyson's my favorite boxer.
MMA, I don't follow anymore.
I used to.
Do you guys want to arm wrestle right now?
I would lose.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, I'm not like the type of woman who's like, testosterone's not real.
I realize it's real.
All right, sorry, go ahead.
I wanted to point to this.
I think it's an issue with your worldview, is that I know that your worldview isn't solely feminist, right?
But if you're arguing for a feminist view, do you agree that you would need to borrow from another view to apply feminism, at least like from an ethical position?
I know Jay pressed you on your ethics and your epistemology.
I'm not going to go into that, but the reason I'm asking is if you held a view that says feminism is good and this is how I'm measuring it, and you think women should have rights, let's say, I'm not sure how you could make the argument that we ought to give women rights if you don't simultaneously argue that men ought to give them to you.
Because again, it's conflating men with the enforcement arm.
Well, if men collectively, whatever you want to call the enforcement arm, right?
The enforcement arm.
Yeah.
So it's just, what, is an abstract collection of men mostly?
Dominantly men, but there are women in it too.
And the most important thing is that the enforcement arm is given legitimacy from the ruling class.
I understand.
Okay, so do you agree that there's an enforcement arm?
Let's say the enforcement arm in this scenario is 96% men and 4% women.
The issue is that the enforcement arm doesn't get to do wonton violence because it's a bunch of men that can do violence.
Well, they could.
No, then they would be a rebel group and they would be a rebel group.
Yeah, but that's not what either of us are.
That's called a rebellion.
Yeah, but nobody, neither of us are talking about rebel groups right now.
We're talking about women.
We are, actually, because what legitimize is because if that enforcement arm that's mostly men decided you don't get the vote, what leverage do you have?
Please, pretty please?
That's it?
The enforcement arm doesn't ever get to decide that.
In our society, it doesn't.
Who gets it?
Is the government.
If the government decides X and the enforcement arm says we're not enforcing that, is there any decision on X?
So do you think that Trump is aware of that?
Answer the question.
Hold on.
I'm answering your question with a question.
That's stupid.
It's not stupid.
Have you never engaged with Socratic method?
No, that's not how it works.
It is.
The Socratic method is asking each other questions in exchange.
Just answer the question.
Unless you want to just be like, why do I have to answer your question if you don't answer mine?
I've answered all of your questions.
If someone passes a law, the ruling class passes a law over here.
Trump.
If they pass a law and the enforcement arm doesn't enforce it, is there any power in this?
No.
No, but it's not the enforcement arm, unless you're going to tell me that police officers have more power in this country than Trump, which would be crazy.
It's not just police officers, okay?
Of course, it's not just police officers.
Then why would you say police officers?
Okay, sorry, I should have also added soldiers.
Military, Navy SEALs, everything else.
I'm obviously meaning the entire enforcement arm, which is the same thing.
If they decide to not go to work, does the policy or law have any power?
Do you think the enforcement arm is weaker than Trump?
What do you mean, Trump as an individual?
Yeah, our president.
Yeah, the enforcement arm could take over Trump if they wanted to.
So the enforcement arm is actually the one in control of our country, not Trump.
When it comes down to it, if the enforcement arm decides we're not doing this, right?
We're changing our minds.
We're dropping.
You know, like, for instance, the same principle holds when someone does like a boycott or they don't come to work, right?
A protest?
That has power, right?
Leverage?
It's like a soft power, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
But if the job they're doing is actually enforcement, for instance, if police stop showing up, police have the power to stop showing up.
Do you want to know?
Hold on, dude.
Do police have the power and the will to stop showing up to crime scenes?
Yeah, but then all of their livelihood would be taken away.
I understand.
But if they risk that for something good, right?
If they thought, well, that's a risk, but if it was an ethical view, right, they could actually do that, and that's leverage, right?
The issue is that in reality, the reason why Trump is more powerful, because I'm sure you actually agree with this, than the enforcement arm is because he has, for example, the ability that if the enforcement arm decided to rebel against him, he could immediately cut off all funding to any enforcement arm and immediately strip them of the ability to have arms.
He could lock up facilities that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Wait, hold on.
Hold on.
Listen to what she's saying.
Lock up facilities and take their arms, right?
With what?
Wait, dot, dot, dot.
Drum roll.
With what?
What do you think banking is?
Do you think banking is the enforcement arm?
You want to focus on the one that works for you, but you don't want to take it.
That's what debating is.
Do you think banking right now?
It's not dodging.
Look, you just ran.
He would have to lock it up with his private secretary instead.
Force, okay?
So if you said a bunch of people rebelled against Trump, the enforcement arm, he can do XYZ and everything you listed would assume that he also has this other set of people that are forced.
Banking would not insist that.
He could cut off all of their money immediately.
Yeah, you can cut it.
They're not around all their flames.
Yeah, you can physically thwart the internet and banking and electronics and all that stuff.
That's sabotage.
That's the higher ability to do that.
Yeah, you can do that.
Yeah, but the thing is...
But that's not forced, right?
Yeah, but yo, look, do you think my argument is that you can't do different kinds of warfare?
No.
What I'm saying is that even if he did that, what's going to ultimately decide things over time is going to be a body of money.
Over time, especially is going to be money.
I'm sorry.
Money?
Oh, really?
So where money is meaningless?
Have you ever seen a situation where money is literally on the ground everywhere?
That's called inflation.
That's not really a situation.
So you think money is the determining factor?
I think money is probably one of the most important systems of leveraging power on the planet.
I understand.
But if it comes down to money or pure military force, let's say a country is really rich, but they don't have a military.
And there's another country that's that I'm not presenting these things as mutually exclusive.
Well, I'm pointing to the deciding factor that you keep trying to avoid.
Every scenario you give, ultimately, the deciding factor is muscle.
I'm not really understanding.
So I've already granted you that muscle is really important.
The enforcement arm is very important.
The issue is that I'm trying to say it's a more complicated story than you want people to believe because it doesn't work to your narrative, which is that, for example, banking is obviously one of the most powerful things in the world.
Is it more powerful than force?
In an acute sense, no, of course not.
Well, in a long term, for example, which a war is long term.
You can't feed people.
You can't do any logistics.
You can't do any coordinating.
Do you need an enforcement arm in the threat of force to have a bank?
Yeah, but these things are intrinsic.
Hold on.
Jim Bob, none of these are winning to your thing.
Yes, they are.
You're trying to act like force is like the number one.
It's the most important thing.
It is the deciding factor.
No, it's not.
What's another deciding factor if it's not force?
Tactics.
What?
Tactics of what?
Of warfare.
Warfare is force.
Yeah, but it's not just force.
Force is violence, right?
Force is like going pew-pew.
Look, look, look.
You can't say force is now just all of these other things so that you can like make your argument work.
If two bodies of force have equal tactical skills and knowledge and one has superior force, who's going to win between the ones who are equal in tactical knowledge?
I already answered that.
Can I add a question?
What's the answer for the whole audience?
I already said the one with superior force.
Cool.
Here's the next question.
Say one, they're equal in those ways.
One has higher force, but the other one has four times the amount of money.
Which one wins now?
The force.
Not necessarily.
What do you mean?
How does money beat a gun?
Because you can hire other additional people.
Isn't that weird, ladies and gentlemen, when I get robbed on the street, I can't throw my money at the person to defend?
I'm not saying that money is force from a gun.
I'm not saying that money is force.
I'm saying that when you're pretending like this idea of force in the enforcement arm is so simple, it's just like muscle makes right.
I didn't say right.
I said it makes right.
You are saying master morality.
Don't lie.
You're doing master morality.
Yes, you are.
No, I'm not.
Stop lying.
What is master morality?
I don't know, but it's not might is right.
So you're saying that you're not doing a significant thing.
I assume it's might is right.
I never heard the term, but if you're saying might is right, that's not a gotcha.
I'm saying might is.
This is why it's an important question.
If you agree with me that might is, it's not right, it just is.
It could be the case, it's right, it could be wrong, right?
If that's a case that we both agree that might just is, that's descriptive force.
It doesn't exist.
No, it is, no, it's descriptively the case that force wins.
That doesn't say it's right.
It wins.
Yes?
Yeah, in like a one-to-one.
Okay.
Again, stop.
No, the world is insufferable.
I know it.
I know it would be.
Well, hold on.
Every time I get one premise out, you basically take us to WALL-I World.
Look, just follow.
Follow.
Follow.
I have been following the issue, Jimba.
No, no, no.
It's not this thing.
That means stop.
That means be quiet.
I don't have to.
I don't have to.
If we agree that force wins, no one said it's right.
If we agree that force wins, isn't the next logical question is what philosophy or worldview informs the use of force?
If pure force wins is descriptively true, concentrate.
It's not.
That's what I'm telling you.
No, it's not now.
No, because you're now moving to a philosophical system of how you set up, for example, maybe nation states.
We can maybe use force in the state of nation states.
The moment that you go to that, this idea that just force wins is devoid of any of the complications of reality, right?
The reality is that if you have a super strong force, but you don't have logistics, you don't have means to feed them, you don't have caretakers for them to take care of the wounded, you don't have a GDP to be able to fund them and make them strong and have like more out of the way.
Nobody's disagreeing with that.
You are fundamentally eroding these things so that you can just say force really matters.
Well, I've never said that force doesn't matter.
I'm saying you're painting a really simple thing.
You've never said those other things.
When this is complicated.
I never said those.
You want to make it complicated so you don't have to deal with the entailments.
No, I want to make it complicated because I would love for our discussion to slightly map onto reality.
Okay, cool.
All right, cool.
So if you have two groups of two different armies fighting out there in the field, do you think it's better for one or the other to be able to deal with the harshness of the elements in long periods of time?
Is it better to be able to be in the heat for a long period of time?
To be carrying a lot of weight for a long period of time?
Of course.
This is why men are better at the front line.
Gotcha.
Okay, so if that's the case, it still comes down to brute force collectively.
Even in the instance where you have to survive.
Yes, it does.
No.
You have to carry food, right?
So for example, if brute force was sufficient, Germany would have a much better time taking over Russia because they were fucking dumpstering.
They had way more force on their hand.
The problem is that they had a failed logistics system and that they couldn't, they had no way of managing the winter, particularly because their tanks got stuck in the mud.
Was there or not?
That's why logistics and things like nurses, all of these things matter.
So did they lose?
If you try to reduce the world to force all you're doing, that's just pretending to be a lot of fun.
No, even in that instance, did they lose to concepts or did they also lose, did they lose to another body of force?
What?
Did they lose to another body of force?
They mostly lost to technology failures and winter.
Is that does that technological failures does that require men?
No.
Okay, to avoid.
So developing a tank does not require men.
Oh, really?
They're developing science.
Listen, guys, developing a tank doesn't require men.
It requires science.
Science is a method.
What's the scientific method?
The scientific method is the process by which you use.
No, what's the method?
What?
Steps.
Yeah, I'm going to walk you through it.
What's the first step?
Okay, I can walk you through it.
What's the step?
The first step is going to be hypothesis.
No, that's an observation.
Wrong.
No.
Yes, it is.
How do you do a hypothesis on something you don't observe, dummy?
Okay, you're talking about basic science.
Yeah, you can't even tell me what the scientific method is.
Science built tanks?
No.
Engineering built tanks, and men had to buy.
Do you think engineering?
What are tanks made of?
Various things.
There's like steel bodies.
Are they heavy?
again have you ever seen did you think you could do you think you can hammer in one of the bolts of the let's just go back Let's just.
This is hilarious.
Let's just breathe and go back.
Guys, engineering.
Men don't build tanks.
Science does.
What are you, Neil deGrice Tyson?
What's wrong with you?
Do you think that we would have tanks without science?
Nobody said that.
Men build tanks.
You just said.
And use.
You heard it, guys.
Science builds tanks.
You said.
Because you were saying concepts don't affect yourself.
Men build tanks.
No.
Women don't build tanks.
Women just can build tanks.
Oh, can they?
Yes.
Really?
Yes, we have the science and technology.
Oh, you have the brute force to carry all of those heavy pieces of equipment.
Well, typically you're going to have like carrying equipment.
Yeah, you can use like forklifts and all the other shit that they use.
Do you think that men by themselves are just like brutes carrying tanks?
Still, yes, they are.
No.
Yes, they are.
They're using factories and robotics.
What are you talking about?
They're not pure.
By the way, who manages and builds robotics?
Men, women.
No, mostly men.
Engineering, metalsmithing, machining, all of these things, large scale.
It's disproportionately occupied by men.
Why is this?
This is more of the feminist argument at this point.
It's not.
It is, because by and large, women were barred from education and that like these discussions.
Why would I want to reinforce it?
Look, look, your own army, let's say you have your own army, right?
I just can't believe you said that science doesn't build tanks.
Science is the most wild.
Engineering builds tanks.
Engineering is science natural.
No, science is natural.
Science is natural, dude.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
It's study of the natural world.
Tanks aren't natural, dummy.
Do you, I'm sorry, do you think that science didn't contribute to the development of tanks?
No, I didn't say that.
I said science itself.
It's a natural world.
Can you engineer without science?
No.
Yes, you can.
No.
Yes, you can.
Not very well.
I didn't say, well, if you can engineer without science, then it demonstrates that you can do engineering without science.
The argument isn't, the argument isn't whether or not science contributes.
The question isn't, I've never said science doesn't contribute to engineering.
I'm saying science itself as a methodology, which you don't even fucking know the method.
I just don't, you know, you haven't even let me speak.
You didn't even start with an observation.
Because a lot of science doesn't start with observation.
For example, basic science just hypothesizes free willy and then it tests it.
Like what?
Basic science, for example, would be one person was like just pretty sure that our gut biome, the ulcers that caused the body.
Oh, they did that without knowing and observing what a gut biome is?
They just imagine a gut biome without observing and knowing what it is?
No, the main actually thing is that they hadn't been able to observe the bacteria in there, but they proposed anyways that it was a bacteria.
In fact, it was viewed as a very, very conscious thing.
So they knew what bacteria was?
Bro.
Did they know what bacteria was?
Yes.
Cool.
So they observed bacteria before.
