All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2025 - Whatever Podcast
03:38:49
Debate RAGE QUIT/She Is SUING?! 150 IQ Ivy League Feminist vs. Andrew Wilson | Whatever Debates #19

Whatever Debates are LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever

|

Time Text
Welcome to a debate edition of the Whatever podcast.
We're coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
I'm your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
A few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewer-supported, heavy YouTube demonetization.
So please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of soup chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
That streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
Link is in the description.
We prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs to read a message is $99 and up.
We're going to read those in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
There will be no instant TTS.
Now, if you want to just tip and have 100% of your contribution go towards us, no platform fees, no cut, you can via VMO or Cash App.
That's whatever pod on both links in the description.
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 will introduce our two guests.
I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of The Crucible.
He's a blood sports debater and political commentator.
Also joining us today is Kylie Brewer.
She's an author, content creator, and educator.
She received bachelor degrees in psychology and creative writing from Ivy League School, Brown University.
She plans to pursue a graduate degree in public policy.
She's also a self-described leftist, feminist, anti-racist, LGBTQ activist.
The topic today is feminism.
You will each have up to a 10-minute opening statement, and then the rest of the show will just be open conversation with some prompt changes and breaks for messages from the audience, followed by each of you having a closing statement.
Kylie, you're going to go first.
Go ahead.
Okay, thank you.
Hi, my name is Kylie.
I just wanted to start by saying a little bit about what I stand for, which is just feminism generally.
And I would want to say that feminism is a crucial movement, both in the United States and across the world.
Feminism is defined as advocating for gender equality and challenging the structures of power that perpetuate discrimination and violence against women.
It is not an attack on men.
Rather, it is a call for an equal and just society.
In the U.S., despite progress, women face systemic inequalities, which means that gender inequality is rooted in many of the systems that we see today.
For instance, women in the U.S. earn 82 cents for every dollar that a man makes, and black women earn just 63 cents.
So there are three reasons potentially that this could be the case, which is I would say that we do not value female labor enough in this country.
And there's a phenomenon called male flight, which is typically when a field becomes very female-dominated, 50 to 60%.
Women, men typically begin to leave that field, and the pay rate for women drops.
So that might be some sort of implicit phenomenon happening, as well as domestic labor is unpaid, which is when women typically take on more of the child rearing in homes.
And obviously, that is not something that is compensated.
And for women who do go to work and raise kids, there is inadequate child support, meaning they often miss out on, we often miss out on promotions or other major opportunities in the career because we are not supported in that way.
So this all could explain that economic inequality.
Which brings me to, according to the World Economic Forum, it's going to take roughly 300 years to close the gender gap for both economic and political empowerment for women.
In countries like Afghanistan, women still battle for access to education and health care as well as personal freedoms.
In some places, if they open the door without being covered, they may be beaten or arrested.
Which brings me to this.
The home is the most dangerous place for women, according to the United Nations.
The home, the place where we should all feel safe.
Six women are killed every hour around the world by people they know.
Now, here are some other very depressing statistics.
One in three women experience violence at the hands of a man in their lifetime, whether that's physical or SA.
And that's according to the World Health Organization.
50% of women who were unalived in 2017 were killed by an intimate partner violence, according to the United Nations.
650 million women were married before the age of 18.
This is according to UNICEF, meaning they became child brides, often against their will.
Now, the final statistic is that 71% of human trafficking victims are women and girls.
This is not to negate the importance of male victims in standing up for their rights as well, just to point out a general pattern in the fact that women are typically overlooked as well as overrepresented in being victims of crimes.
Now, there's also a general tendency to blame women for our oppression, that we make less because our work is less important, or because we choose to work in fields that don't pay as much money, or that we were SA'd because of the clothes we were wearing, or that we were unalived because we chose to marry the wrong man.
But none of these things are true, and they are rooted in really harmful misconceptions about what the feminist movement stands for.
I'm sure you all are also expecting me to be very angry today, and I hope that I won't be, but I'm truly interested in furthering the feminist cause and promoting equality, even if it means sometimes talking to people who don't agree with me.
And finally, I just would like to say that men can be feminists, and they're very important for the feminist movement for seeking equal rights around the world.
And we strive to combat hate, not promote it, for equal rights for all.
And by definition, feminism is about the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes, not about female supremacy or anything like that.
And I hope to debunk some of the myths that people think about feminists today and show that it is a very important cause, not just globally, but in the U.S. and in the West.
Thank you.
All right, Kylie, thank you very much for your opening statement.
Andrew, if you'd like to give yours now.
Yeah, just a second.
Let me back up here.
One thing I wanted to address right in my opening.
I've been going through Kylie's videos, and she knows so much, which is not so.
This is a big bait and switch, as happens often.
I think I pointed this out to the whatever podcast many times, especially when it comes to sociology and psychology, how often they are wrong.
And here's how they're wrong most often.
What they do is they take studies which are recently published, they point to those data sets and say, because this is right now the most current data set we have, it's true, and then operate as though those things are in reality true when they're not.
Kinsey says, for instance, on gender quotas, according to, and she cites this in many feminists site this, 2015.
Are you talking about the Kinsey study or something?
Yeah, the Kinsey study, which you cite, right?
And most feminists cite the Kinsey study, has been debunked for years.
I don't know where.
Why feminists continue?
Hang on.
It's my opening statement.
You'll have a chance to cross-examine him.
Just allow him to be able to do that.
So let me walk you through this.
Earlier this week, journalist Christopher Brunette flagged a paper in a March 2024 issue of Econ Journal Watch, a biannual publication edited by George Mason economist Daniel Klein, that publishes articles lengths, responses to other economists' errors.
The paper written by accounting professor Jeremiah Green of Texas AM and John R. M. Hand of the University of North Carolina addressed the first of three McKinsey four installment series of diversity studies.
Green and Hand sought to test the replicability of McKinsey's findings.
Guess what they found, guys?
Could another set of researchers using the same data come to the same conclusions since McKinsey refused to turn over its numbers?
Green in hand had to reverse engineer the firms 2015, 18, and 20 data sets.
The results were startling.
Green in hand couldn't replicate the results of McKinsey's first three studies, which monitored the profitability of executive demographics of an undisclosed group of SP 500 firms claiming to have found a positive correlation between diverse leadership and the firm's performance.
We do not find a statistical significant positive correlation between McKinsey's measures of the racial ethnic diversity of executive terms of firms as measured in December 2019, Green and Hand reported, and either the likelihood of financial outperformance in 1519.
So to give you a quick summary, the study seems to show it's most likely correlation and not causation, meaning companies were already doing very financially well, and they have the luxury to mess around with diversity quotas and initiatives.
In addition, the data from the 2024 paper was unable to replicate any of the older McKinsey studies, any of them.
That should tell you something.
So that's a very recent data set, right?
Why don't any of the psychologists ever go with the recent data set?
Well, the reason they don't go with it is because it doesn't affirm their nonsensical worldviews.
That's why they don't go with them ever.
You'll find this very common in sociology and in psychology, which suffer from the replication crisis.
Somewhere around 60% of their findings cannot be replicated, are not to be trusted.
Psychology is the study of the mind.
The scientific views of psychology are only done through data collection, but it has to be interpreted.
This is a major, major problem.
So many feminists will tell you so many studies, and luckily I have all of the ones to refute all of my opponent's studies today, because what happens is they have a biased worldview and they want the data set to correlate with the worldview rather than wanting to tell you what the actual truth is.
The truth is, is that a bunch of SP 500 companies who are very rich were already doing really well.
And for the purposes of publicity, they decided that they were going to start doing a bunch of DEI hires and ethnic hires and this type of thing.