So they started with an observation to know what bacteria is.
They know what a gut is.
That's an observation.
You can't posit a hypothesis without, you can't do it without an observation.
I'm sorry.
What's wrong with you?
You're out of the depth.
Do you know what that means?
No, I'm not.
You don't even know the scientific teacher.
Do you know what the difference is between basic and applied science?
Yes.
What's the difference?
Well, applied science is basically that's what engineering is.
It's taking the conclusions, the regularity, the inductive reasoning from the scientific method, and applying it into making shit.
What's basic science?
Basic science is natural science.
What is that?
You observe natural phenomena in the world.
You have a hypothesis of what's causing the natural phenomenon.
You introduce an independent variable.
You remove it.
You repeat, repeat, repeat, and then you come up with a conclusion, which is what produces a scientific theory.
so you don't understand this.
So basic, what's basic.
Tell me one thing I said was wrong, dummy.
I will.
Just breathe.
Don't do this fucking passive-aggressive shit where you're coming.
You don't understand this.
Dummy.
Tell me what I got wrong.
You're not drunk.
Tell me what I got wrong.
I will, but you can't.
Stop gaslighting me.
You have to stop.
You're a professional gaslighter.
Right.
Brian, Daddy, help me.
Patriarchy, help me.
I win.
Look.
Do you want me to get it?
Why did I get wrong?
I will answer if you breathe.
If we can, let's try to avoid the ad homs and the insults.
Okay.
Go ahead.
So basic science is typically where a hypothesis can be generated without observation.
It's something that essentially a scientist theorizes.
And then they create a hypothesis to test it, and then they test it.
Applied science is using observations from nature or from the world around you and building off of these observations to create a more like targeted hypothesis of what we expect it to become and then testing that out.
Most science that you're familiar with is part of this applied science branch because basic science is like more like what 1800s philosophers got to do where they just like whimsically were like, I wonder if I make metal, if it'll cure cancer.
And then they tried it, right?
That's what basic science was, where you just like try like hocus-pocus shit to see if it works.
Whereas applied science is going like, well, whenever I drop this ball, I notice that it hits this, and so I'm going to test and see if I drop different things of different weight if it changes the velocity of dropping.
And which one of those built a tank?
I have no idea the history of science, but I'm assuming which part?
Gunpowder, I suspect probably wasn't science at all.
The Chinese did it.
I have a feeling that they kind of noticed these things like igniting one another.
Maybe it was applied science.
But for example, a lot of medical advancements come from basic science.
Do you think you could load a cannonball into a...
Me personally?
Yeah.
I don't know how to work tanks.
No, I mean just a cannonball into a cannon.
Oh, yeah, probably.
You could load one in?
Yeah, I think they're about like five pounds.
Can you pull back the rail of a clock?
Like the inside gear mechanism?
To cock a gun.
Can you do that?
Yeah.
Okay.
Can you break down a gun?
Clean it.
Okay.
That's not a dunk.
I've never seen it.
Well, no, it kind of is a dunk because a part of managing weaponry, even not just a tank, but even small weapons, you have to be able to clean it effectively and you have to be able to use brute strength and be able to hold it firm.
And so that's why it's big and small.
I've never denied that frontline soldiers are better served typically by men or by women who can achieve the same like physical standards that are erected for men.
What I've actually done is said that science is the concept by which tanks emerged and then labor was used to build these things.
But to act like it's men is again, it's just this reductive narrative of diminishing like how, again, you just get to steal valor because like men were in these roles.
But there's a really complicated question of like why were men in these roles and maybe not women?
And also there's a message.
Why is every answer to your philosophy?
It's complicated.
Because the world is incredibly fucking complicated.
So do you understand it or it's complicated, but you understand it?
I understand elements of it, but it seems like I understand maybe more than you.
Well, no, it sounds like what you're saying is basic science and applied science.
Every time I have you cornered, you say it's very complicated, which is a very common tactic with nonsense machines.
I don't just say it's complicated.
I say it's complicated.
And then I go on to list out the like sequelate and multifactorial elements that make it complicated.
Nobody in this, nobody in their right mind would look at the world, look at like taxes or debt or banking or central banking.
Nobody should look at these things and be like, yeah, it's really fucking simple.
No, it's not.
Well, in this central banking, very complicated tanks, very simple.
In this debate, the simplicity, the thing that's being reduced is not complicated.
It seems to be only complicating for you, honestly, is that the descriptive element of this debate that's true, that holds true, that you even agree with, is that it's primarily men who are applying force to maintain a society, whether it's law or the world itself, or erecting buildings and maintaining all this shit.
Yeah, I mean, I've just agreed with that.
The issue is that, like, we then got into, which you didn't really allow me to, which is like, who gives the legitimacy to those like young, able-bodied men to enact violence in a legitimate way?
A group of people who have superior force.
No, yes.
No, government.
What?
That's what a government is.
It's superior force.
Trump is just stronger than the body of the government, which has an arm, the branch of force, is the government.
It's all inclusive.
It's all one big thing, right?
The military is not part of the government.
No, not necessarily.
The government rules over the military.
The military is not an arm of the government when the president is the leader of what?
Yeah, he's the leader of it.
It's underneath him.
Is it a part of his governance?
Yes, but that doesn't mean that it is the government, right?
The military is not the government.
The military is not part of the government.
That's not what I said.
I said that it isn't the government, right?
The one that confers the authority to the violet pension.
Is this hand a part of my body?
Yep.
Is it my body?
No, it's your hand and it's part of your body.
Okay, so it's not my body.
Well, it is your body and it's your hand, right?
There's like a level of specificity that you can apply to.
That's interesting.
Cool.
So this isn't my body.
It is your body.
Oh, okay.
Which is also your hand.
So if this, if I'm the government, do you think that that's analogous to the government?
Yeah, if I'm the government and this is the enforcement arm of the military, is this the government by the same logic?
I surely don't know.
Why are you wincing?
Why are you wincing?
I'm wincing because, again, it makes me wonder if you understand how your brain is.
What is wrong with your brain?
Do you understand?
I use your logic.
are the three branches of the government?
Legislative, uh, fucking, sorry, finish it for me.
Executive.
Executive.
Judicial.
Judicial.
Gotcha.
Yeah, none of those are military, if you might notice.
The executive branch needs the military.
Well, it's under the executive branch.
Yeah, it's part of the—what are you talking— I'm saying.
If you can't execute a policy, there's no executive branch.
Yes.
So the military is under the president, right?
Yeah, the president's what?
What?
The leader of the country.
Yeah, the military is under him, right?
He gives the military the authority to do the violence.
He legitimizes it.
Yeah.
That's what I'm saying.
That's cool.
That's in favor of my argument.
You know what?
That body can determine, right?
Even if you think it's unjust, it can actually determine and take control.
It could literally tomorrow could take your rights to vote, right?
I don't know why you're talking about the government when you don't even know the three branches.
Look, I know you're going to hold on to that forever, but it pales.
Like, like what you've said tonight.
Do you know what the legislative's role is?
It doesn't matter.
It kind of does.
It doesn't matter if you're not.
No, because the argument is feminism.
No, this is the same thing.
Well, we've obviously moved pretty far away from it.
This is the same thing when we debated last time and we were talking about GPS.
What good is the legislative body that passes?
You're fighting me about concepts that you're not.
I'm not talking about the function of the government.
Just to be clear, it's fine if you don't know these things.
The problem is when you weaponize your ignorance and all you have is gaslighting.
Please let me finish.
All you do is gaslight and gaslight and gaslight.
That's all you do.
I don't know why you're not.
That's literally your career.
You're like a Tumblr girl right now.
What good is the police?
I just start cutting your roots and being sad to focus.
What good is legislating policy if you can't execute it with force?
It's no good.
Cool.
This is not the objective.
Is the legislative part of the part of the government?
The legislature?
Yes.
Okay, cool.
So if the legislative branch is a part of the government that informs policy and makes policy and passes policy or whatever, if it's no good without force, right?
If passing policy that gives you entitlements like voting or anything else, you call liberty under feminism.
If it's the case that the body of force could literally not enforce it at all, okay, you're at the mercy, just like me, of a body of predominantly men.
Therefore, rights, as you argue them, this all branched from this very simple argument, is that you made an argument that women should have rights.
I gave you the entailment of that.
If you say women ought to have rights, which is a normative claim about what should happen, right?
You're simultaneously saying, given that there's a legislative branch that writes that out and does it, you're simultaneously saying that people are in the legislative branch in the enforcement arm ought to defend and uphold that policy, right?
Sure.
I guess here's my point.
So now there's an obligation for men primarily.
And from your feminist view, you cannot produce an obligation.
No, you lost.
Feminism has zero obligations.
Okay, again, obligations.
Men are not obligated to be police or soldiers.
Soldiers and police are obligated to be police and soldiers because that's what they agree to, right?
So this obligation, again, feminism doesn't obligate anything, but feminism isn't a doctrine of political governance, right?
It doesn't have to obligate things in the way that a government system does.
For example, the government obligates you as a citizen to listen to the rules of the country, right?
It's important.
And I know you're going to be like, how do you enforce those rules?
It's force.
But after that, after we've gotten into that, it's really important for you to understand that when you're talking about feminism, it's not a political philosophical structure.
And so when you're asking what the obligations are underneath it, it's not proportional.
You're basically measuring like a truck when we're talking about rainbows.
You're going to be like, why doesn't this rainbow work like the truck?
How do you put that many words out and say nothing?
J-Bob, if you didn't understand that might explain why you don't know the three branches of the government.
Do I need crayons?
Just to be clear, I was pretty simple in what I just said.
Okay, cool.
So the question is.
You don't understand what I said.
Just to give it back, you agree that under your feminist view that you're arguing is better or good for society, that there actually are no obligations.
It's not a governmental system.
What?
That's what makes obligations.
Of course it's a governmental system.
Feminism is not a government system.
The moment you say women should have X rights, it becomes a governmental system.
It's part of a government.
You're appealing to the government.
No.
What do you mean?
Appealing to the government is not the same thing as being a government system.
It is obvious that feminism is not equatable in any way to like a democracy or monarchy, which is how power gets.
I agree.
I understand that.
Well, the issue is that you're pointing at feminism and being like, look at it, it has no obligations.
And it's like, you're comparing that, but you're comparing that to a government system.
No.
But most worldviews don't have obligations necessary to them.
So what's better for a society, a society that has obligations or none?
None.
A society that has obligations is obviously better because that's how you make nation states.
That's how you make society.
Got you.
So does feminism have obligations?
Again, it depends on what you mean by obligations.
Does your view of feminism values?
No, any obligation.
That means you're compelled to act a certain way.
You're compelled to do certain duties in the world.
You're compelled to act.
No, feminism does not have obligations with government.
It's not a government system.
I got you.
Premise one.
A worldview that has obligations and duties is better than one that doesn't.
Hold on, let me finish.
Premise two.
Trucks are way better than rainbows.
Oh, God.
She doesn't want this to hit.
These are disanalogas.
Stop interrupting.
Well, you're a fallacy.
Stop.
What's the fallacy?
The fallacy is that you're being disanalogous.
What?
What are you talking about?
What's disanalogous?
That you're comparing feminism to a governmental system.
It's not a governmental system.
I didn't say government.
You did.
Because you said it doesn't have a way of enforcing obligations.
I never said anything.
But the only thing that can enforce obligations is a level of obligation.
I didn't enforce obligations with government.
I didn't say that.
That didn't come out of my mouth.
Okay.
Okay.
Premise one.
Don't interrupt me.
Premise one.
A society that has a worldview with obligations and duties is better than one without, right?
Feminism doesn't have obligations and duties in its worldview.
Conclusion.
Any worldview that has obligations and duties is better than feminism.
Okay.
Would you like to respond to that?
Yeah, it's just, it's, it's.
No, no, it's premises.
Don't don't meta Yelp review.
Just get to the premises.
Sure.
Society with obligations is better than a society without.
Yeah, I'm not pro-anarchy.
Feminism does not have obligations.
In the case of like statehood, yeah, it doesn't.
It's not purporting to be a governmental system.
This is, again, just a false analogy.
Well, no, it's not an analogy.
It's literally a premise with all.
There's a lot of views that you and I both would agree might be good things that don't have necessary obligations that you are compelled to do.
For example, religion.
That's a contradiction.
Religion is a worldview.
That has duties and obligations.
You are not forced to do anything.
Nobody talks about force.
What's wrong with your brain?
That's what you said.
No one said force.
Then what does obligations mean if you're not compelled to do it?
What do you mean?
It's basically like you say you're a Christian, right?
Yeah, how else are you compelled?
Do you have an obligation?
As a Christian?
To what?
Tell me any obligation on your mangled Christian view that you hold.
I suppose to be honest before God.
Got you.
Do you go to jail if you're not honest before God?
No, but now you're changing what obligations are.
What?
I just demonstrated you could hold an obligation without any sort of force.
Then why the fuck were you talking about compelled obligations?
Because we're talking about worldviews, right?
If you, as a feminist, present feminism against, say, Christianity tonight, and I counter with Christianity that has tenfold obligations and duties baked into it by the argument that you just agreed to, Christianity, which is patriarchal, is better than feminism.
It's the end of feminism.
It's just another false dichotomy.
You're unironically making it seem like if Christianity exists, then feminism can't.
And it's just like, what?
Nobody said that.
Yes, you did.
Look, how do you not know what a defeater is?
All I'm doing, all I'm doing, Jim Bob, is I'm walking your own thoughts to their nth conclusion, right?
Yeah, you're not dealing with that.
Do I need to do it slower?
I am.
The issue is that you have changed.
So what you're doing is called equivocating.
You're muddying a definition.
So obligations, you started by talking about like state obligations, things that you were compelled to do.
She keeps bringing the state in.
And I didn't bring the state in the argument.
You explicitly did because you were talking about the military.
Where is it in my argument?
We were talking about military.
Where is it in my argument?
Do you find it there?
No.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Are you just using obligations as a different word?
Why are you using obligations?
Well, just before, you were talking about obligations as a compelled thing from governments, which the enforcement arm, right?
You have a duty to your nation.
That's an obligation.
That's awesome.
You can be compelled to do it.
Now you're talking about obligations.
But I think what you mean is values.
I'll do it.
These are not the same thing.
Hold on a second.
So when you say obligations, do you mean things that you can be forced to do are punished if you don't do it?
I'll give you another one that's answering my question.
When you are talking about obligations, are you talking about things that you, if you don't do it?
That you ought to do.
No, not ought, that you can be forced to do.
Well, no.
I just demonstrated for you.
Okay, then feminism does have obligations about what you ought to do.
Okay, cool.
So you're making moral ought claims, right?
Well, now, because remember you went here with Jay?
Are you sure you want to go there with him?
Of course, because I fucking dumpstered Jay on that too.
What?
You couldn't tell me, you couldn't tell him or the audience or me why, from a feminist view, we ought to do anything.
I did multiple times.
He just didn't accept the premise.
As a feminist, you should.
So specifically, the ought is that we should try to empower women and promote femininity.
Pause.
Yes, that's the argument.
That's not an argument.
That's an assertion.
Do you know what an argument is?
Okay, buddy.
Premise one, we should do the thing in the middle of the morning.
So the evidence for this, the evidence for this of why we ought to do this is that it is good for a society.
It is unavoidable and a necessity to maintain a competitive GDP in a global foreign nation.
It is also a morally good thing to basically uplift your sisters in Christ.
And I think I got into another one.
Wow, so it's a Christian, you're using a Christian paradigm or is it mixed?
You're doing like a sort of like Chipotle, mixed burrito theology.
Well, there's going to be like moral claims.
There's some certain Christian, because we share like a similar Christian value.
Obviously, we don't hold secular people to Christian moral systems, right?
Because they're secular.
This is obviously true.
Okay, so how is feminism Christian then?
I've not said that it's Christian necessarily.
I'm saying as Christians, it's a good thing.
You just said we should elevate women in Christ.
You're smuggling in a Christian view into your feminist view.
Yeah, I'm arguing why I as a Christian think that like these feminist values are good.
But I'm not saying as a Christian, you should be a feminism.
You should be a feminist, sorry.
Well, I mean, okay, so back to the argument, if it's the case that any worldview that has obligations and duties is better than one without, and feminism actually doesn't really have any.
It does have obligations if you're just talking about things that you ought to do as a result of the worldview, right?
So like feminism, for example, would say that you ought to respect women.
You ought to give them consent.
You ought to allow them to like self-determine.
You ought to like treat women respectfully.
You ought to like look at feminine things and view them as good things.
These would be oughts that feminism would make.
Okay.
Ought you not, as a feminist, start an OnlyFans?
that's mixed.
There's some feminists that are very, uh, you, you, You're the one debating tonight.
I don't think that I ought.
No, I don't think there's any feminist who would say that you ought to.
I didn't talk about any feminists.
You're the feminist in the seat right now.
I don't think.
Ought we, from your view, ought your friend be an OnlyFans chick.
No, I don't think it's a moral good to be an OnlyFans chick.
Okay, so ought she ought not.
Feminism would be pretty neutral on that, by and large.
My feminist view would be that you get to self-determine, right?
So you get to make that choice.
So if you ought to self-determine and she determines that she should be a online prostitute, then she ought to an online prostitute.
Well, this is no longer an ought statement.
At this point, the only ought statement is that woman should be allowed to self-determine.
After that, what she chooses to do isn't necessarily morally good or morally bad.
We have to look at the actual behavior itself to evaluate if her choice in that behavior was morally good or morally bad.
The ought of feminism is just letting women make the choice.
So when is it in the behavior you determine that it's bad?
Sorry, I got distracted by that person's PFP because it was funny.
Say that again.
When in the process of an action do you determine it's bad?
Super complicated.
It depends on your moral system.
What a surprise.
Well, of course, like the moral system.
So like if this feminist, for example, is a utilitarian, then we might look at something like, does porn negatively impact men and does sex work negatively impact you?
And I would say like for the majority of men and women, both of these things are negative.
So at a utilitarian level, that individual might decide you should not do porn.
Wait, this is contrary with your first ethical system, which is merely that you should have a say in what you're doing is ultimately the primary ethical view is that you have a choice in the matter, that you can will your own behavior.
No, this isn't super complicated.
You asked, what are some of the oughts of feminism?
One of the oughts of feminism is that women should be able to choose what they do.
But that doesn't mean that all of their choices are morally good or morally bad.
Ought women have children if they can?
Again, I don't think it's a moral good to have children, no.
It's not a moral good to have children?
Nope.
Okay, so how do you determine it's not a moral good to have children?
How do I determine that it's not a moral good?
Yeah, because that's a pretty affirmative statement that it's not a moral good to have children.
I didn't say it's bad, right?
I didn't say it's not moral.
It's amoral?
It's neutral, yeah.
I think having children is pretty neutral.
Pretty much anyone can spread their legs and get sperm dumped into them.
I don't think it's like a particularly meaningful thing.
Okay.
And you call yourself a Christian?
Do you or not?
Are you just LARPing or what is it?
Sorry.
Well, I'm assuming that there's an attack here, right?
So the whole night is an attack.
Why are you now that we're talking about?
Trying to get your worldview.
It's all over the floor.
You're not really trying to, right?
Are you a Christian is a question?
Well, what you're doing is you're equivocating, you're pivoting, you're asking me a bunch of questions.
You're not really giving me any space to ask you questions back.
What you'll notice all the time.
You're the affirmative.
You have not made a choice.
Who's the affirmative?
I don't know because there isn't actually a premise.
Feminism is good for society is the affirmative.
That wasn't even what we agreed to to debate.
What do you mean?
We talked about just fleshing out the idea of like different branches of feminism.
Neither one of us like made this strong claim of this because you and I both agreed that it would be a little silly to rehash the same argument for the third time.
If you call yourself some sort of Orthodox Protestant, I don't even know if it's a meme.
I'm trying to get from your view.
It's called radical orthodoxy.
Radical orthodoxy.
Okay.
So revolutionary orthodoxy.
Nope.
Well, it's radical about it.
It's radical because it like aims to go back to the way that the ancients engaged with the original scripture.
Ancient who?
The ancients who wrote it, like the oral traditionists and stuff.
Who are those?
That would be like 1200 BC to probably 30 AD.
Oh, so you're arguing that the original Orthodox Church and the Church Fathers.
Sorry, I know Orthodox is confusing.
It's not like Eastern Orthodox.
Oh, okay.
It's causing the term.
It's closer to Protestant.
Oh, Protestantism.
Oh, that was around then?
Nope.
Oh, interesting.
Protestants can still engage.
Like, again, you're just doing the thing where you're like, this word wasn't made, so you can't analyze it from history.
Like, obviously, as a Protestant, you can look back at what the ancients did and try to define some meaning thing.
But again, I want to be really cautious.
I'm not a spiritual leader.
I don't actually need to go into length about talking about theology.
Well, that's fine.
I'm not super well-versed in it either, but I just wanted to get the peripheral basics because when you say it's not a moral duty, a moral good, why are you going to my religion then when we're talking about broad feminists?
Because feminism, like if once you get into ethics and morals, you're actually going to have to pull in a theological view.
There's no avoiding it.
Sure, but like my main theological view is that like we should try to do well by others and treat them well and allow them as much as possible free choice.
And I think feminism is one of the means by which you offer women free choice.
Right.
Free choice to act against theirselves.
Yeah, unfortunately, God allows us to sin, right?
Okay, but calling it sin, you could make sin illegal, right?
God elect us.
Hold on.
Does God allow us to make laws?
Yep, but he.
Is it sinful to murder?
Yep.
So why do we put...
Unless it's self-defense, I suppose.
Why do we put...
No, that's killing.
That's not murder.
So if it's totally consistent on your worldview to make something that's sinful illegal, why do you advocate?
That's not what I said.
Is it okay under your worldview to make something that's sinful illegal?
By and large, I think that what you should determine as a nation of what's legal and illegal should at the most broadband work to capture multiple ethical systems that people are bringing in because especially in America, you've got this amalgamation of Protestants and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and atheists.
And so I don't think the government should be a branch of God.
Do you think that something that's a sin can be made illegal?
Can be?
Yeah, under your view.
Is it okay under your feminist view right now that you're defending, which is advocating for liberation, the ability to choose and do things, do as thou wilt, essentially?
I don't think all sin should be illegal.
Like for example, cheating is a sin, but I don't think it should be illegal.
I don't think you should be put in jail for cheating.
Oh, interesting.
Okay.
So how do you determine which sins or transgressions from your ambiguous Christian Orthodox Protestant view?
By the way, is your Christian view informing your view of your feminism or is it?
Probably, yeah.
That's probably why, for example.
Okay, so why is it that you would put someone in jail for one thing that's misaligned with your moral code or from you're deriving from your Christian view?
I'm not using my moral code to determine like what's legal or illegal.
What I'm doing is like looking at the dialogue of society to determine like which policies make for the best type of society.
So for example, murdering being allowed is really bad for society because then you're not guaranteeing your citizens like individual safety, which means that no citizen is ever going to buy into the government if the government can't guarantee their safety.
So murder's bad, obviously, but I don't think what's legal, like legal or illegal, should be our measures for what's morally good or moral.
Okay, the reason I ask because if you agree that murder is bad and you would actually make it illegal and there's a penalty, one of the elements is that it's not good for society.
It removes people from society.
And society is composed of people and you need people, right?
For society?
That's not why I think murder's bad in health.
But do you need people for society?
Sure.
So having people for society is a good, right?
Sure.
I just If having good, if having people for society is good under your view, how is it that having a child is amoral?
Because again, I think anyone can spread their legs and have cum dumped into them.
I don't think that it's meaningful to dump cum into a woman or to like that and create a life.
Is it moral to feed your child?
To be like a good parent, yeah.
Okay, so this, so I don't understand.
You're reducing the act of sex to be something mechanical, and because it's mechanical and anyone can do it, it's not moral.
But what's just as mechanical, literally, is feeding your kid food, but that's moral.
What's the symmetry breaker there?
The symmetry breaker is that typically when people have sex, there's a lot of like self-serving, hedonic elements to it.
I don't think that like most sex that results in children, I don't think is oriented towards having children.
I think it's having sex, so that feels good.
Whereas when you're caretaking your child, you're like doing something by taking care of another person, which is a good thing to do.
Okay, so you agree then, even from your view, which is antithetical to most feminists' view, that promiscuous sex is probably not a great idea.
No, I think it's pretty much bad for everyone.
Okay, but...
But you should be allowed to do it.
Okay, you should be allowed to do it.
But would you argue against it?
Like saying don't do promiscuity?
Yeah, but shame women?
Shame women would not be what I would choose to do.
It's just super ineffective.
Shame's ineffective?
Did you live through the Karunka thing?
I don't know what that is.
I can't say it on the cough cough.
The koof kuf.
Oh, vid.
Okay, yeah, yeah, I got you.
Did I live through it?
Yes, I did.
Would you say during that time you would argue that shame was ineffective?
Yeah.
Really?
I think force was more effective, right?
No, actually, no, force was.
People were getting fined.
People were getting fired from their jobs, right?
There was like more coercive pressure applied to people to comply.
There was that.
Rather than shame.
I don't think most people put on a mask because they felt shamed.
They put on a mask because they knew they couldn't go into the workplace or travel on a business.
From the person who's arguing there's a complexity and everything can't be reduced to force appeals to force here, but doesn't appeal to the complexity of social shame and the ability to structure society from actual pure shame.
So, yeah, because I think when it comes to promiscuity, for example, right?
I don't want people to not be promiscuous because they're worried that like some, that the like the unironic Iranian morality police are going to come into their home and beat them to death.
I think that that's a really bad strategy.
I also think it's a really bad strategy to be like, we'll just fucking hate you and no one will be your friend if you have promiscuous sex.
I also think that that doesn't work because they'll have sex.
They'll just be, they'll just do it in secret.
What's more effective than shame is when people come to embody the values themselves, right?
So if promiscuity is bad for women, I want to advocate for that from a lens of like, it is good for you to not be promiscuous, not you're a bad, dirty whore if you're promiscuous, because I think it leads to a heart change.
And I think the heart change is fundamentally better for society.
I will grant that that's also might be effective.
But to say that shame is not effective, I wouldn't say that's either or.
I think there's a combination.
I should have specified shame is not effective at changing hearts.
And I think changing hearts is what matters.
Because when it comes to promiscuity, the reality is that it would work a little bit.
People would have less sex overall.
But you know what's been way more effective than like the Christian shaming for not having sex?
Giving people phones and social anxiety.
Gen Z is having way less sex than ever before because they won't talk to each other, right?
That's been way more effective than shaming people.
Because if you look at Texas, which was a state that was very religious, very shamed, didn't give a lot of sex education, they're like the number one state for teen pregnancy.
So this idea that shame was effective at making all these teens not have sex, not really.
They just do it in secret.
I want to go back to this one question is if A bunch of Christian women come forward and they hijack the term feminism and they redefine it to be fully submissive to a patriarchal system that's a Christian ethic system and fully backing it and defining feminism as the ultimate femininity is motherhood and being in the home.
From your view, is there any standard you could argue that that's not feminism?
That's not my feminism.
That's not the feminism I'd be fighting for, no?
So there's no true feminism?
I know, like in the same way like there isn't any true like, what's another anti-racism.
There isn't like a true anti-racism.
It's always like morphing and shifting in a dialogue over time.
It's not operationally defined because it's not a scientific concept.
Okay, if that's the case, could there be a form of feminism that you couldn't possibly say isn't feminism, that it was actually fully restrictive of women's liberties?
Yeah, I think, for example, if like people like, this is feminism, but all it is is like basically putting women in hijabs, cutting off their clits, and not allowing them to walk around outside, I think everyone would agree that's nothing to do with feminism.
Wait, wait, wait.
We're not talking about what people agree, because throughout time people have agreed on some wacky shit.
The question is, from your view as a feminist, if you argue that there's no correct feminism, there's just your feminism, and I posit a counter-feminism that's inconsistent with your feminism, what's the ultimate standard?