And they decided that the correlation caught, they made it the correlation causation error.
That's it.
You'll find this over and over again, I'm sure, as we go through this debate, as we go through the numbers, especially when it comes to the abuse of women, especially when it comes to just how useful women are.
We talk about domesticated labor.
What a joke.
You believe that women should be paid some type of domestic wage.
However, it's skilled labor in the home, which keeps the home running.
It's always going to be paid way more than domestic labor because it's more worthwhile than domestic labor.
Simple.
So with that, I'll finish my opening statement.
I can't wait to dive right into this.
Okay.
So, Kylie, it sounded like you maybe had some pushback you wanted to give on something Andrew said there.
Yeah, so I very briefly referenced the McKinsey study and McKinsey and Company's Women in the Workplace study, by the way, is what he's referring to.
But it's actually, if you go and look it up, it's generally considered accurate and comprehensive in its findings.
So I have quite literally no idea what my opponent is talking about, as well as the fact that this is a red herring fallacy of just, oh, this is wrong and my opponent is wrong for the following reasons about it.
How's that a red herring?
Because you're not actually acknowledging any of the information that I said.
I refuted the information.
I didn't even hardly talk about that.
I have refutations to your video.
I have your video right here.
And you start by saying the largest comprehensive study, the Kinsey study.
Which one are you talking about?
I'll play it for you.
Give me a second here.
Okay.
Well, I think we should stick to what we're talking about today.
Well, we're talking about all of this today.
So the Hostile to me, first of all, because I think we should just have a general discussion.
Stop whining.
We're doing a debate.
Stop whining.
So, I'm not going to give you the reaction that I know you're looking at.
So, women are better leaders than most people.
Oh, yes, yes, yes, yes.
I was looking at that video.
Yeah, I mean, that's like one of the ones that you cite which study?
Oh, yeah, the one that I'm talking about now.
But I didn't reference that in my opening at all.
So, I think the people in the audience, if they had any sort of common sense following along, they'd be like, What is he talking about?
Kylie didn't mention that, which I didn't.
But the thing is, is like this is a current core part of your worldview and belief, and you make propaganda videos about it, even though it's completely uninformed.
That women are better leaders.
I think that is a subjective opinion.
None of the statistics and facts that I gave previously are objective opinions.
Like the fact that women didn't have the right to vote until 1920, women couldn't open a bank account in the United States until 1920.
When did men get the right to vote?
Okay, I know this is exactly what you were talking about.
This is what you're known for: like getting people on a technicality that we don't historically know.
But the answer to that is no.
The answer to that is that the answer is that's no.
No, the answer to that is the fact that in 1920, everyone was given the right to vote, but there were still barriers to vote for people of color.
When did men get the right to vote?
The right to vote was guaranteed to all people in 1920, according to the 1922.
Yeah, before 1920, were all men allowed to vote?
No, no, they weren't.
And then, when even when men suffered white passes.
And they were expressing because our system was not founded equally.
Are you aware that men only got any rights to vote about a decade, roughly, before women?
That is not true.
Men have been making.
The founding fathers were all men, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
What does that have to do with the right to vote?
The right to vote was historically withheld from men of color.
It was a woman who had been to the general population.
Do not cut me off.
Do not cut me off.
I'm in the middle of speaking.
I don't care if you're in the middle of speaking.
You're in the middle of a debate.
The right to vote.
You don't have your TikTok mute button, sweetheart.
I will not be speaking anymore until you have a conversation with them.
Well, look, if we can, for both people, if we can allow each other to finish, even if you want to jump in, just let the other person finish speaking.
If somebody's going on a monologue and they're filibustering, I'll try to get them to wrap up.
But just if they're making a point, just try to let them finish.
No, I did not go to school for four years and build a platform to be talked to like this.
So I will be walking away from the microphone right now.
And I would encourage you to get your guest under control.
I'm going to take two minutes so you can ask him questions if you'd like, and I will be right back.
Because you run the show.
I just won't be back.
And I don't give a shit.
What do I care?
I'm here to have a debate.
Now listen to your whining.
Do you want to have a debate or not?
All right.
I'm not going to be talked to like this.
Do you want to just take a little two-minute breather?
Do you want to take a two-minute breather?
This is feminism.
You're the strong woman.
You're the strong woman.
Really?
Whoo, strong woman.
I will not be talked to.
Like what?
What did I even say?
You know, I would.
I will not be talked to like that.
Yeah, you will.
What are you talking about?
It's a debate.
Maybe we can try to stick to it.
There's been some really strong feminist women in that chair who have debated with me.
Just not this one.
Yeah.
Although I think maybe for the sake of ensuring that the debate happens, maybe we can just so we get the debate.
So the debate happens, you know, maybe.
Well, what am I supposed to do?
I'm in the middle of a debate.
Am I supposed to, am I supposed to worry about tone policing and this and that because I have points and refutations which may hurt people's feelings?
Well, I think she overreacted a little bit, but I think it is fair to allow if she's in the middle of time it.
Give us 60 seconds apiece.
Yeah, we could do that.
I'll propose that to her.
Just do 60 seconds.
But I mean, I'm fine with keeping it open, but just if you're talking and she interrupts you, I'll tell her not to.
But if you can, just try to let her finish.
Yeah, but when anybody does the bullshit of like, I'm speaking, you know what I mean?
Of course, there's going to be some.
Yeah, but try to let her finish if you can.
Let's do 60 second back and forth.
That's fine with me.
As long as there's some boundaries, yeah.
You want to do that?
60 seconds back and forth?
That works.
Or if you guys want, we could give it another shot at just keeping it open combo.
Sure.
Why don't we do that?
If the interruptions continue, you guys feel like you're not.
I would like to just point out.
Wait, wait, wait.
We have to set the rules first.
No more talking.
Yes.
We will do 60 seconds back and forth.
I'm not supposed to be talked to like that, though, right?
No, 60 seconds back and forth.
Or I will leave.
I'm so serious.
We signed an agreement and I appear.
You can leave.
I don't care.
Why do you think I care if you're not?
I'm not talking to you.
Hold on.
I'm not talking to you.
Okay, I'm talking to you.
Go ahead.
What's your proposal?
My proposal, if we don't do 60 seconds back and forth, I will walk out right now.
The agreement was that I appear.
It does not say that I have to stay for three hours.
So I will leave right now because I'm not going to be talked to like this.
Like what?
What?
Real men.
A real woman.
You're going to tell me what a real man is.
Andrew.
Real women don't abort their children, lady.
My dad has the same political beliefs as you, and he would never talk to a woman.
And my sister has the same political beliefs as you, and she would never dare talk to a man like that.
What's your point?
That makes no sense.
Andrew, can you stop?
Andrew, that's really awesome.
Oh, God.
Everything's disrespectful.
Stop, stop.
You're such a crybaby.
Andrew, stop.
In furtherance of ensuring that this debate actually occurs, let's set some ground rules.
We've got to allow people to finish their points.
And Andrew, maybe you've said some mocking things towards her.
No, I have not mocked him at all.
No, no, no.
I've stood up for myself and I will not be mocked.
I have not said a word that is bad to you.
I talked to you about your family in Michigan.
I want to get to know you.
This isn't about anything about me mocking you.
This is a boundary of him to have.
I'm not going to get to know you.
I'm here to do a debate.
Look, when you return to the table, you did your tone wasn't the best towards Andrew.
And look, look, I'm.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
I'll be fair.
Hold on, Kylie, I'll be fair.
Andrew's tone towards you wasn't great either.
In furtherance of ensuring that the debate actually occurs, why don't we just get back to it and stick to the substance of the conversation?