It's not whether people have a general intuition or they agree with it.
The question is, do you have an absolute standard that's unchanging to say, no, that's not feminism?
I think as long as the goal fundamentally is that we're trying to lead to the betterment for women, I think that seems decently foundational to feminism.
That's why that's what my discussion is.
What if the betterment of women?
What if that form of feminism argued that from their model, from their ethical system, from their metrics, that was better for women?
They can.
There's like an entire trad wife movement that's like very, it's a feminist fourth wave trad wife movement.
So you're agreeing that from your own system, which is completely subjective to your own opinion, you have your own feminism, right?
It's like your own innovation.
If that's the case.
No, it's just my own innovation.
Yeah, but there's no standard.
Do you know what a social dialogue is?
Like how zeitgeists emerge?
I'm saying there's no standard by which you can determine that something is hurt.
I understand.
But do you agree there is no standard for determining what feminism is?
In the same way that there's no standard by which you determine humanitarianism other than essentially there seems to be some precept, which is that it should be for the betterment of women.
That's the standard, right?
But no, that's just pushes the standard of what's better.
No, but the orientation of the people advocating as a feminist should ideally be advocating for things that lead to good outcomes for women.
I know.
Do you understand?
When you say good outcomes, now the new thing you're calling feminism is good outcomes.
And if it's not.
No, but if you just said so.
You asked me to somewhat operationalize it.
The issue is what you're doing is, again, is that when it comes to zeitgeists, they're always popular social dialogue.
They aren't operationalized fundamentally.
That's their nature.
This is why, for example, the skeptical liberalism.
I'll ask a different question.
Hold on, let me finish.
I'm not done talking.
I know, but you're not answering the question.
I am answering the question.
Liberalism is a great example.
There are a whole bunch of ideas that are what liberalism is.
And liberalism is interesting because it's developed beyond that it has a couple of fundamental precepts that if you don't really value these things, you're probably not a liberal.
So for example, if you don't value women having some level of greater level of choice, you're probably not a feminist.
I don't know why you would use that word.
You just contradicted yourself.
I just asked you if there's any standard by which you can tell someone they're not a feminist and you said no.
I said, I said broadly, yes.
I said no.
But ultimately, no.
No, I said it should be oriented towards the betterment of women.
So is it possible that someone else has a standard for feminism that they're betterment for women, right?
Because you're actually assuming that you've established a standard for better now.
If it's the case from your own view, you're being semantic.
What do you mean, semantic?
What does better mean?
How do you define humanitarianism?
I don't give a shit about humanitarianism.
I'm serious.
I reject it.
It's an analogous.
Satanic.
But what is it?
It's satanic.
That's how you define humanitarianism.
Humanitarianism is a totally broad secular view of healing the world.
It's basically like a Talmudic basically worldview.
Sure, but I'm sure you would agree that if you're going to call yourself a humanitarian, there's a certain level of like zeitgeist performance and thought that you should probably adopt.
Well, not really, because that's why I debate them too.
And what I bring to the table is: isn't it possible you can be a humanitarian and off two-thirds of the population?
Yes.
You know what I hear?
Humanitarianism?
Utilitarianism.
So at this point, are you just mad because Loki?
Madame Loki's wager exists for most zeitgeists or like ideological.
How is telling me I'm mad a counterargument to what I just said?
Okay, it's not.
I'm making fun of you.
So stop.
Okay.
Making fun of me is not going to work.
You could make fun of me in addition to an argument like I do today.
Yeah, that's what I'm doing.
Okay, cool.
Okay, so argument first.
Just to go back, okay, make fun of you.
You're big mad.
Second point.
When it comes to ideological concepts, they typically aren't that operationally defined, but there's some level of collection of identity that we tend to form around that like all of us kind of agree is some concept of feminism.
Agreement.
Which is what, yes.
So you can, okay, so you can agree something completely antithetical to those agreements, right?
And it's still feminism.
No, because none of the other feminists would agree to it, right?
There's no collective.
The question is: if you don't agree with previous feminists.
Nobody would label something as feminist if it was like, we should cut off women's clips and put them in jail.
Everyone would be like, that's not fair.
Aren't there existing feminists of different waves that would say you're not a feminist?
Yeah, of course.
Cool.
I'm sorry, good job.
You pointed out how ideologies work.
What, no, I'm pointing out that when I ask you, is there a form of feminism that can be presented?
And if you're not.
Aren't there Christians that could point at you and say that you're not a Christian?
They could try, but there's actually a standard by which you can actually refute them.
Yeah, there's some level of standards as well for feminism.
It's not as, yes, there is.
It's not as organized as something like a religion, which is an institution.
What's the ultimate standard from which you're going to use when someone comes along and says, I'm a feminist, and my form of feminism argues that the best thing for women is to limit their liberties, how do you counter and say you're not a real feminist?
Because I would say broadly, feminism is for giving women greater access of choice and equalizing them as far as like opportunity.
I know you're defining that, but I'm asking.
That is broadly.
Is that objectively true?
Nothing about this is objective.
You're talking about a Loki's wager concept.
So if it's the case that your description of feminism is giving them more opportunities and liberty and all the credit cards and debt and all this shit, and someone comes along and says, well, I'm actually redefining feminism to mean XYZ is the good.
I'm asking you, without asserting what you think is good, do you have a standard to which that you can use to say that this new one is not true?
No, essentially, you can always self-ID into most ideological groups.
The issue is that the ideological group will likely reject you, right?
So it's like, yeah, there are feminists that don't think I'm feminist.
But by and large, there is a lot of feminists who agree with most of my precepts because I am for the empowerment and betterment of women, which almost every single feminist on the planet that has ever existed would be like, okay, yeah, that's obviously some element of feminism.
What do you mean?
You're bringing this up.
I'll do it slower, slower.
Okay.
Your definition assumes a standard for betterment.
Do you understand that?
Yeah, and that's what the philosophical debate will be.
Yes.
Of course.
So when someone comes and redefines their standard for better, I'm asking you a simple question.
There's Kyla's better for women, and then there's an antithetical view for women that has a different standard for better.
What's the ultimate standard to determine which one's better?
It's not an institution.
There isn't one.
There is no standard by which you determine any feminism is good or bad.
It's an ideological group.
Of course not.
Premise one, feminism is good for society.
Premise two, there's no standard for good for society.
Again, I know you think that this is a really strong argument.
Well, it's a debater.
No, it's obviously the case that when it comes to ideological philosophical things like egalitarianism or utilitarianism, there are certain things that you kind of have to agree on, like trying to lead to good outcomes for women, with the good outcomes broadly being defined to some degree as freedom of opportunity.
That if you claim to be feminist, but all you want to do is reduce opportunity, almost every single feminist universally will reject you.
But obviously there's this gray window in between, like Loki's wager, where we're not quite sure where the head and the neck start, or we can cut off and say, this is clearly what feminism is, and this is clearly what it's not.
But something that we can say that is not feminism is somebody who wants to point the jabs on women and cut off their clips.
Like we can agree with that.
That's their feminism.
No feminists.
No, they can just say it's their feminism.
Yeah, of course they can just say.
And you can't say shit back.
You can't.
I would basically be like...
Yeah, you'd have to make a historical argument for what feminism is, right?
Sure.
Callback.
What's up, Jay?
Again, that's not a callback because all I was doing in that debate was asking him to define a word and he refused to and obfuscated from defining the word because he knew that if he defined the word, then there would be operations by which and norms that we could actually talk about things.
And if he couldn't gish gallop and like obfuscate with like philosophy bullshit, then he didn't have anything to talk about, right?
Which is why he basically said, I won't do norms, which is saying I will not actually be good faith with you in this conversation, which is fine.
That was Jay's choice to do, but it made it a useless conversation, unfortunately, which I appreciate that you are not doing mostly.
Do you want to take that brief break right now?
We're going to take a slight break, or Kyla's anyways, just a slight break, slight breather.
Yeah, I open up that all the way.
And I'm going to read, we have a couple Cash App messages from people.
I'll just give you guys shout outs.
Colin, thanking for the 10 on Cash App.
George, thank for the 10 on Cash App.
Thomas, thank you for the five on Cash App.
Really appreciate it, guys.
Thank you.
Thank you.
If you want 100% of your contribution to go towards whatever and not YouTube or Streamlabs or Apple or whatever it is, and you want us to be able to continue putting out great content like this, support us.
You can do so on Venmo Cash App or whatever pod on both.
Also, guys, we have TTS coming up here in just a moment.
As soon as Kyla returns, we're going to do, we have $100 TTS.
That's streamlabs.com slash whatever.
They'll be right back in a moment.
They're just getting, Jim Bob's getting some beer, some water, some refreshments.
Guys, if you're enjoying the stream, kindly like the video.
So if you're watching on Twitch, go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a follow on a Prime Sub if you have one.
If you're watching on YouTube, if you have a Twitch account, you can link it to your, or excuse me, if you have an Amazon Prime account, you can link it to your Twitch.
And it's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
You just link it up.
It takes a couple minutes.
And then every single month, you can drop us a Prime sub, and that's super helpful.
We have a Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
And then shop.whatever.com if you want to get yourself some merch.
Also, guys, quick, Jim Bob, Kyla, and Jay, assuming everybody's all good to go for it, will be joining us tomorrow, essentially, for I guess around two on our dating talk episode.
If you'd like to see that, let me see if we have and she is returning.
We'll let some of the chats come through right now.
So we have the great my bestie blah blah blah.
6969696969696 donated $200.
Here's one more thing.
Let's see that MAGA cap.
Lulu Lulu Lulu.
Thank you.
You know, we're 48 minutes away.
The goal, there's 48 minutes left on the goal.
We're 25 of 50.
We need 10 or we need 10 and up.
So yellow super chats and up.
We need 25 of those.
If you want to see Kyla here, put on a MAGA hat.
So there's that.
Thank you for that, though.
We have blah, blah, blah.
Thank you for the big $200 message.
We have Giovanni here.
Crack it open all the way, please.
Giovanni J.D. donated $100.
This retarded heretic doesn't understand how his Spurg reaction was exactly my point and why your argument was bad.
Oh, is this for you, Jim Bob?
It's for you, Jim Bob.
It's both of us.
It's Giovanni.
Effect.
What?
Effect.
And shut up, Giovanni.
Your name's stupid anyway.
No one cares.
Hey, that's some Italian on Italian crime.
Yeah, I'm Sicilian.
What are you?
Oh, Giovanni.
Yeah, what are you, Giovanni?
Ooh.
Raised by a mom.
There you go.
We have Jason here.
Thank you, Jason.
Appreciate it.
Jason Castle donated $100.
Not so erodu tactics are literally the intelligent application of force, especially in warfare.
Are you dumb or are you just intentionally being ignorant?
You'd like to respond to Jason there.
Read about master morality, and then we'll take it from there.
It's Nietzsche, by the way.
Okay.
We have a super chat here coming in from let me just from Zoe Carr.
Hey, Zoe, thank you for the big super chat.
Appreciate it.
I feel like having the privilege to stay home while my man works, even though I could go out and get a job, is the ultimate form of feminism.
Mothers being home with children is what's best for society, not unnecessarily fighting for jobs we don't want.
Hey, Zoe, thank you very much for the super chat.
Really appreciate it.
Then we have Chief Dill Pickles here.
Chef Dilpickles.
This one.
Jim Bob steelman her position, then refute it expeditiously in Jordan Peterson's voice, please.
Okay, go for it.
Well, it sounds like your position is this.
It's that.
And I take it you're also Canadian.
Is that correct?
I actually live like five hours from you live next to me?
Well, that makes me really feel nice inside.
Look, it's as simple as this.
I actually agree with Jim Bob.
We're going to try to steel man you.
You believe that it's actually best for women ultimately to be in the home.
Correct?
No.
Yes, that's what she said.
She's a liar.
Demon.
Spawn.
Good one.
Clean your kitchen.
I think we need a champagne pop for that Jordan Peterson impression.
That was really good.
Thank you.
And in fact, if we do get a champagne pop, Jim Bob has to do the rest of the show as no, I will not.
Okay, it'll ruin my entire soul.
He'll do the last 10 minutes of the show as Jordan Peterson.
How about that?
Okay, we have Inquisitor Zeal here.
Guys, by the way, get one in, $100.
Inquisitor Zeal donated $100.
Thank you, Inquisitor.
She said it depends on your moral system and that individual might decide.
So again, she's saying that each individual is the source of moral duty.
Her ego is her God.
Individualism is her religion.
Uh, no.
Uh, most...
Most people tend to use some level of like a secular utilitarian framework, which is broadly what people like operate off of.
When I try to evaluate people's moral systems, I try to understand what they believe.
I hold them to what they believe first and foremost, and then what their society believes.
And then there are certain things that I think are like greater moral imperatives that most people would universally agree you should follow.
Like cannibalism is bad.
Does your husband also, whatever, share your Christian view?
Radical Orthodox?
Yeah.
He does.
Does that view hold that he's ultimately the say in the house, like pointing in the direction of where you guys are going, where you live?
Yeah, like more.
He's like the final veto, but he's he truly understands that like the wife is the church to Christ, right?
Like he's the head and you're the neck.
As in like Christ died for the body.
And so there's a leading from like deep care, right?
Like Nick, Nick doesn't tell me that I must respect him because he's a man.
I respect Nick's decisions even when we might disagree because he fundamentally has the best interest for both of us in mind and I trust him in that.
I don't think all husbands are that way.
Well, that's exceptional.
That's what I'm asking is if you guys had a disagreement on a direction or an issue or even if you actually knew maybe you were correct?
Yeah, basically I would honor him.
And what is that's derivative of your Christian view, right?
Yeah.
Do you think a society made up of women who follow that is better than a society of rebellious women who don't follow that?
No, because I don't think most men actually deserve the level of respect that I give Nick.
That might be true, but if it were the case that they were all nicks, would it be better for the rest of the women to be you?
Yeah, if everyone was a fucking amazing person, yeah, society would be better, I'm sure.
Yeah, of course.