I'm trying to be fair to both of you.
But 60 seconds each, yeah?
No interruptions?
Andrew, if you're fine with that, then I'm fine with that.
And if you guys are open to it, if that goes well, the 60 seconds each, we can bring it back to open conversation.
Well, there does have to be some cross-examination at some point, but yeah, that's fine.
Sure.
Okay, so Kylie, go ahead.
You have 60 seconds.
Okay.
So the point of my conversation here is I would genuinely like to have an open discussion about like what feminism means and to debunk some of the feminist myths.
But my opponent seems to want to attack me instead and call me names, which is totally okay.
I'm used to that, especially if you look at my comments online.
But the point being, I'm going to try my best to keep it very mellow.
Again, if I'm being attacked, I am going to get defensive.
But I would like to start by saying, yes, the McKinsey study in sociology, psychology studies are flawed, and that is true.
They are continually, it's a field that's expanding, and that's why I chose to study psychology because I do find it so interesting.
But that doesn't negate the fact that plenty of studies have found a significant correlation between being a woman and being a victim of violence at the hands of a man.
And again, the study of one in three women globally who experience sexual or physical violence.
And I think that is the core of what a lot of feminists believe in is trying to combat that violent behavior and to protect women.
I'm sure that's close to a minute, so I can pass it over.
Yeah, so feminism has completely lied to everybody.
And I'll explain exactly how.
It failed in its promise.
Its promise was that it was supposed to protect women.
It hasn't protected women.
The very idea that you want to put women inside of male workforces is not protecting women.
The idea that you want to have dual colleges where it's men and women together is not protecting women.
These are terrible ideas, and they've been borne out as being terrible ideas.
When you talk about sociological studies being flawed, I don't think that you're really being honest about how flawed they are.
The replication crisis in sociology is getting worse, not better.
It's not getting better.
Even with all the meta-analysis, it's not getting better.
Why isn't it getting better?
It's because of bias.
There's so much bias which is going on, especially from the purview of feminists.
And feminists use standpoint theory.
They want everything to go through the view of women.
So when you're talking about, for instance, the criteria, when you're talking about what that means, that women are assaulted, right?
What is the criteria for that, for what an assault actually is?
That's a really good question.
There are definitely, we are definitely working on defining the lines for that.
So right now, there's an acronym that we are coming up with that we want to teach in schools of like what that means, which is FRI, so freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic, or engaged in specific of what consent means, so that there is no confusion about what is happening in terms of, you know, like whether it's an assault.
Because I know that does happen where men are confused and they don't know, and especially if there's alcohol involved.
And so my goal is to protect women and also to make sure that men know that if they are causing harm, that I mean, a lot of men, they don't want to hurt other people.
They don't realize it.
And so I think if we have better education about like what assault is and how to prevent it, because again, there are male victims.
So I think if it's something that we can come forward about and make sure that everyone feels heard and supported, then men would also come forward more about like if they've been assaulted.
This doesn't answer my question though.
My question is when you cite the data on how many of these women have actually been assaulted, what is the criteria being used?
That's a good question.
I see your point of how it varies like based upon the study and things like that.
But I think a lot of these problems is that it is self-reported.
But again, another issue is that that means they could be underreported as well because women are too scared to report it.
So yes, there are issues with that.
But another thing though is that women are definitely in a position in the home where they are not safe in a lot of places.
And again, that comes back to the kind of assumption that I was talking about earlier is that like it's because we married the wrong man and this guy is unsafe in our home.
But it's not about that.
It's sometimes when you marry somebody or you date somebody, they can then become violent towards you because they see you as their property owner.
Most of these domestic violence claims and things like this are happening from single mothers with boyfriends though, not happening from the father at home to married relationships.
Yes, I do.
Okay.
No, I'm just wondering because you know.
Not only is that factually the case, but interestingly enough, if the state seizes custody of a child inside of an abusive home, the child's actually more likely at the hands of the state to die than they are in the hands of the abusive home, which is insane, but true.
Now, let me give you the studies that you're talking about here.
Okay.
So, okay.
Are these the studies about which claims that you said?
Yeah, so here we're going to start with the National Incident Study, NIS, largest collection of all types reporting data relating to abuse and maltreatment of children.
Okay.
68% of maltreated children were maltreated by a female, whereas 48% were maltreated by a male.
Some children were maltreated by both.
Of children maltreated by biological parents, mothers maltreated the majority, 75%, where fathers maltreated a sizable majority, 43%.
In contrast, male perpetrators were more common for children maltreated by non-biological parents or parents' partners, 64% or 75%.
Safest place you can possibly be in the home is with your husband and with your children.
That's for women, the safest place they can be.
Any study that you pull up is going to be drawing from the NIS source.
That's direct from the NIS itself.
There's no refuting that.
I've looked and looked and looked.
It is definitely from partner incidents violence.
Women are the safest when they have a husband in the home.
I think for some women that is the case.
I think there are good men out there, and I think that's a misconception that feminists don't believe in that there are good men, that we hate all men, which definitely isn't true.
But I would like to say, like, because you're saying, you know, psychology is an evolving field, there are different studies and different numbers.
Male perpetrators are predominant, and while the exact percentage differs, it's generally estimated that between 75 and 90% of child sexual abuse is committed by men or male adolescents.
That's because it's not drawing from the correct data set, which would be the NIS.
But the reason they do that.
They have the authority to say which one is the correct data set.
Because they all draw from the NIS.
All of them draw from this data set, the NIS.
They have to.
It's the most comprehensive source for reporting.
So here's what happens.
If you wanted to gather data, you're a psychologist.
Are you seriously explaining to me how it works to gather data?
No, I'm asking you a question.
If you wanted to gather data, especially on crimes, you would use law enforcement or the best source for reporting, right?
In this case, self-reporting is going to be far less reliable than reports to the police, things like this, right?
Yes, understandable.
So you're saying that this is the most comprehensive, therefore the most reliable source.
It's the most comprehensive source.
Where are you finding that it is the most comprehensive?
Because you haven't mentioned a source that says it is, because I'm looking at it now.
The NIS?
That's not from the NIS.
There's the National Incentives.
It's from the NIS.
From the NIS.
There's the National Center for Victims of Crime and RAIN, which is the statistics that I see.
RAIN draws from the NIS.
Okay, so then how come it draws from the same source?
Because my conclusion is because they change the criteria for what is considered assault and they change the criteria.
Like, I've seen it as bad as them saying that men cannot be essayed by women because it's non-penetrative.
I see.
So you're saying that that would skew the numbers?
It does skew the numbers.
So the results of the National Incident Study, NIS, the largest collection of all types of reported data related to abuse and maltreatment, 68% of maltreated children were maltreated by a female.
48% maltreated by a male.
Women, when they're in positions of power over the, over people who are weaker than them, actually abuse more than men do.
So at the same time, while you say, well, women have to run this big gambit of threats from men because men are much stronger than women and have more propensity to violence.
When women are in charge of people who are inferior in strength to them, their incidences of violence towards them are much higher than men's incidences of violence towards them.
It sounds like women are the greater threat here than men.
Sure.
If you want to say that, that's totally your prerogative, but that's not what the numbers say.
So you can say what you, no, no, no, it's my turn to speak.
You can say what you want about all the different statistics and how they come from a specific study.
But the point is that there are different estimates.
And basically every study conducted globally has found that the number of female victims is astronomically higher than male victims.
Not to say male victims aren't important.
If you are a male victim, especially if you haven't spoken up, I have seen the effects of having male sexual assault in my family.
So please talk to somebody.
It is serious.
But one in six boys have been sexually assaulted.
And a lot of the time it is by male offenders.
Yeah.
So it is serious.
What about the fact that when we're talking about rages of abuse of children, women are the ones who are most often in charge of children?
The domestic rates, for instance, inside of a boy's home where the guards, prison guards are all male, and it's a male youth population versus female.
If there's a female's in charge of the youth population, the statistics for abuse skyrocket.
Same thing inside of public schools.
Are you saying that women are more likely to be more likely than men when it comes to the weaker sex?
In this case, children, we would just say children are the, I mean both sexes, right?
But they are the weaker human than women.
When they're in charge of children, they actually abuse them far more than what men abuse women at.
And so it's like, so who's really the dangerous ones here?
Your 60 seconds begins.
Go ahead.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
Well, I would like to say that that is a claim that that is a reasonable conclusion that you are drawing from the data that you were presenting.
Unfortunately, that is not true, though, that the vast majorities of sex offenders are male, and especially when, you know, there are still female offenders, and that is still bad.
But the point is that there is significant male dominance, and that most sex offenders are male, and females do commit sex crimes, but they're often underrepresented as perpetrators.
So you're correct.
But the data you're reporting is it.
Do you want to continue?
Yes, please.
And so this is from the United States Commission Sentencing, which is just about sexual abuse offenders.
And there's a whole pie chart here, but and like about how many times they offend and who they offend and who they're under guidance for.
And again, it is saying that the vast majority, up to 80% of the perpetrators are men.
Yes, yeah, you can talk now.
So women, do you agree with me that I have to ask some questions here so I can figure some things out.
I hope that you'll answer them.
So do you agree with me that both men and women have the propensity to in some way essay the other the other partner, both of them?
Yeah, I wouldn't say that it's, I mean, no, no, yes, I agree.
It is definitely possible for both sexes to do that.
The question becomes, if you have, if you switch criteria around, right, for what is considered sexual assault, let's just assume things like cat calling are put in the category.
That's harassment.
But are you saying hypothetically?
It's categorized not as harassment, but as a form of sexual abuse.
Would you say that that would greatly skew the numbers?
If that were how it was classified, yes.
Do you have evidence that is how it is?
I do.
In fact, there's a whole grouping of colleges in a study that I can show you where that was smuggled in as a form of sexual assault or SA or sexual battery in some cases, right?
They smuggle in, and so what they do is they decide that they want to make that data set wider.
And so they just reclassify things, which would not ordinarily be classified as sexual assault or sexual battery by just inserting those things.
Now, the same exact thing happens here.
Do you think that it's very masculine, for instance, inside of society for men to go and report when a woman gives them unwanted touching?
No.
And matter of fact, I do know male victims with female perpetrators.
And they have unwanted touching?
Yes.
So they're just far more likely to report it because of the social stigma, which happens to them often from women who tell them things like, I don't consider you a real man like you did to me earlier.
Oh, I didn't really say that, but.
You did.
Your exact words were, a real man would X.
Oh, yeah.
Like real men like my dad, who have the same political beliefs, but don't talk to women the way you do.
Yeah, whatever that means.
But anyway, so a real man does X, right?
Wouldn't you say that the social stigma around the fact that women can kind of get away with the same type of inappropriate touching without men reporting would greatly skew these numbers?
Yes.
However, I think that women and men who are victims and are perpetrators as well, I think those are both underreported.
I think across the board it's underreported, but more for male victims with female perpetrators.
Well, how many more for male victims?
don't know.
But it could be.
It could be.
It could be drastic, right?
And I would hope not.
And if it is drastic, then it would skew your numbers on all of those percentages across the country.
Oh, absolutely it would.
But the problem is we have no way of gathering that data.
And with the data we do have, though, I see what you're saying about the stigma, but it is so vastly that women are victims and men are the perpetrators that I don't see that catching up in any percentage.
Why not?
It depends on how underreported it is.
In fact, a lot of these data sets draw from unreported incidences via estimates, don't they?
Unreported incidences via estimates.
Yes.
I suppose, yeah.
There's no way that they can actually gather that data.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So this would be the exact same thing, right?
They're making a supposition based on an estimate.
This would equally have to apply to men.
But if the social stigma is there by your own admission, that men are basically not reporting the instances of unwanted touching from women due to this social stigma.
We don't actually know how bad that social stigma really is, do we?
No, and that's also what feminists, that's a great point.
And I agree with you because feminists, that is one of the, oh, it's also my 60 seconds, right?
Well, we're having a back and forth now.
Oh, okay.
We'll count 60 seconds because I would just like to talk a little bit about like sticking.
We can't get into a back and forth and then like arbitrarily demand whole blocks.
Okay, well, I'm just going to give some statistics because I think we're on the same page here.
I think we've actually found common ground.
So the stigma around SA and abuse is what allows these numbers to be underreported.
And so I think that because that's what feminists want is we want men to be comfortable coming forward as well because we want safety and equality for the sexes.
That is what the definition of the term is, is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the people.
I want to refute these lies because all national campaigns that I've seen hyper-focus on women and the abuse of women, already making the supposition that men are the monsters and the criminals who are doing the unwanted touching and the essaying.
And because of that, because this is done at a national level, at a state level, at a local level, and the organizations and NGOs are all hyper-focusing on women, this stigma towards men is never addressed because women are only looking at it through the prism of women who are working on these studies, right, and who are writing these articles.
It doesn't matter.
Don't you say men can be feminists?
Yeah.
Okay, so by your criteria, these men who have the same exact worldview as you, they're still hyper-focusing on feminism.
And the idea always starts with the supposition that men are the more violent sex, that they are more often doing these types of SA sexual assaults, things like this.
And what do we end up with?
We end up with very skewed numbers based on the criteria, right?
Where within just a matter of minutes, we can determine that not only can most of this stuff be replicated, but we can also determine that just based on the viewed categorization of these things, they can't be true.
These numbers can't be true.
Okay, now.
So I don't understand where you're coming from with how it can't be true, how something can be true.
Because again, if you're going off of something being underreported and the data not being there, you're saying, okay, well, then this is true, which means this can't be true, which means this.
And you're not even going from like actual data.
Do you want me to demonstrate it?
No, no, no.
I'm okay.
I'm talking for now, please.
Well, I'll demonstrate it real quick.
So it would be like this.
I'm actually okay.
I feel like you've dominated the conversation for the last few minutes, if that's okay, if I would like to.
Well, I thought you just wanted me to demonstrate for you.
No, no, no, I'm actually okay on that.
Thank you.
You don't want me to?
You ask me a question.
Don't want me to answer it.
No, no, no.
I was actually in the middle of talking.
Okay, go ahead.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
No, like that was genuine.
I wasn't trying to be.
I know, you're welcome.
Thanks.
Yeah, so the patriarchy is benevolent.
Yes.
So I think that the four principles that it's a common misconception.
And if you want to refute these, I would love that.
But working to increase equality economically and politically for women, which again, not rooted in female supremacy, but some people think it is.
Expanding human choice, human choice, meaning male, female, everyone.
Eliminating gender stratification, which means globally, it's typically.
Can we move back to two?
Yes.
Expanding human choice and for everybody.
And then three, eliminating gender stratification.
You know, how like most of the power and money is concentrated to men globally.
So sort of making the opportunities there for women.
And again, like you have to think about this globally as well.
Like not word, it's not, we're very U.S.-centric, I think, in this debate, but there are definitely countries where women are really, really deprived of any sort of autonomy.
And then the final one is ending sexual violence, which we've talked about quite a lot.
So those are the four principles of feminism as we see it today.
And although there are different places around the world, I guess we can focus here and globally if you have points on that.