Okay.
But men are not.
Like most men are not Nick.
I understand.
I'm just saying there is a circumstance in which you actually do submit as the woman in the house to the leader who's the man.
It's reflective of a Christian view, even if we disagree on the truth of Christianity between us, our doctrine or whatever.
Is that ultimately, if it were the case that men were fulfilling the role of a Christian patriarch, in a sense, for the family in society, it would make sense to you that the women would then follow the men, right?
Yeah, like by and large, I just think like most modern forms of like fundamental Christianity set up men to be extremely bad patriarchs.
I don't think that they're Christ to the church at all.
They don't die for their women.
They don't like put their family first foremost.
I think Christian men are oftentimes extremely led astray and very cruel.
And I think a good man also respects his woman and like listens to her and takes her thoughts and opinions very seriously in like weighing out decisions.
Right.
I mean, that's what I'm just getting.
I just wanted to get to, it sounds like a type of version of Christianity you're really partial to, that if it was multiplied, it would make sense to hold the patriarchal view and practice inside of a country.
And then even inside of the home, it would make sense for the women to follow the men.
If these conditions were met.
I just wouldn't force it ever.
I don't believe in a society that forces these things.
Right, but you would advocate for it.
The forcing or like the majority of the people.
No, no, just advocate for that patriarchal hierarchical system.
I don't know if I would advocate for that for non-Christians.
Because I understand.
Like, why would the man ever have to do that?
Well, I agree.
I think secular marriage and all that is a useless thing to do from their paradigm.
It doesn't even make sense.
Why, unless it was strictly like this law-based advantage.
You know, when we marry in Christianity, we're married to something bigger than each other.
No, there's the covenant with Christ.
There's a whole thing to it, whereas a secular marriage, you're basically marrying each other's preferences until they change.
I think most secular people would disagree with you pretty strongly on that.
I think a lot of secular people still embody a pretty high value for like long-term commitment.
I just think that when it comes to a secular relationship, for me, when I look at that, they're missing a core cornerstone that pulls them together long-term over time, which would be Christ.
But that's not something I would ever find.
Right, but here's the difference here: from a Christian position, even like the whole variety of Christian proponents, they have an obligation to stay married.
Like that would be the ideal, right?
There's an obligation there, a moral obligation.
Secularism has no, there's no real moral obligation.
I would disagree.
Like, for example, the moment that you have children, for example, I think there's an extremely high pressure, even for secular people, to try to make it work, right?
Yeah, even without children, though, it seems that most secular people have adopted into their broadly utilitarian framework some level of loyalty that's earned over time because I think most people recognize that loyalty is regarding God's own value.
I'm just saying there's a I'm saying the difference between just a mere intuition that they should probably make it work versus an obligation that's beyond their own preferences.
It's not an intuition, right?
Unless they're like moral intuitivists, which most people are like not really.
Most people aren't anything.
Most people don't have like a morality.
Put it this way.
Put it this way.
They broadly have a utility.
Do you attend a place that's a building that you call a church?
Okay.
The other people at your church who know you're married, if your marriage was in trouble, it would make sense that not only they're obligated, but they're there to support you in your marriage, right?
Again, when you say obligated, do you mean it's something that is good to do?
Yeah, it's a part of the Christian praxis that you're actually, because you're married to a church, essentially, of something bigger, that you're actually trying to keep that intact in a way.
It's not just your little temporal relationship.
But I'm saying in a secular view, they don't actually have something bigger outside of themselves.
Even if you include a kid, they're just making the marriage include another person.
there's nothing outside of them that they're appealing to that's bigger than them metaphysically spiritually it's just like not spiritually obviously but they have like the the community that you're appealing to that the christians have Most secular people have a very interconnected community that would be pushing towards that relationship working out, being the in-laws and probably the shared mutual friends, right?
And ideally, I think most secular people would agree that the community of friends that is around this couple, if they're having issues, should come around them and support them and obviously like hope and wish and try to help in whatever way they can to help that couple stay together.
I think most secular people hold this value.
Interesting.
I don't know if that's actually, I don't know.
That might be the case.
It's just that it seems to me if they're secular, they're looking at basically they're measuring like trade-offs, like material trade-offs, like, well, this could be an advantage, but then you weigh it against this.
And from that view, I feel like what I'm trying to say is that the paradigm that's judging the trial and tribulation, what it is, is fundamentally different between a Christian and a secular.
Like how they frame the problem.
It's fundamentally different.
The issue is that, like, I think Christians and non-Christians get divorced at pretty much the same rate.
So it's like, yeah, I would agree that the systems by which they derive their value of loyalty is different.
It doesn't change that the value of loyalty is there and it doesn't work for about 50% of couples anyways, right?
Yeah, maybe.
Yeah.
Christianity will also cause like marriages to stay together forever that are deeply loveless and like awful, right?
Which is like something that I don't think is good necessarily.
Like Christians will look at the 30-year couple that fucking hate each other.
They just live with each other and they'll be like, look at what a good thing.
It's like, that's not a good thing.
That's death.
Like two people that lived together that forgot the shadow of what it meant to be in love, just gripping on because like they feel God tells them to, that's not God's will at all.
What they should be doing is like surrendering themselves and figuring out what the issue is.
Yeah, that's why I think Christianity has a better perspective because they can actually, even against your preferences in the moment, it's actually probably a good thing to have people externally also accountable to you staying together.
I just think that's stronger.
think that's stronger from a Christian view even if it does sound stronger at a logical level to some degree The issue is it just not borne out in any of the stats.
And I would add to that, I don't know if you were going in this direction.
It shouldn't be law.
It shouldn't be a law?
It should not.
No, I think when like Christianity blends with politics, like power and politics, I think it ruins the faith.
I think it's really bad for the faith.
Wait a second.
That's interesting because you agreed before that if a Christian votes on a policy, you wouldn't expect them to not vote on a policy without it being informed by their theology, right?
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that Christianity, like I don't believe in like theocracies.
I don't think Christianity should run the country.
I think I understand, but a theocracy, let's say, isn't it already the case that people who have a Christian view, if they get elected as a representative of the people because of their Christian view, they're also saying that their Christian view is going to inform the policies.
So in fact, it's unavoidable to live in a system, even a pluralistic system like ours.
It's unavoidable for people to pursue politics and not have it, have their theology influence what the politics are.
I don't vote for my theology almost at all, unless there's somebody running who's like, I'm going to get rid of freedom of religion.
Then I would vote for my theology if I got it.
Well, no, that's you, but I'm saying that.
I vote on foreign policy.
I don't think it's fundamental that Christians need to vote based on their faith.
And I actually think that it leads to a lot of- What else would they vote on, though?
What nation states are for, which is like foreign policy and sovereignty.
Yeah, but what's way more important to have a president that knows how to navigate global trade than to be like a nice Christian guy.
Hold on a second.
What's informing ethically?
Because when you vote, you're informed by some meta-ethical view.
I'm a real.
Do you know what real politic is?
No.
It's like a philosophy of politics that's like deeply pragmatic and devoid of moral stuff.
It's impossible.
Nope.
It is impossible.
It's just pure pragmatism.
Nope.
Pragmatism.
There's no way, because then you're saying, then you're making an ought claim to do the most pragmatic thing.
That's not a moral claim.
Ought we do the most pragmatic thing?
That's not a moral claim.
It's not?
Nope, not at like a government level.
Oh, so I'm going to do a government that I think is going to enact the best policy for my sovereignty to do well.
Is your sovereignty a morally good thing or not?
It's neutral, but like I like if I violate your sovereignty, is it immoral?
It depends on how you violate it.
But if I violate your sovereignty, invade?
Yeah, yeah.
Like just invade you limit your ability to move, do things in the world.
If it's the case, Kyla.
Yeah, like at an individual level.
I understand, but do you understand the intent?
Is a nation immoral if it invades your sovereignty?
Because we're talking about nations now, again.
Well, I'm pointing to a nation consists of its people.
So there's an individual level and a collective level of a nation.
Sovereignty isn't about, like, I don't have an individual sovereignty.
Is it morally good for a country to protect, to keep its identity sovereign against foreign invasion?
A moral good.
Yeah, because isn't it, wouldn't it be immoral for another nation to invade the sovereignty and break the sovereignty?
Is it immoral to break somebody else's sovereignty?
I need to think about that.
I'm not sure.
Fair enough.
But I don't know if it's moral.
Well, you can.
I think it's just fundamental.
Like, why are you a nation if you're not protecting sovereignty?
I understand, but I think that this example is perfect because if it's the case that it's immoral, if you want to think about it further, it's fine.
But just think about it this way.
If it's immoral for another nation to invade another and break up its sovereignty and violate all that, if that's immoral, then it's moral to fight against that.
Yep.
I'm just, that's why I said I'm not sure.
Like my knee-jerk is like, yeah, it feels icky to invade other sovereignty.
Is it moral, though?
I'm not sure.
It's hard to, it's hard to view nations at like a moral and immoral level.
Well, that's why I point to.
You probably can.
So it probably is.
But again, there might be reasons by which you invade another country's sovereignty that are like legitimate, like taking out terror cells.
Well, it'd be morally legitimate.
Yeah, like taking out terror cells in Lebanon.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Is if you vote on foreign policy, you're ultimately asking a meta-ethical or moral question given the situation.
So it's never, that's why I say pragmatism, even if you establish some sort of strict rules of like outcomes that you like or don't like, ultimately when we press you on it, you're going to actually have to, eventually you'll be forced, just like the example I gave, to give a moral statement about something because pragmatism, yeah, I just demonstrated.
Well, no, when I'm talking about foreign policy, I'm not talking about like moral behavior.
What I'm mostly talking about is like free trade and things that like better my living as a result of how we engage with like the global.
Let's take let's take even more of a domestic issue because the conversation, and I want to debate this more with other people, is this conversation of like, keep your theology out of my business, keep your theology out of politics, keep it out of policy, right?
This is a constant thing.
Yeah.
Well, are you for like welfarism, safety nets?
Yep.
Okay.
So from your perspective, do you take an amoral approach to help people in their safety net, like with their safety nets?
As like an individual?
Is it just pragmatic that you should help people in need?
It's definitely super pragmatic.
It's also moral.
Okay.
Some things can be moral and pragmatic.
Okay.
So is that an example of you being totally fine voting on a policy that's both pragmatic and moral if it's informed by your theology?
Yeah, sure.
I'm not opposed to people like just vote.
Yeah, I don't know what you think my idea is.
I'm not opposed to people voting because of their theology.
I'm opposed to people voting only for their theology, right?
Why, though?
Because the best president for our nation isn't just like the nice Christian guy.
It's the guy who understands how to interact with our global neighbors well.
I understand, but that just comes back to what paradigm is evaluating the interaction if it's not ultimately your theology.
It's pretty pragmatic, right?
Because you can have a president who's a massive bag of dicks.
He's just a shitty person.
Yeah.
But he's really good at trade.
He gets us really good trade deals.
The allies really like him.
And he does a really good job of breaking up the axis of resistance.
I understand.
But he's a dickhead.
I understand, but that's.
But Kyla, you're now switching it to who you vote for that does stuff.
What I'm asking is, even if you voted for a total atheist that just somehow...
Well, I didn't switch it.
You were talking about who I would vote for.
Well, I'm saying vote for or policies.
So if they're conjoined, that's fine.
Yeah, but I wasn't switching it.
I don't know why you said I was switching.
What I'm saying, isn't it possible that a total douchebag who doesn't even share your values for some reason Is really good at executing all the policies you support.
That's what I said.
Okay, if that's possible, aren't you still voting for them based on your theological evaluation of what you think is good?
Nope.
No, what's evaluating what's good then?
Pragmatism.
Yeah, pragmatism.
What works?
Yeah, but why isn't it something that works?
Aren't you saying it's morally good that it works?
Because there's things that can be beneficial that are morally neutral.
So you want to benefit society, but your standard for what benefits society isn't a moral claim or an ethical claim.
Sometimes it's a moral claim and sometimes it's not a moral claim, right?
Like this is the problem with using the word good is that like good can mean moral, but it can also just mean something functional, like good outcome.
Right, or performance, like a good basketball team is performatively good, but they're not morally good because they're awesome.
Or if I buy a Porsche, right?
It's like a good exchange.
The guy who sells it to me is happy.
I'm happy because I have a Porsche.
It's not morally good to buy a Porsche.
Right, but then it gets into fuzzy territory when you, like for the examples of like invading terror cells.
Exactly, which is why I granted you where I'm like, invading sovereignty feels icky, but there's probably a number of situations where I would think it's legitimate, like invading terrorists.
Like I think bombing the Houthis was great, based, bomb them away.
Yeah, but you said that someone shouldn't vote primarily on their theology, but even if they voted for a guy who doesn't believe what they believe, but all of their policies aligned with the voter's theology, the voter could still vote on the total bag of dicks, right, fully based on their theology.
And it would actually, this is the thing, here, put it this way.
Isn't it possible that voting fully on your theology is the most pragmatic thing?
Nope.
It's not possible?
What?
I don't think so.
No, there's a lot of things that Christians do based on our religion that is less functional.
Like this is why the path to hell is wide and the path to heaven is narrow, because it's really hard to just do always the morally upright thing.
It's really difficult.
And I don't want to hold nations to that standard.
I want nations to mostly operate in neutrality, by and large and benefit us.
I understand what you're saying, but you just said it's logically impossible that an instance of voting fully on your theology can't be pragmatic.
Yeah, so like in the Christian theology, well, yeah, I substantiated why, because I think as a Christian, like Christians at a spiritual level, I think are often required to do things that are deeply unpragmatic because it's the right thing.
I understand.
That actually is.
I think like a purely Christian leader who's operating out of Christian principles is probably going to make a pretty ineffective nation leader.
I agree that a lot of times we're challenged with pragmatism or what's good, and what's good isn't always what's pragmatic.
I'm not arguing whether those things can not align at some points.
Often they don't.
But that's a different question of whether it's logically possible to vote on a policy that's wholly aligned and informed by your theology and it's also pragmatic.
Well, like one policy?
No, no, no.