Or if you just want to confine it to the U.S., then let me know.
Yeah, well, the U.S. is where I live.
That's where I'm talking about.
So when we're discussing this idea, especially of, no, no, no, these numbers are accurate, that actually can't be true.
You said, no, it actually can't be.
Well, no, it can't be because, one, you've already admitted that there's a stigma towards reporting, which means that these numbers are already skewed right from the get-go.
Here's a good demonstration of this.
This is something you'll hear psychologists say a lot, and I'm sure you probably said it yourself, that mental illness probably has always been somewhat near as high as it is right now.
It's just that it went underreported, right?
That's something that you would say.
Or there's just as many transgender people now as there were or homosexuals.
It's just that we didn't have the right numbers because they weren't able to report them correctly, right?
So it follows then that if it is the case that under all of these circumstances, due to a lack of reporting due to stigma, we didn't have the correct numbers.
And so you can suppose that into the data that you have right now for how many there's always been.
Why couldn't I do the exact same thing with SA numbers?
No, you can, but how are you going to get the fate?
Like, how are you going to get the figure that it is more, are you saying it's more female perpetrators than male perpetrators?
How can you possibly get that?
Because if I look at the raw data and we look at stigmas, right, if we're looking.
We agree on stigma, but the data, how do you have?
Because the data is not taking into account the stigma towards male reporting.
But it is, but I'm saying there are no reported cases.
Yeah, you can.
How do you report the cases if the stigma is there for them to not report?
So yes, given that, how do we come up with any?
Because you know these other places, they come up with estimates, studies that you just cited.
So how do we come up with an estimate for female reports?
Whether we come up with the estimate or not, we have good reason to doubt the various estimates by RAIN and these other sexual advocacy organizations, especially when I look at the NIS.
Because when I look at the NIS, I get totally different numbers, and it's way more comprehensive.
It's the largest, most comprehensive data set on planet Earth is the NIS, and that's what it shows.
It shows that women are far more likely to abuse their children than men.
When women are in positions of dominant power and authority over weaker people than themselves, they're more likely to abuse almost every time.
This is also included in healthcare stats.
When they are in charge of people who are weaker than them in healthcare situations, they abuse far more than men do.
You keep talking about the NIS.
Like, which specific, like, are you talking about the national?
Because the specific study that you're talking about, how women are perpetrators more frequently, genuinely cannot find it anywhere on the internet.
Okay, I'll pull up the exact study if you give me just a second.
Yeah, no, that's fine.
Because I'm looking at like the Bureau of Justice Statistics and like, you know, like the FBI.
You can find this from the U.S. Even the CDC.
You can find this from the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sexual victimization in juvenile facilities reported by youth 2012.
Okay.
Okay.
And is this where you're saying that?
These are all comprehensive.
These are all comprehensively included inside of the NIS.
This is what I'm saying is that I have each individual study ready for you.
You can look also, and we can move to this as well if you want to.
So is this the one where you're saying that female perpetrators are more frequent?
Is that what you're talking about?
Yes.
Yes.
That's from the NIF.
National Incident Study.
Oh, National Incident Study.
Yes.
Okay.
The largest collection of all types of reported data related to abuse, maltreatment of children, 68% of maltreated children maltreated by a female, 48% maltreated by a male.
And every circumstance, the NIS finds that when women are put in charge of people who are weaker than themselves are more likely to abuse than the stronger sex, that being men.
And what's interesting about this is it gives us every reason to believe that if women have the exact same frame and build as men did, that men, that they would actually abuse far more often than men do them, right?
So what we're looking at here is we're looking at a huge problem where women who are supposedly being abused by men are doing a whole lot of abuse, which is going unreported of children while you're focusing on the scapegoat of men.
Yeah, I don't doubt that women are, unfortunately, a lot of women are abusing children, but the study that you're saying, the only thing that I'm able to find is that one in every 25 children in the U.S. experience maltreatment.
Neglect is more prevalent than abuse.
And then they talk about how for the 4% of children that experience genuine maltreatment and danger of death.
But I'm not seeing anything.
It says, oh, girls are sexually abused much more often than boys under the harm standard and endangerment standard with male perpetrators being more common.
That's all I was able to find.
Okay.
Would you like for me to actually link it to you?
That was just from the juvenile facility study, though, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
But what about the NIS data?
The NIS data is going to be the most important because the most comprehensive collection of it.
It's funny because you keep repeating this talking point about a study that I can't find.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist.
So you think that the National Institute of Studies is not reporting this?
Like, I could link it.
I could link it to you.
i i believe it i'm just saying like there are so many more common sources that have different numbers talking about how male perpetrators are more common than the study that you're talking about because i genuinely i'll i got uh got a little more for you The U.S. Department of May.
Do you want to drop it to me?
Yeah, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been tracking the data on child abuse and neglect since 1978 with something called the National Incident Study, NIS.
The National Incident Study is a congressionally mandated periodic effort of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
There have been four such reports, the latest being the NIS4, which came out in 2010.
This includes the breakdown.
The NIS gathers data from all reporting agencies that any study will pull from these agencies because it's the congressional authority which is gathering that data.
The methodology the NIS uses the standard definitional framework for classifying child maltreatment, including both types of abuse and neglect.
These are the legitimate numbers, and feminists have been hiding them under a rock because they don't want to talk about this issue.
I think that that is an interesting theory.
I think that a lot of the things that you're talking about go more into theory than into fact.
And that's okay.
I think that goes into what I'm saying is like just generally, that's why I'm here is to debunk a lot of the myths.
Well, again, you said you would send me the study, cannot find the study that women are more likely to be perpetrators.
I genuinely cannot find a single thing.
I've been looking for five, ten minutes.
You've been looking for what?
Have you been looking on?
I literally looked at exactly what you said, cannot find the numbers.
Now, because I like I'm not, this is not trying to be like an appeal to like authority, but I've done like debate my whole life.
And like obviously, like most of the time, we tend to focus on the facts.
So to me, if I can't understand the facts, they don't exist of where I'm finding it.
That is a problem for me.
Okay.
I saw that.
It didn't say the numbers that you were talking about.
Yes, it has them.
This is from.
You pulled it up so I can read it.
How in the future?
I was just on that website, and that did not say that female perpetrators are more common.
Did you read that entire thing in two minutes?
That is nonsense.
It is huge.
There is no possible way you went through those numbers.
I read like 300 books in the middle.
That is the biggest crime.
There is no possible way you went through that in two minutes.
It is massive.
Okay, you can think that.
What do you mean think that?
That is not humanly possible.
Do you have magic powers that are aware of the word?
I don't know.
Pretty smart.
What?
Oh, come on.
At least be honest in the debate.
I mean, you could just say I didn't read it.
I couldn't find the numbers that you're citing.
There's no possible ways.
They don't exist.
The numbers that you're talking about, they don't exist.
Female perpetrators are not more common than male perpetrators.
So, like, again, I would prefer that we would stick to actual reality and facts.
That these are the actual realities and facts.
I just showed you the study, right?
The most likely reason why women are more likely to abuse than men.
I agree.
They're not being used, checked on using force is the UK's leading mental health charity.
The Mental Health Foundation says that today, women are three times more likely than men to experience common mental health problems as well.
Do you want to go over that?
About how men are more likely to experience mental health issues?
No, females, women are more likely to experience mental health issues.
What is your point?
Yes.
Well, what's your point?
Well, how is feminism combating this?
I would hope that we can continue to do a better job.
I mean, there's a lot of people that I know that really struggle with their mental health.
And a lot of, I mean, we don't have to get too deep into it, but I know that a lot of women who have experienced some abuse sexually at the hands of a man, and then that led them to have mental health issues.
I also know men.
More than soldiers have PTSD.
No, no, no, no.
PTSD is certainly an issue, but you can get PTSD from a number of things.
So I would like to point out that like just saying one thing doesn't negate the other, right?
So like just because I think it's important to talk about women's mental health doesn't mean men's mental health isn't important because again, they are more likely to like.
you know, unaware of that.
What about the fact that women's mental health has been astronomically growing in the negative direction under feminism, especially under the egalitarianism of gender?
They report.
They report the happiest levels that women report are when they're married and in traditional gender.
Have you ever heard of the term ignorant, the phrase ignorance is bliss?
I don't know.
I'm sorry.
Do I want to, I'm sorry, do I need to go and experience killing someone, right, to know that I don't want to experience killing someone?
What?
How does that have anything to do with that?
Well, ignorance is bliss.
It's possible, for instance, that I could kill someone and really love it, right?
Would I be possible to maybe talk about it?
Well, hang on, I want you to answer my question.
Is that possible?
I just don't really understand how to do it.
Can you answer my question, though?
Isn't it possible that I could kill somebody and then just really like it?
But how does that interact?
Can you answer my question, please?
Stop negating the question.
Just answer the question.
I just don't really want to talk about it.
I don't care what you want to talk about.
I want you to answer my question and I'll answer your question.
I'm not answering your question.
Just go to your question.
You're not going to answer my question.
About murder.
That's not related to this.
Yes, it's a listen.
It's logically answered.
Answer how you think I would answer.
Answer how you think you would answer.
What do you mean?
I'm in a debate with you.
I'm not in a debate with me.
I'm not answering.
Why would I answer this hypothetical question about murder that has nothing to do with the crisis?
I was talking about.
And if it has nothing to do with it, I'm going to look really stupid, right?
So just answer the question.
So go ahead and finish because I would like to ask you.
Yeah, so my question to you was, isn't it possible that I could kill someone who really like it?
That would be yes or no.
Yeah, I understand how this works, but.
I need you to answer my questions.
We're in a debate.
I will answer your questions, but you also need to answer mine or I can't get to the worldview.
Yes or no?
Okay.
I just, this seems like a really moot point to me.
Can you just answer it then?
You've wasted like two minutes not answering the question.
This is like a three-hour debate.
Yeah, why are you wasting time?
Just answer the question.
Look, Kylie, it's conceivable that you're going to propose hypothetical questions to Andrew to test logic and worldview.
He'll answer it.
I think it's a fair question if you can answer it.
As the moderator, sure.
I suppose it is possible, yes, that if you did it, then you would enjoy it, although it makes me uncomfortable to talk about that.
Okay, but if this is the case, well, it would be possible for any human being.
Yeah.
Yeah, logically possible.
So the thing is, is that knowing that this is true, that we could, I am actually ignorant, having never killed anybody, right?
And I am in bliss about that.
I myself am really, really happy that I've never done that, even though I could do that and could be very happy about that.
The idea that you would make the point ignorance is bliss seems to be.
Well, you didn't even let me get to talk.
I just want to talk about it.
You're just talking over there.
I'll give you the question.
Oh, I have to wait for you to let me talk.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
So what I would say is this.
When you say ignorance is bliss, all you're doing is alluding to the fact that people should engage in.
I'm giving you 15 seconds.
If you don't give me the mic, I'm leaving.
Go ahead.
15.
Oh, my God.
You're going to leave?
Yeah.
Oh, no.
Uh-oh.
Look, Andrew's finishing his point.
I was.
He was finishing his point.
No, I'm serious.
15 seconds because he's been talking for the last five minutes.
So it's really not fair.
You're not moderating very well here.
Well, to be fair, you guys got to allow.
We were actually doing really well.
Hold on, hold on.
Until I was making a broader point.
That wasn't what I was saying.
Well, it was at the expense of me speaking is the problem.
Hold on, just one moment.
So, look, in conversations and especially in a debate, look, sometimes people are going to are going to butt in.
There's been a few times you've done it.
Andrew's done it.
You've both done it.
I'm trying my best here.
Well, that's why I'm alerting you.
I feel like at this point I would like to be able to speak my point because he rebutted me before I was able to give my point.
And that's been happening the last time.
You asked me a question.
Have you heard the term ignorance is bliss?
So I could speak and explain my point.
Yeah, so then I said yes and said, but here's the problem.
I'm going to talk for about three, four minutes and then try to back me into a corner of the corner.
Give the expression.
When I ask you a question, you answer it.
I expect a yes or no.
And then you give a comprehensive answer like I was.
So can I give my explanation?
Are you done in here?
Okay.
Okay.
So you going back like five minutes basically to what you mentioned was the term like, oh, women are happier in the home with the husband and kids, right?
And so the term of ignorance is bliss, I think for a lot of women who do not have the opportunity to get an education and they are forced to be in the home, they don't know any other alternative.
So some women are truly happy, but if that becomes the standard that women have to be in the home and have kids and they don't have the opportunity to get an education, then of course that's going to be something that they think brings them joy because they don't have any other opportunities.
And so like there's a lot of people in my mom's generation or my grandma's generation where like they were like, man, I wish I could have gone to school and like had an education and like picked someone and they just fell into a marriage that either was abusive or like they weren't happy.
And so I think that it's easier to report higher levels of happiness when you perceive it to be your own, your only option is living in the home and having children and raising them.
But what do you have to say to that?
Because it goes to your like underreported things like that.
Well, first of all, when you give anecdotal evidence, like, oh, my mom and mom's friends.
Oh, I can give you an actual study if you want.
I can refute it.
I promise.
But here's the thing.
When you give anecdotal evidence and you say, well, my mom's friends, this and that, wish that they could have gone to school.
There's also anecdotal evidence and an awful lot of it.
And you can find it on YouTube right now of tons of women saying they wish that they had not gone and gotten a career and wish that they would have instead deferred those childbearing years in order to have a family because they see the happiness levels of their friends, colleagues, coworkers, things like this.
That anecdotally is also just as true.
But to even go on to the ignorance is bliss, I could say this and make this case about literally anything.
I could say, well, I would love heroin, right?
I've never taken it, but ignorance is bliss, right?
Oh, I could say ignorance is bliss about literally anything, any dream.
Well, that's not the only reason.
Hang on, hang on.
Any risky behavior?
I didn't cut you off.
Any risky behavior, any of this.
I could say that about anything.
What you're doing is saying, these women are happy.
There must be some bad reason for that.
Oh, no, some women are happy.
You're saying these women are happy and there must be a bad reason for that and the bad because they're doing traditional, hang on, because they're doing traditional gender roles.
So that must be bad.
So we can explain that away by saying if they had all these negative experiences, that those women who have those negative experiences actually report a higher unhappiness level, those women would actually be happier.
That's absurd logic, by the way.
Okay, sure.
Well, again, I agreed with you on quite a few things there, but I would also like to say that, like I said at the beginning in my opening statement, the home being the most dangerous place for women, like there are women who are in abusive marriages, and so they have to convince themselves that they are happy because their husband is beating them or like assaulting them or harming their children.
And when you're in that sort of situation, it's very difficult to be able to walk away from it oftentimes because you're isolated.
And so, yeah, because the home is the most dangerous place for women and six women are killed every hour in the home around the world.
Those are very difficult realities that a lot of people don't want to grasp.
And I'm not saying that every woman doesn't, you know, isn't happy in the home.
I think there are plenty of happy moms.
I mean, my mom has worked and raised our children, you know, her children and my sisters and I and like helped my dad out with like work.
But yeah, for the most part, was a stay-at-home mom.