Well, you said a leader.
Like a leader is more than one policy.
One policy, yeah, of course it can be pragmatic and theological.
When you said is, can you vote for some person who represents all of your theology and have him be also the most pragmatic leader?
And I was like, for Christianity, probably not because Christianity is constantly dying to self, turning the other cheek.
Like the ultimate Christian leader probably shouldn't bomb anyone.
So you don't hold a view that most of the secular worldview holds is that they always say, I'm fine with you believing what you believe.
It's just when you inform policy from that and force XYZ, right?
Yeah, like I don't want Sharia law.
I don't like that.
Right, but that's a particular kind of thing.
I agree with you.
If I tell Muslims that their religious practice can't be like telling me what to do, I can't tell secularists that my religious practice now gets to tell them what to do at a criminal level.
I understand, but that means that if you held that position like most secularists do, they are arguing from this position that says, I just don't want to force my beliefs on you.
And I don't want you to force your beliefs on me, right?
Yep.
That's what they're saying?
However, the problem is there are people who, let's say, don't believe in rights.
Yep.
Isn't it the case that the group of people who believe in rights, given that's a belief, are forcing their belief on other people?
I mean, I think you can technically like, there's like a thing where you can become like an uncitizen, essentially.
Oh, those people?
Yeah, they don't do very well.
You can.
Yeah, it's just, it's just retarded.
Like, yeah, I suppose we're like forcing people to have human rights.
Yeah.
But that's just like the trade-off that we're willing to do.
There are some things.
Well, some people don't are born into it.
But we also force people not to murder, right?
We like force people to pay taxes.
I know.
There's lots of things that we force people to do.
I know it's justified.
One of the things that I think we shouldn't do is force religion as a Christian specifically because I want people to find Christ and like his gift of salvation is like what turns their hearts to him.
I'm not advocating for force.
I'm not advocating for force.
You can't force people to believe things for one, but you can't.
I'm not saying the, I'm not advocating.
I'm actually running just a basic hypothetical, an inquiry to demonstrate that it's actually impossible to live in an ordered society without a predominant belief being forced onto people.
And the question only becomes, what are the beliefs?
So it's like, I'm a liberal, right?
So like my answer to that predicament is like the beliefs we should have should probably maximize things like freedom of choice, freedom of like association, freedom of movement, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech.
These things seem to be damn near miraculous that we came to when we look historically at societies that didn't have this thing.
It's not a good question.
Can I ask a clarification about that list?
Sure.
Do you, you said freedom of movement.
I usually debate a libertarian on this particular topic.
Sure.
Would you include in that list, I don't know if you said it, but freedom, like property, like owning property?
Like, do I believe in private property?
Yeah, like I believe in private property.
Okay, cool.
So if you include that, if it were the case that all of the land, every square inch of the U.S., was owned privately.
Then you would have no freedom of mobility.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's the Palestinians' plight right now.
Yeah.
So like this is the classic Calvin and Hobbes question, which is that like freedom often comes in tension with security because there's certain freedoms that we always opt to give up to maintain security.
This is why open borders is usually not a good idea because if you have open borders, you have no level of security for your nation, right?
Which is why borders are valuable and it's a restriction on a freedom of movement that most people are willing to accept in exchange for the security.
Do you agree that most women, feminists, vote in favor of security over liberty?
Because that's the trend.
That's the status.
When you say security, do you mean like personal security or?
General.
It could be personal.
It could be just a general like, well, I want to be safe, which is totally aligned with their nature, like to want to be safe.
But the problem is, if you and I both agree that there is this constant tension and dance between freedom and security, and it happens to be the case that women voting actually work against what both of you and I think is generally something you have to explore.
Well, I like both of these things.
Like, have you ever read Jonathan Haidt?
So you know his idea of like the moral presuppositions that back behind conservatism versus like liberalism and the value systems.
And these are pretty biological.
In fact, it's like more politics of disgust.
Yeah, exactly.
Okay.
So you're familiar.
So, in my mind, essentially, yes, women, if they were more concerned about personal security, probably would be more pro-right wing, but I think women just prioritize things like caring for others more than they do for that thing, right?
I understand.
But let's, like, I just want to point something out.
Very basic of women.
If it were the case that women were still in the home and held the position of the woman in the home from a Christian lens, and the man held the position as the provider and protector of the home, the thing that they're yearning for without that, like let's say they didn't have a husband or anybody, it makes sense that they're going to look for the security in the government if they don't have it directly in their environment, right?
I mean, I'm married with a husband with a gun, and I definitely look for security from my government before I look for it from my husband.
Really?
Yeah, I'd prefer to call the police than be like, Nick, go get them.
Yeah, obviously.
Police have body armor, they have like tactical training.
Yeah, but the police have no obligation to protect you.
Typically, when you have a house intruder, you can call them and they will protect you.
Well, no, they are going to get the guy who violated a crime, but they actually have no obligation to protect you, like stopping.
We did this song and dance before.
I just think you're like being a little bit finiggly with words, right?
Like, obviously, when I'm like, I went to the Supreme Court, though.
I understand, right?
But the issue is that the Supreme Court is specifically finigly with words.
I imagine if you ask most police officers, what do they say their duty is, to serve and protect?
Right.
Serve and protect what?
Not people.
No, that's a slogan.
It's not people.
You think police officers don't feel that they're trying to serve and protect citizens?
No, they're serving something and they're protecting what?
The community.
No, they're protecting basically the law and the Constitution.
I think they're serving the law and they're protecting you.
It's both.
They're not protecting you.
That's for sure.
Again, it's not that you're losing a colloquialist.
Like, I understand the colloquial aspect of what you're saying.
It's just that actually, like, they have no obligation to protect you.
It's just good to know that.
If that's the case, then Nick, your husband should take that to heart and say, you know what?
If someone's in the home, if it's a choice between calling the cops and waiting and having your gun out, this is a false statement.
I understand that's not either or.
But if it's the case that you're waiting for the police, but you could actually have self-defense.
Should you stop the intruder before the police come then?
Yeah, of course, but that's not like what I'm arguing for, right?
You said you would hide and wait for the police to show up.
And it's like, are you trained in using a weapon?
Yeah.
Oh, good.
Why would you be trained in using a weapon to not use the weapon?
I don't know.
Because we have one gun and Nick's definitely going to use the weapon before I do.
Fuck that shit.
So you affirm gender roles?
Yeah, he's also better with the gun.
In fairness, like if I, if he hadn't ever used a gun before and I was like very, I was like, my dad is like this, like highly competitive.
He's like a super shooter, whatever.
And if say I had trained under my dad, then I should have the gun in the case of the home intruder.
But he's better with the gun.
He's got more comfortability with violence.
It's more his pension to do.
Interesting.
So this, how about this?
I'm also a retard when it comes to violence.
When you're walking on the street, given that logic, do you think that the man has an obligation?
Let's say you're walking on the street and there's an aggressor across the street and you know that something can be done perhaps to stop.
You don't know if you're going to win or not.
Do you think you're obligated to go or your husband to go fight the aggressor?
Neither people are obligated.
You have no obligation when you say obligated, do you mean they ought to?
Well, yeah, that you ought to from your view that you ought to help the person.
Yeah, but I would say like a police officer ought to to a much higher degree.
This is why after like the school shooting in Texas when the officers just waited outside, even though technically they're not obligated to go in and intervene with the shooter while they're allowed, every single person in society said, these cops are what's not a slur.
Fucking workers.
Yeah, fucking losers, right?
So there's this premise of like, yeah, police aren't obligated to protect us, but obviously we have a social expectation that like we probably should try to intervene.
Well, that's what I'm saying is like from a societal view, if everyone knew everyone held a view that they were obligated to aggress against people who were who were doing harm or doing illegal things, even before the cops arrived.
I feel like we live in a society that's so like closed off, you're afraid to like intervene on anything.
You're just closed off your own individual bubble.
You're like, I'm not dealing with that.
I feel like that's a kind of a breakdown of the moral fabric.
And to tie it back into feminism, the reason I asked that question is I wondered if debating you on gender roles is just a not like we already agree that you affirm gender roles.
The main difference would be I would never compel women to be in any specific gender role or men, right?
I'm fine with the fact that men and women tend to naturally fall into these dynamics.
And as long as it works for the couple, that's fine.
My biggest thing, I'm truly a liberal in the most obnoxious way.
I want people to choose.
I want people to have choice.
And I hate it when big government tries to force choices, especially when it comes to private lives.
I think do you plan on being a mother?
Probably.
I don't know if I can.
Okay.
Like at a biological level, just because of like some health stuff, but I'd like to.
Well, the reason I ask that is like if you have a son or a daughter, let's say you have a son and you perceive that his natural inclination is more gentle, but you also know it's better for him in the long run to develop some sort of ability to be an aggressor if he needed to.
Would you intervene with what you thought his natural inclination was and nudge him into something that occurred to you as unnatural?
To like make him more functional.
Probably to some degree, but I think if he resisted it to a high level, there's a certain level of like, yeah, you want your kids to be likable and like function in society.
And I think good parents should try to like help that happen.
But if you have a kid who's so atypical from society that to force him into that would do more damage than to not, then you should.
I understand.
I'm just saying like there's more to this is that it's it's beyond gender.
It's like, especially if you if you say you you hold a Christian view, you're constantly battling against human proclivities and what people are naturally drawn to do.
Now, you're just assuming, well, people are naturally toward certain talents or things like this, but that includes people being drawn to proclivities that you actually have to correct.
And that's why it does tie back to feminism because I'm glad you pushed back at least you're reserved about women arguing that they're super empowered doing pornography at age 24 or younger or older, and they're not considering long-term effects of it.
Like you said, you're judging the behavior based on the future self.
Like, would you still do this?
Well, future, current, and past.
Yeah, yeah, which is obviously very difficult to do.
But that's why I think you can't really hold a Christian view and not be in a constant potential state of intervention, not just with your family, but with society itself at large.
I think it's just this tension.
There's an element is the Calvin and Hobbes.
Again, there's a certain level of like freedom that you want people to have to self-actualize.
I think that like diversity of ideas and concepts and individuals is good.
And when I say diversity, I don't mean like skin color.
That's fine too.
When I talk about diversity, though, I mean like different expressions of humanity.
I think that's really good.
And there's a certain level of like nudging towards social normativity that helps people function and flourish.
And when you have kiddos, I think you have to constantly do the tension of letting your kiddos be them.
Also, teaching them like that, yeah, the whole diversity thing I think is kind of bullshit because you would have to include people in public walking each other on like leather and like they're they're in like leather panties and stuff.
That's diversity, right?
No, like you're making like a slippery salt fallacy.
Just because I like want people to be able to like do and like self-express, that doesn't mean that I want ultimate maximal self-expression.
Otherwise like Dexter would be like, I love kids.
No, no, forget about the ill forget about the aggressing on other people.
This is where basically every libertarian argument goes, which you kind of are libertarian, it sounds like.
Would you categorize yourself as like a libertarian feminist or something?
No, I'm pretty like standard liberal.
Like I really am.
Because just to be clear, I'm still pro-welfare state and still pro-like market regulation.
This is why I asked liberal camp.
It's ultimately going to be your theological view and your ethical view that's going to try to justify the forceful intervention of public degeneracy in instances where nothing's being actually broken, no property's being damaged, there's nothing being stolen, there's no one actually physically being aggressed or harmed, but it's degenerate, right?
Yep.
Yeah, and it's way more, it's like you say you have a person and they love shitting in public and they also clean up after themselves.
Right.
So they drop their pants, they take a massive shit in the middle of the street.
Do you hear that libertarians?
And then they clean up after themselves, right?
There's this question like the libertarian be's like, well, they should be able to do that.
Right.
I'm like, nah, there's a certain level of like social functional performativity that you should engage in where you like don't thrust your taboos on other people.
So like the leather walking, I think, is essentially thrusting your taboos onto other people that are not a good person.
What about homosexuality?
Yeah, I basically think that that's a taboo that I'm glad that we've reduced to not being a taboo.
Oh, so you are so public display of homosexuality is not something, but the dog walking thing is something you want to crack down on.
But the pub like pride parades, active simulated sexuality on the back of trucks, that's good.
Nope, that's not what I said.
You said homosexuality, and I was picturing like gay men walking down the street holding hands and stuff like that.
Like, I think that's fine.
Under a Christian view?
Yep.
Really?
Yeah, if they're like secular people, yeah.
Why would I tell them that they can't do that?
Well, I didn't say they can't do it.
I'm saying I should find a structure by which I enforce that gay menu.
Well, I'm trying to find the threshold at which you use the bulldozer to clean the streets.
You said the shitting in the streets is a no-no.
Yep.
Right?
How about wearing like a dildo on your head?
Again, if you're in like certain public spaces where everyone's consenting to that, I don't care.
Like, say you go to like a gay bar and that's like a fun thing.
No, no, no, out in the street where kids are.
Yeah, like I don't think most parents are consenting to their kids like seeing that.
So you probably shouldn't do that.
Okay, but the thing is, have you ever seen a gay pride parade?
Yep.
Do you think that I support everything that happens at gay pride parades?
I didn't say that.
I said, is there something that you'd seen at a gay pride parade that you would use force to remove?
Use force to remove?
No, I would use like social pressure.
Oh, so now pressure does work.
Before you were like, well, we can't really shame.
Yeah, Shane, that's social pressure.
No, social pressure can be like more than that.
Shame isn't the only method by which you can.
I'm interested.
What else?
I want all tools of social pressure to be.
You can use guilt systems.
That's shilt.
That's shame.
Shame and guilt are functionally very different, especially at a psychological level and affecting change of behavior.
You can also use positive reinforcement structures to make certain behaviors more likely to occur.
So tax write-offs for EV is a way that you socially coerce people to do EV, et cetera, et cetera.
How do you use social pressure to get two lisping dudes in their thongs in public to not do that?
I think you can use some level of conversation around consent.
Essentially, it's probably not super appropriate in a public space where there are children to thrust your sexual taboo onto children who don't understand it, can't consent it, and the parents are probably not consenting to it.
So would you walk up to that person and say that?