And I think she really enjoyed it.
But for me, at this point in my life, that's not something that I would like.
And it's not to say that it's, you know, it's a bad thing, but I just, I think that some people are convincing themselves that they're happy when in reality it's a very difficult situation.
I'm going to have to go back to the NIS where I point out to you that as you keep saying that the most dangerous situation for women is in the home.
Well, that's according to the UN around the world, though.
Okay.
Okay, but inside of the United States, at least, and inside of the Western nations, this is a commonality that they all share.
It's not usually from the husband.
It's usually from boyfriends of single women or single moms.
Or as far as, for instance, cohabitation, cohabitation leads to some of the worst outcomes for women when they're not married.
And men.
It leads to terrible outcomes for both.
This idea that you have that when you say this, it's very loaded.
It gives the impression that husbands are at home abusing their wives.
And the opposite is actually true.
The truth is, is that when women get divorced and they end up in these occupied relationships, that's when they end up with the most amount of abuse, not from their husbands.
Well, I think it's you know how we were talking about earlier about like confounding factors and other things that might the classification of things might change the results of studies.
For this one, I'm looking about it, looking at it, and it says facts and statistics on domestic violence DV.
And it's mainly including partner, intimate partner.
So it's not talking about husband or boyfriend.
You would separate them, right?
So we would separate those two categories to see who's the more abusive.
Do you have a statistic?
Yes, I just gave it to you twice from the NIST.
I know, but like I'm looking at it.
And again, like I'm having.
Show me the numbers from the NIS that you're looking at.
I actually don't believe you.
Oh, I'm not looking at the NIS right now.
I was looking at it earlier, could not find the number you were talking about.
Yeah, but you looked at it.
One minute.
No, it didn't.
You did.
I literally pulled it direct from the NIS itself.
When there is a minor in the home and there is abuse, they look at both parents.
And in that case, they are finding, according to this, the domestic violence center data for mankind initiative.
I'm finding the Mankind Initiative.
Yeah, here are the cult.
The cult, the mankind initiative.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean, this is like a statistic.
It's like a study that's produced.
Yeah, I could go to the University of Pennsylvania's one.
I could do that because the Mankind Initiative, as far as I know, is a Western cult which exists as a demasculating agency, just so you know.
Okay.
Well, so it's saying analyzing 31,000.
This is Penn today.
So this does go to your point.
It is just slightly above the spouse rate for abusive boyfriends.
But again, and those go reported much more, right?
Or I'm sorry, the marriage rates go reported much more than the inter than these rates where you're living outside of the home with another man.
Right.
So because that's the more common living arrangement.
Therefore, I am correct.
It is true that the most dangerous situation is co-occupancy, not marriage.
I mean, there's different, I think it's difficult.
You deal a lot in absolutes.
And as a teacher, that's something that we are told not to do to facilitate like open communication.
It's because you typically say, well, this is true.
This is true.
That means I am truth.
I am correct in saying this thing.
But again, statistics are changing all the time.
So actually, you're contradicting yourself because at the beginning, you were like, what I'm saying is things change.
I can negate.
I can negate these with logic by simply pointing this out.
I mean, you can negate anything when you talk to yourself like you do because you're not really listening to the words that are coming out of my mouth.
Do you want me to steel man your position?
You just said to me that everything, everything when it comes to statistics is fluid.
I would tend to agree with that based on oncoming data which is coming in.
However, we still have to apply logic and inductive reasoning even when we're dealing with data sets, especially.
I didn't say we don't.
I agree.
So those are unchanging, unconfounding variables, logic and reason.
So if we're using those two things, we can easily point to this and say we know for sure that it's going to be underreported in cohabitation and possibly reported at least better from the marriage standpoint.
That's probably, that's probably true.
I don't think anybody would really dispute that.
Yeah, actually, I found a study, to your point.
Researchers have consistently found higher rates of violence in cohabitating compared to marital relationships.
But in those cases, still it is 95% of perpetrators are male.
So what do you have to say in terms of that?
Yeah, okay.
Okay, so here's what happens.
What feminism has done, especially with the destruction of the marriage, is it has put women in the most vulnerable position, where now they leave their home with their husband where the abuse rates are not nearly so high as pretentious feminists pretend they are, so that they can cohabitate with men, with other men who are strangers to them, strangers to their children.
It puts their children at risk and it puts them at actually higher risk than if they had stayed with their husbands in most cases.
Oh, okay.
That makes sense as an explanation, but I think that, like, again, that's an anecdote that's probably not true for everybody.
And the cases are pretty clearly in place.
Like, the evidence has shown that, regardless of whether there's children in the marriage, 95% of the perpetrators are men.
And, you know, we were talking about how it is likely underreported for female perpetrators, right, in marriages.
I'm sure there are abusive wives.
But I think that the point being is that it is very, it is definitely a pattern in terms of in the United States of the home being made unsafe because of men that live there.
It doesn't have to be the husband, but it is men that are, you know, being violent with the women that they are living with.
And I think your point about how it's women that are picking these boyfriends that are abusing them is not fair because, again, you don't know men that are going to be to turn out to be abusive until they hit you one day.
It doesn't start out with, you know, if you went on a first date with a woman and she clocked you in the face, would you continue to date her?
No, you wouldn't.
It's the same with women.
Here's what we're going to do.
Andrew, you give your response, then we're going to do prompt change.
Okay.
Okay, so I don't.
Okay, just.
But yeah, that was the end of my I don't even understand this.
Like all of the stats back up exactly what I'm saying.
You agree with me that what I'm saying is likely the most true case at the scenario, at least compared to all the more abusive.
Yeah, can I finish?
Right?
I was just clear.
I didn't cut you off.
So the thing is, is like, look, as we look at this data, the data backs up everything that I just said, especially when it comes to cohabitation.
You say, well, it's not women's responsibility that they're picking these men.
It's like, well, women are initiating most of these divorces.
For one, they're leaving their husbands.
They put themselves in this confounding situation where now they're being abused by strange men, often because they want them as sexual partners or other things like this.
You say, well, that's true that the abuse happens inside of these places, whether there's children or not.
Great.
But when it's a cohabitation event where children are involved, you're now putting your children at risk because the risk skyrockets for abuse.
Skyrockets for abuse of those children.
No wonder men don't want to get married to modern women if they're going to get divorced and their women are going to put their children in an abusive situation, right?
And that's what the stats show more than anything.
Not that women are being abused, but that when they have authority over children, they are putting them in situations where they are abused or abusing them themselves.
That's what's actually happening.
We do have to change prompts.
Andrew, I think you wanted to perhaps discuss patriarchy and force doctrine.
You'd like to get into that.
Go ahead.
Yeah, you can.
Yeah, so I'll give you my definition of patriarchy first.
It's a historic definition.
It means rule of the father.
I often will shortphrase this to from the father.
Usually it operates around something which is patrilineal lineage rather than matrilineal lineage, though not always.
You can have patriarchies where there's matrilineal lineage.
You can find this in Judaism and other places like this.
When I talk about patriarchy, broadly speaking, at least in modernity and in the last hundred years, about men being in charge of general systems, we could just say men being in charge of general systems, head of the household, head of the family, things like this.
My view is that patriarchy is always going to end up being the default, especially the more feminism there is.
You'll push more people into the patriarchy role.
And here's why.
Because of force doctrine.
Force doctrine is a doctrine which I came up with, which tries to describe a phenomenon which you yourself are going to have to concede is true.
That half of the world right now, if men decide to, they can basically exterminate every single woman inside of their nations, and there's not a damn thing women can do about it.
We can find this in most of the Middle Eastern nations.
We can find this basically anywhere that we look, right?