I'd probably talk to the organizer of the Pride Parade because they're the ones allowing it, right?
Right.
How do you think that would go?
I don't know.
Probably some would.
Probably not so good, huh?
Yeah, some would be like, they'd be like, thanks for your opinion.
Yeah, but that's just not what we're debating about.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, there's lots of queer people that are fucking retarded.
True.
We are going to do little chats here.
We're going to probably wind down momentarily.
So if you want, get them in.
We've reduced the TTS.
If you want, we'll do a Rose session.
Do a bit of a Rose session.
$69 TTS via Streamlabs if you want to get a roast in.
We have some chats coming in.
Desert Joe.
Thank you, man.
Desert Joe donated $100.
Appreciate it.
Jim Bob, do it again, but this time as Ben Shapiro.
I think it was like the steel man.
Damn it.
Steel Manning.
They're always forcing me to do it in impressions.
You're a fan of Ben Shapiro, aren't you?
Big fan.
Pro-Israel, guy, Israel.
I like some of his stances.
What do you like about it?
What do you like about it?
Tell me.
My wife doesn't tell me how much she likes me, so I'm going to take it from you.
Tell me.
Tell me.
I don't know.
I feel like he's going to watch this and I'm going to feel funny for you.
Tell me I'm symmetrical.
Am I a big man?
I don't think you're going to.
Tell me I'm a big man on campus.
This is not your best impression.
Come on.
Your Jordan Peterson one is pretty good, but this one's okay.
The Gluggity.
Thank you, Delta.
Thank you, Gluggity.
Glug, Glug, Gloopy, Glump Group.
Shimmity, Shimshim, Shimmery, Shimmy Shim.
Yep.
Trolley Ollie, Olliolium, Pluto, Slippy Slop.
It's time for another shot.
What a great debate.
Thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you for your message.
We have Dark Omen42 coming in here in just a moment.
Thank you, Dark Omen.
Appreciate it.
And thank you, Gluggity.
Glug.
Dark Omen42 donated $100.
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez.
Scotus decision police only have an obligation to defend you if you're in custody.
When Second Matter Police are minutes away, you vowed the cops were fired, not charged.
Yeah, I didn't disagree with this.
I just said everyone also fucking hated them because obviously most people expect cops to engage in some level of protecting community, even though they're not legally obligated to, right?
We have your friend here, Intel.
Intel Wild donated $69.
Jim Bob, hitting the gym is definitely making your shoulders look bigger.
You totally wrecked this 340 to the orbiter tonight.
Okay.
W Jim Bob.
Thank you.
Very slowly but surely.
Thank you, Intel.
Good to see you.
I gotta say, his lowest donation so far has been not talking about me, but glazing you guys.
Interesting.
What are you trying to say about it?
I'm saying that.
I'm saying that Intel Wild loves spending money to talk to me.
There you go.
Okay.
Got Jason here.
Thank you, Jason.
Jason Castle donated $69.
Nietzsche's concept of master morality supports my view of tactics.
The noble tactician applies force intelligently, unashamedly shaping the battlefield, not dodging power with moral excuses.
He's got a follow-up coming in here in just a moment.
That was a crazy statement.
Jason Cassell literally went to chat GBT and rolled his forehead on it and said Nietzsche.
Jason Cassell donated $69.
Also, I find it funny that you claim to be a Christian, but you reference Nietzsche.
In the Antichrist, Nietzsche states Christianity as the one great curse.
I also cited Heidegger, who's a Nazi.
Do you think that that means that I also am a Nazi?
Like, yes, you can cite people who disagree with multiple things that also have good criticisms of other systems.
Like, what a non-statement.
So, guys, if you want to get a message in $69 TTS.
Also, I just wanted to pull this one back up just to give you an example of what I'm talking about.
So, the way that you know if somebody typically, I mean, I guess you can custom in, if you're on desktop, you can customize an input to make it $99.99.
If it's ending in 99 cents, typically that means they've done it through the YouTube app.
So, if you're using Apple iOS, you're using a YouTube app, either on an iPhone, iPad, whatever, whatever device it is.
Yeah, so Apple's going to take 30, then YouTube's going to take 30, so that it leaves the creator with $49.
So, basically, the math on it is 100 times 0.7 times 0.7.
That's what the creators left with.
So, still super appreciative of the super chat, but just be aware when you're sending these in if you are trying to be a patron of the show.
It's always a bad girl.
It's terrible, Zoe.
Yeah, Apple takes their 30%, then YouTube takes their 30%.
$69 TTS.
Also, if you guys, speaking of, actually, Venmo Cash App, we get 100% of your contribution to these platforms that won't take their cut.
John, thank you for the $2 on Cash App.
Appreciate that.
And it is a $69 TTS if you guys want to get it in.
You know what?
Unless you guys wanted to do a bit more open conversation, I think we can just go into the closing statements unless you guys want to cover anything else.
We can do that.
Okay, you've been here for 18 hours.
Yep.
So, Kyla, you get to close first.
Why don't you go?
Don't I close last because I went second?
Because he got the first word.
So I did the last word, right?
Or wait, hold on.
Yeah, because last time I got...
Is that how it works?
Yeah, it probably should be.
Because usually starting first is the strongest and ending last is like the strongest.
balance those two things.
First goes last.
I went first.
Is that how it goes?
But then you're getting the strongest starting and the strongest ending, which doesn't make a lot of sense, right?
I thought it was like recency effect.
I think affirming isn't the strongest because you're in the.
No, when I say, when I say strongest, I mean like to the viewer, there's recency effect and then there's like initiation effect or whatever it's called where it's the.
I don't care.
I thought whoever goes first.
That would mean that he goes first for the close and then I end it.
Sorry, wait, I misspoke.
Whoever goes first for the open goes second for the close.
Am I just?
Whatever you want to do, boss.
It's your show.
You know what?
We're going to have you.
You know what?
No, Kyla gets last for sure.
Bob, go ahead.
You got to go.
Okay, cool.
Yeah, so the debate, there wasn't a clear prompt.
It wasn't exactly the same as her previous debate.
Essentially, we're looking at what feminism is, what feminism isn't.
I think the key thing to take away tonight from this debate conversation was that when you ask someone like Kyla, is there a standard for what constitutes feminism?
And the answer is no.
There really isn't a position you can take to say this feminism thing is good for society.
It's just a set of preferences that you're calling feminism that a stance that's totally antithetical to those to those that criteria could also claim feminism.
So, in other words, I can claim feminism, true feminism, the real feminism, is actually a Christian ethical system, a Christian duty-based system that puts the wife and the mother primarily at home, raising the children.
That's good for society, and the men being the provider and the protector.
And that the world itself, or the country itself, is reflective of that.
I would argue that that's actually reflective of the church itself.
If you call yourself a Christian, it's not only hierarchical, but it's patriarchal.
I think ultimately, feminism, no matter how you cut it, the moment you apply it to society, you're affirming the patriarchal role.
You're actually saying women should have XYZ, and it's a request and a grievance, and you're making the grievance to a collective body of mostly men that are going to say yes or no to it.
It's an allowance.
It's like the child in the room asking, can he finally come downstairs and play?
And the leader of the house is saying, maybe.
They can go back on it anytime.
For instance, you can give women the right to vote, and you could also take it away.
So it's not something that can't be altered by men ultimately at any given point.
And so that points to a major distinction between men and women.
Ontologically, their natures are different.
They're driven towards different things.
And I think a society that acknowledges the difference between men and women is actually a society that's better and more accurately describing reality.
Feminism doesn't describe reality accurately.
It actually argues with nature itself.
It argues with descriptive reality and says, Can we change descriptive reality?
And ultimately, the answer is no.
And then finally, which is the killer.
Any worldview that's counter to Christianity is going to have a massive problem with this particular category of attack.
Duties and obligations.
Duties and obligations, no matter how someone presents, how eloquent, how complex they present their worldview, when we ask a simple question, do you have any duty to XYZ?
Do we have any, are there any duties or obligations at all?
Why should we follow this principle?
Why should we do any of this?
They don't have an answer.
They don't have an answer to this question.
They could make one up, but it's a set of preferences.
And so they're back to square one, okay?
Someone else comes along with greater force and they're going to implement their set of preferences, and you really can't say shit, especially as a woman.
And so feminism is a massive lie.
We didn't even get into the history of it, its beginnings.
And it continues to be a lie.
And I think more and more women are waking up to the fact that maybe they shouldn't spend their most fertile years chasing a name tag and a lanyard, acquiring debt, acquiring rosters and a long list of body counts.
Maybe the best thing for women, maybe the best thing for women, maybe the most feminist approach you could possibly take for women is to be servants of the home, servants of God, servants to their children and their husband.
All right.
Thank you, Jim Bob.
And then Kylo, give us your closing statement, please.
Sure.
So I'm not sure why, but Jim Bob kind of did this interesting equivocation where he talks about duties and obligations and compares it to things like where you're compelled to do what you're required to do and there's consequences for not.
And he's muddying that with another concept, which would be like ought statements or prescriptions, right?
And these are not the same thing, right?
There are certain behaviors that you're barred from doing, but that doesn't mean that there's other behaviors that you must do necessarily.
And so when he's talking about like obligations from feminism, he's saying that it doesn't have obligations, but it does if by obligations you mean values and principles about how one should act, right?
This idea as well that like feminism doesn't have this like any level of like internal sophistication to create an internalized definition is essentially flying in the face of how basically all of philosophy works, right?
This idea that feminism doesn't have a uniting front isn't really true.
Nobody would really agree that somebody who like wants to put women in dungeons and give them no rights is a feminist, right?
And even if that person said that they were a feminist, it wouldn't be a live idea.
Because at the zeitgeist level, societally, we've broadly agreed that feminism has certain precepts that we agree to, but it's a non-institutional ideology.
And so if religion, Christianity, an institution that has pretty strict, rigid standards by what you should and shouldn't believe, can have so many interpretations and heterogeneity and how it expresses and what oughts they think you must do.
Feminism is just similar in that it's an idea, but it's even more devoid of an institutional structure.
But just because it lacks an institutional structure doesn't make it just like this defunct idea.
This is obviously true, right?
If feminism wasn't really real, then Jim Bob wouldn't have an issue with it.
If it didn't have some level of pressing cohesion to it, then Jim Bob wouldn't see it as a satanic thing of history, right?
It's obviously something, even though the lines between what is and isn't feminism can be argued about how to define it.
We don't have standards for things like kindness precisely.
We talk about it.
There's generally an orientation towards what we think looks and feels like kindness, but that doesn't mean that there's like institutional standards by which we call this is kindness and this is not.
It's very much a dialogue, which is what feminism is.
And I think that's part of what makes feminism cool, right?
It's that's this idea that most people can self-select into and engage with and kind of make it their own.
But there's obviously going to be people that are co-opting the label that don't have any of the orientations that broadly would be towards feminism.
Just want to speak very briefly on debt.
Probably important to point out that probably the worst thing that has happened with like David Ramsey and Boomer Money is to make you think that debt is scary inherently.
It's not scary inherently.
In fact, the richest people on the planet have massive amounts of debt.
What's a problem with debt is unmanaged debt and having a debt that is inflating and interest growing that is larger than your income, right?
Debt that gets away from you.
But debt is one of the principles by which makes inflation fungible because it essentially decreases value over time.
So anyone doing this like ooga booga about debt doesn't know really what they're talking about.
Jim Bob is a really classic example of somebody who talks a lot really confidently about things but doesn't really know what the fuck he's talking about.
The last time him and I had a debate we talked about GDP and in the middle of the debate it got revealed that he doesn't know what GDP is and he doesn't know why it even matters for a military which if you don't know to have a military you have to have a competitive enough GDP that you can fund it so that neighboring countries don't fucking stomp you.
That's why GDP matters, right?
In the case of when we're talking about governance and obligations, he doesn't even know what the three branches are government are.
And so it's like you should probably be cautious when listening to somebody when they're speaking about governance or they're speaking about debt or they're speaking about the ways that we in which we should organize ourselves when they don't even know like the basic precepts under which they live, right?
Should probably know what the legislative branch is and what it does if you want to talk in any way about like civil rights and obligations that we might have.
You should probably understand what the executive branch does and the judicial branch.
If you want to cite the Supreme Court for your argument, it's probably important to do these things.
Finally, when we're talking about things like force versus freedom, these are tensions that go against each other.
Force is something that we need.
You need a military to stomp the bad guys.
You need to be able to protect your sovereignty.
That's valuable.
But we don't live for force.
We survive by force and we live for freedoms.
That's what we like to thrive and flourish with.
And feminism is much more preoccupied with the flourishing piece.
What are pieces that we can give to women to help them flourish more?
And you might disagree.
You might not like the idea that feeling that women need to flourish anymore.
And that's totally fine, right?
But feminism doesn't have to solve security.
It's not aiming to.
It's not a commentary on security in any ways.
And so when you conflate these things arbitrarily, all you're doing is making a false dichotomy because these two things have nothing to do with one another.
If you want to like show up to debates, you should probably know how your government works.
You should probably understand how fallacies work.
And you should probably understand how economy basically works if you want to talk about any of these things in an informed way.
Okay, thank you guys for your closing statements.
We do have some chats that are going to come through though here towards the end.
Oh, speaking of which, we're going to do a little brief roast session, $20 TTS.
If you want to get a roast in here at the end, Vincent with the Australian 100, thank you for the soup chat, man, all the way from Australia.
Arrow, don't you agree that marriage kids in an army predominantly of men, women predominantly, women are predominantly are mothers, and laws like murder and stealing is pragmatic and Christian first of all.
Cute new nickname, Arrow, like it.
Women predominantly are mothers, and laws like murder and stealing is pragmatic and Christian.
God, there's so much in there.
Women being mothers is pragmatic and Christian.
It's not really pragmatic.
No one else can be mothers.
It's just like biological necessity.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know how to answer this.
All right.
There's a couple Streamlabs messages coming through.
But guys, if you enjoyed the stream, like the video, please.
And also, if you guys join our Discord, discord.gg/slash whatever.
Get yourself some more chopped.whatever.com.
Also, twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Guys, I think the prime subs are broken.
Can somebody test out a prime sub in the chat?
Just see if you have a prime sub available.
Just test it out in the chat.
All right, guys, $20 TTS.
Get them in.
We're going to get this wrapped up here shortly.
We have the great Jason Cassell here.
One sec, it's loading up.
Here it is.
Jason, thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Jason Castle donated $69.
Wow.
Copager, maybe we should do a debate on Nietzsche's concepts of master morality, slave morality, and the will to power.
But since you already took two big L's tonight, I'll have mercy on you.
Ah, yes, the big man saving the woman.
Tell you what, I stream pretty regularly, and I would love to debate you.
You can hop into my Discord.
It's called the Super Ego, or you can just join me on my stream, not so erudite, and you can debate me about Nietzsche all you'd like.
I would love to have a chance to fucking just take your little face and rub it in the shit that you made.
Oh, dang.
Okay, Jason.
And then make you smell it.
Bam!
All right, Jason, there you go.
The challenge has been issued.
We have Intel Wilde donated $20.
Not so bright.
Have you ever hit sexuality?
He wants to know.
No, I'm married, guys.
All right.
Oh, my God.
Intel Wild, calm down, buddy.
Calm down.
He sent another one.
Intel Wild donated $20.
Not so dyke.
Any Adderall going on?
Any of those tips?
I don't take Adderall.
Retzel, though.
He's obviously talking about the things that the Dutch do.
He loves me.
Oh, yeah, you can have that word on screen.
Yeah, I should probably.
Oh, oh.
It's fine.
I'll fix it.
Intel Wild.
You need to send in a champagne pot for that, man.
If you guys want final call on the TTS, we're doing a $20 TTS roast if you want.
And it's warm in here, too.
So $20 TTS roast.
Also, guys, we will be live tomorrow, Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific.
Kyla, Jim Bob, Jay Dyer will be joining us for a special dating talk episode.
That should certainly be interesting.
Got some other cool guests coming up.
Is that other person coming too?
Other person that we talked about.
I'll ask you later.
Yeah, we'll talk after that.
I don't want to name drop them if they canceled.
We'll talk after the show.
And that's exciting.
We might.
Okay, let's see.
Unless they're not going to send it in, I think.
Come on, Intel Wild.
I'll give one or two more things.
And Jim Bob, did you actually?
Never mind.
Never mind.
I like your shirt, by the way.
Did you make it yourself?
You made it yourself?
Nice.
It's lovely.
Well done.
Thanks.
Proud of you.
Did you see the back?
No.
Thank you.
Look at that guy.
Wow.
That is.
That is something.
That's the neck beard.
Neckbeard.
I should get one of those.
Let's see.
Okay, $20 TTS.
This lighting is not doing you justice, Jim Bob.
You want to say?
That shirt color is much nicer in person.
Oh, I agree.
Well, I think also this monitor here that we have is not what they see.
Yeah, this isn't what.
It's probably a little oversaturated here.
Yeah, it's because it's a TV monitor versus a computer monitor.
So it's a little bit different.
Let me see.
Oh, we have.
Wait.
Oh, my goodness.
Okay, sure.
Why not whatever?
Intel Wild donated $20.
Not so Dyke.
Why do you continue to support Destiny after he does such horrible things to young women?
The same reason that you insist on sending in TTSs to masturbate to Tyler.
Jason Castle donated $69.
Thank you, Jason.
You couldn't do that.
You are a woman and I'm a man.
You couldn't rub my face into anything.
You are too weak, dummy.
Yeah, it's debating doesn't mean I can touch you.
So I don't know if you know how Discord works, but it would be like a voice call.
So obviously when I'm saying I'll rub your face in your shit, it's a euphemism, right?
Just to help you out, Jason.
All right.
Thank you, Jason, for that.
We have Ali.
Al of the Knight donated $20.
Albert.
Erudite, aren't you in an open marriage?
And Christian?
I am not in an open marriage, but it is one of the favorite lies that people who don't like me like to spread.
All right.
We have Tess Tess.
Tessrak donates $20.
Since every law enforces someone's morality, whose standard will a neutral state adopt?
God's revealed law or autonomous man's.
Isn't so-called neutrality just a secular theocracy in disguise?
The standard that the law will follow will be like the collective agreement about what is good within society, typically.
Okay.
We have Pasty George.
Thank you, Pasty.
Pasty George donated $20.
Brian, when will you add a champagne option for an individual and not the whole pan?
Oh, so one individual person has to drink the entire champagne bottle?
It's probably a little dangerous.
I don't know.
I don't know.
You know what?
We'll do tomorrow.
We'll do it tomorrow just for you, Pasty George.
But here's the deal.
If we do tomorrow, you have to send in a champagne pop tomorrow, Pasty George.
And yes.
Okay, we have JB.
Thank you, man.
JB Beltia donated $20.
She got bodied by a smart man with one quarter of her education because the disagreement is on a rational and objective basis.
She relies on derailing into particulars to deliberately miss the point.
Okay, JB, appreciate it.
We have Nate.
Nave's donated $20.
Thank you, man.
W, Jim Bob, W, Andrew, W. Brian.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate the support.
Thank you for the kind words.
Uh-oh, okay.
Well, it's coming through.
All right.
Whatever.
I can't.
Christopher Murphy, thank you.
It's coming in.
Thank you.
Christopher Murphy donated $50.
Waiter never sucked the crew McGremelin's D. How do you have a platform?
Nope.
It seems like people like to listen to me for my own ideas.
Okay.
All right, Christopher Murphy.
Appreciate that.
We have Billy Bob here.
Billy Bob donated $20.
Why does Erudite always make a face like she's thinking so hard to answer a question and then ends up saying the most incoherent statement in history?
Jim Bob did an amazing job today.
Thank you, Billy Bob.
Billy Bob.
Must be really tough keeping up, Billy Bob.
That's okay.
Not reading literacy isn't for everyone.
So uh-oh, we got he's here.
Jason Castle donated $20.
I will literally fight you, dummy.
I already invited you onto my Discord.
You can come on stream anytime, buddy.
All right, we got Riz here.
Thank you, Jason, for that one.
He will literally fight a woman, okay?
Riz donated $20.
Chivalrous.
GDP stands for gaslights.
Deny patriarchy.
Wayman's am I right?
Good one.
Wow.
Oh, okay.
There you go.
Wayman's.
Waymen's.
Jason Castell, very chivalrous of you.
Thank you, thank you.
Sons of Liberty coming in.
Thank you.
Sons of Liberty donated $19.99.
Appreciate it.
I believe liberals are the greatest threat to our Republican hope.
They all get deported to El Salvador.
Crazy.
With that said, Jim Bob, please tell me it was a brain fart about our feet branches.
It was.
Admittedly, terrible brain fart, but no, I definitely said about science.
No, I know you missed the science one.
I definitely got gross domestic products.
Science or applied sciences.
No, you didn't.
You got gross domed product after what's this handsome guy?
Jake helped killed you.
I said it.
I did say it.
You could review it.
Okay.
Also, to respond to that guy, fuck, what did he say before then?
Ah, whatever.
About liberals are the greatest threat.
Oh, yeah.
It's super funny to me when like constitutional Republicans are like, also let's break the Constitution.
It's just like, you kind of got to pick one.
If you're an American and you love your Constitution, probably follow it in due process.
It's part of your Constitution, unfortunately.
Got Intel Wild.
Intel Wild donated $20.
$20.
Thank you, Intel Wild.
Great show.
Thanks, Brian and Jim Bob.
Appreciate it.
I'll champagne pop tomorrow.
That's very nice.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
All right, guys.
We'll do last call if anybody wants to get one in.
Final call, final call.
Give you guys two or three minutes if you want to get a final one in.
Gonna get this wrapped here.
Appreciate it.
Thank you guys.
Final things here, guys.
If you do want to support the show without these platforms taking their cut, Venmo Cash App, it's whatever pod.
Like the video, please, here at the end of the show if you enjoyed the stream.
Twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drops a follow in the prime sub discord.gg slash whatever.
Be sure to join up the discord and shop.whatever.com.
You can join some get some merch.
$20 TTS final call on that.
But we'll just leave it on.
Like the video.
Please.
We have I.
Oh, we got Jason coming in.
One more.
Jason Castle donated $20.
No dummy.
I will literally physically fight you.
Let everything go.
How do you guys feel about men who want to domestically assault women?
You know, before I answer that, I just want to say the last time you were on the show, back like a year and a half ago or something, two years ago, something like that.
That was like a year.
Was it a year ago?
A year and a half, I think.
A year and a half ago.
She actually, I saw her on the street beat up a man.
So you did she beat up here?
Yep.
What did he do?
He spoke in Spanish.
I think that upset it.
Just gotta say.
Well, you get a lot of challenges.
I challenged you on the online debate to a physical fight.
Jason here is challenging you.
You might have a whole YouTube channel.
It was like this.
It was like, yeah, nigga, we will go mash you.
I didn't say that, though.
She didn't say that word, but he was black.
No, it was.
Oh.
Well, I'm not sure, to be honest.
How did this happen?
Just a quick summary.
I'll have to tell you after strike.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, we're under an NDA.
Still statute of the limitations of battleships.
All right.
JNico, thank you, man.
0-4 donated $20.
Missed the entire spurgfist.
I mean debate.
Just wanted to show support and say glad to see you're feeling better, Brian.
Glad to see you in person, Jim Bob.
Thank you, Jay Nico.
Really good to see you in the chat, man.
It's been a minute.
Thank you.
Thank you for your support.
ID Row donated $30.
Judaism was patrilineal until the time of Herod.
Then they switched to electrilineal scarlet monastery.
Judaism of the OT is not the same as physicalism.
Yes, it is.
True.
Yeah, this is a wow rat.
Like armory.
Yeah.
Scarlet armory.
Yeah.
All right.
Crazy thinking I know why.
Yeah, thank you, Debro.
Appreciate it.
We got this one from Realizer Network.
Realizer network donated $19.99.
Radical orthodoxy is just some John Milbank bullshit.
It's not orthodoxy.
It's not Protestantism.
It's just heresy.
You give Christians a bad name.
Simp husband.
W, Jim Bob, WJ, Daya, W, whatever.
I don't know if somebody can be a simp if they're having a private sector.
I have a really quick question about that.
Do you are you firm enough in what you call Orthodox Protestantism where you debate that against another theological in general?
I think talking about religion from a theological standpoint that puts any onus spiritual leadership on you is extremely something that you should do with extreme caution.
And I'm not a spiritual leader.
I'm not like a pastor and I'm not ordained to.
So I more or less usually won't because I think yeah, I just think it's dangerous.
It's a theological conclusion that I've arrived at, but I would never be so is there like a means to apologist who does though that you know of?
There's a few.
There's probably not one that I could like name off the top of my head right now, but there's a few.
It's started, I think, in like the 50s.
Yeah, I just want to see if there's anyone so we can organize this destruction.
Okay.
Got Pasty George donated.
Appreciate it.
Jim Bob, Andrew, Rachel, and sometimes Brian argue calmly and coherently.
Not so erudite gets frustrated when she thinks she can't win an argument.
In fact, a valid argument is not about winning.
Thank you for that, Pasty George.
Thank you.
Appreciate the message.
Got Harticus.
Thank you.
Hartakus donated $20.
Erudite, if men have all of the force, why the heck should we even listen to what weak feminists have to say?
What's the ought?
Because might doesn't make right, and you should care about people for more than just whether or not they can beat you up to force you to listen to them.
Like, obviously, we're not barbarians, guys.
Well, let me just push back really quick.
If the men listened to you and they applied your policy, then might would actually make right in that instance because it would require some force to give you your advantageous policy.
I don't think like respecting women or like allowing them to make choices for their own is like something that you need to use for the future.
So just so we're clear, might is right when it affirms feminism.
Nope, I've never said that might makes right.
Is might correct when it defends feminism?
Sometimes there's a lot of feminist policies that's really important.
So you do.
So you do need might.
It's not entirely.
I mean, I need the authority of the government.
Again, we can go down this diatribe, but again, force.
Nope.
Okay.
All right.
Well, I think that's it.
If there's any that come through here just in these final seconds, I'll try to get it.
Otherwise, we'll trigger it tomorrow.
Big thank you to Jim Bob.
Thank you to Kyla.
Appreciate it, guys.
It was a very interesting debate.
So thank you guys for coming.
Guys, we will be live again tomorrow, Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific with a dating talk episode.
It's going to be kind of a super panel almost because we got Jim Bob, we got Jay Dyer, we got Kyla.
So be sure to tune in for that.
And then this coming week, I believe starting on Thursday, we have we got like a couple days back-to-back in a row, some debates, and then of course our dating, our regular dating talks on Sundays.
Got Andrew Wilson in person coming.
So be sure to tune in for that.
That should be pretty cool.
So oh, we got, all right, this should be the final one.
Then we'll get Christopher Murphy donated $20.
Saw Andrew on Crowder and he gave you a shout out as well as your podcast.
I hope you on Crowder in the future.
NSE, it's not the authority of men that drives society.
It's the force doctrine.
Christopher, thank you, man.
I did see that he was on Crowder.
I watched, I think, like the first hour of it, but before it went behind the paywall.
Yeah, it'd be great to have Crowder on the Crowder on the show.
Did you want to respond to this?
I'm just so tired of like fat fucking loser men stealing valor from policemen and soldiers.
It's like the most boring, uninteresting argument to be like, seeing women.
It's like, you need them too, you fucking loser.
Anorexic, though.
Is it bad?
I have a feeling that your super chatters are not the skinny or bodacious type, okay?
Hey, listen, I've actually sent them a pamphlet asking them to let them know.
The weight, their height weight, their BMI, and they're actually pretty trim.
They're pretty trim.
The most buff audience.
They're very ripped.
Peak male performance is my audience.
Trust me, I'll take it back.
You know what, Christopher?
Based.
You're a king, actually.
He definitely is.
So, okay, all right.
There it is, folks.
07s, 07s in the chat, guys, if you enjoyed the stream.