They can't actually do anything about it.
Also, when it comes to rights, rights are a social construction, product of the mind, because of that.
They are not inherent.
And since this is the case, force is what is the practical applicator.
And if men decided to, by force, take away women's rights, women cannot do anything about it.
The opposite is not true.
If women wanted to take away men's rights and men didn't want to let them, they could not.
And because of this force doctrine application, women's rights all come from men, not inherently from themselves.
Therefore, feminism is a lie, complete lie.
That's forced doctrine.
I don't know if you had anything to say about it.
Well, aside from the fact that that is genuinely a terrifying idea, I think that the idea that men could just take away our rights and wipe us away is why feminism is necessary, is because we are trying to get enough men, I suppose, on our side, if you think about it in terms of like a military occupation, so that that wouldn't happen.
Because I think that it is possible for men to take away our rights at a blanket pace.
But I don't agree with your conclusion based off that premise, though.
I don't believe that women inherently don't have rights that it's given to us by men.
And the reason why is because I believe that all human beings inherently should have equality and human dignity, which is a, although I'm not Catholic, it's a term that was very much focused on in my Catholic high school.
I went to public school and came to the United States.
That's an axiom about human dignity.
Yeah, it's just axiomatic.
Yeah, I mean, it's still like important, though, to me, because I think that because the societies that we have created have necessitated the need or have created the need for laws and for structure and government.
And so there are many philosophers that have talked about how important it is to have government, right?
But because of the fact that men can take it away does not mean that men thus give to us, right?
Like men are not gods.
It is something that is inherent to each of us that we should have the ability to live and self-govern, have autonomy.
And I think the fact that men could take it away actually goes to my point about how a lot of them do.
And a lot of them try to take our autonomy and make us feel unsafe and harm us, which you were previously refuting, but actually seems like you agree with me on that, that it's a possibility for men to do that.
No, no, it's descriptively true.
I'm not giving an ought.
I'm giving you a descriptive, of descriptive reality.
But because it's a descriptive reality, we have...
The truth is, is that you appealed to patriarchy.
I agree.
I have no idea what I have not said appeal to patriarchy.
What are you talking about?
When you said the whole goal is to get more men on our side, you're appealing to a patriarchal.
That's not the whole goal, but it is a goal.
Yes, I should correct myself.
And so what you're trying to do is you're trying to appeal to the very demographic which can take away your rights at any time, conceding that if you do not have them on your side, you cannot maintain your rights.
That is not ever true of men, which is why you'll always end up with a default patriarchy, the more especially the more feminists push.
I don't know if you're looking at the modern world.
It's not as oh, it's the modern world.
It's not necessarily a default.
It's always going to be a default.
Well, in a lot of tribes, they were very matriarchal, and like women were at the head of the family.
There's never been a matriarchy in the world.
That is not true at all.
Give me one.
Okay.
I will look it up.
It's going to be an Indian tribe, and I'll refute it.
Watch it.
Well, indigenous people largely have.
It's going to be an Indian tribe, and I'm going to refute it.
I think you should just use the term Indian.
I think you should just use the term Indian.
I don't see any problem with it at all.
Oh, I think they do.
I don't think so.
Indians themselves call themselves Indians often.
Indigenous people in the United States do not call themselves Indians.
Yes, they do.
Just like black people call themselves black people, not African American.
What are you talking about?
Do you think that all black people call themselves African American?
This is a moot point, so I'm not going to even go into this with you.
Well, you're the one who wanted to tell police to say that I had to say Native American instead of Indian.
So basically, I'm pulling up the matriarchs for you.
And there are obviously a number of societies that have thrived.
And there's a whole document, but in China, in Costa Rica, the Bribery people.
Yeah, name one.
Any of them that you think is a matriarchy.
Okay.
Our matriarchal society.
They have a society with an estimated 12,000 to 35,000 members.
That is a matriarchy.
And that is B-R-I-B-R-I, Bribery in Costa Rica.
Or you could look at the, there's a Kenyan tribe that's U-M-O-J-A, that are all matriarchies.
They have women at the home that are leading their.
Why the Bribery tribe society is often described as matrilineal.
It's not actually a matriarchy.
Women are the heads of households responsible for passing down culture and land.
But the men have the most important role as the authority officers of the tribe.
They are the ones who defend.
And they have chiefs too, male chief.
That's not a matriarchy.
Well, I found a different article.
We could just go back and forth all day.
Yeah, let's look at it.
So the Bribery, so this is the intercontinental cry bribery.
I don't know if you speak Spanish, but Bribri un matriarchado moderno.
So I speak a little bit, not like, I'm not like fully fluent.
But anyways, and they're talking about how the clan structure means that tribal lineage is passed down through the mother and the people.
Yeah, matrilineally.
Yes, and also in the home.
I know the difference.
But if something is matrilineal, it doesn't make it a matriarchy.
I know, but they're saying that women in this article play a primary role in government as well.
Yeah, but not.
See what you did there?
You did a smuggle.
They play a primary role in government.
That doesn't make it a matriarchy.
But it's a system.
Do you know what a matriarchy is, though?
It would be women broadly in charge of all of the people.
It's a system of social structure where they hold a lot of power.
hold the majority power and that's what the decisions of the men are at their behest in any that's what the article just said of the bribery tribe is no i i I don't know.
I don't know.
Again, I just found a different article.
Listen, any matriarchy.
I don't know if I should speak to what's going on in the world.
Any matriarchy that I've ever investigated, which is supposedly a matriarchy, we find very quickly that men are in the prominent positions of authority on force, which means that any matriarchy is living at the behest of the men.
That's it.
So is your point that men are better than because they have brute force?
Or like, what's your point that men should be in charge governmentally?
My point is, I'm not giving an ought.
We have to agree first to a descriptor.
The descriptive truth is that it is, in fact, the case that women have to appeal to men for all of their rights, period, by your own admission.
That's why you're trying to get them on your side.
Because if you don't have them, they can basically cage women up if they wanted to, and there's nothing winning.
Right, but that doesn't mean that men are therefore better or should be in charge.
Like, I'm confused.
Like, what's the actual point, like the conclusion that you're making?
The point here is that men being in charge is obviously and clearly, they're very benevolent because at any time they so choose, they can lock all women up.
There's nothing they can do about it.
And the reverse is not true, which is so interesting.
You're literally at the mercy.
Women are at the mercy globally and always have been of men.
And yet, we're monsterized and demonized by feminists.
That's what we're literally considered demons by feminists.
You did it by your own admission today with your own stats trying to make us out to be sexually assaulting monsters.
Didn't even know the counter stats.
I didn't say that.
Never said that.
Yeah, that's what it appears to be, though, from the onlooker's perspective.
I feel like you have these generically talking points that you try to apply to feminists, but I haven't like really been very reactive or calling you names.
I'm trying not to.
I have.
You have acted exactly like a feminist today, madame.
Okay, but nobody's going to be confused about that at all.
The whole snobbery.
I'm not insulted by that.
The whole snobbery towards authority.
You're going to do what I want.
The finger clap thing.
You did the whole feminist trope, the entire thing.
But what I would like is a refutation here.
Can I speak now?
Can you agree?
I feel like it's my time.
Can you agree that it is the case that women have to appeal to men for their rights and not the other way around?
I will not ever agree to the fact that we should appeal to men for our rights.
I think that is inherently misogynistic if it happened.
Have to.
Have to.
No.
Okay, well, then where do rights come from?
They should be inherent to every person.
But again, I think I should be able to like.
Okay, so give me a second because again, like you've just been a little bit insulting the last few minutes.
So I feel like when that happens, it's just like a good change of pace is important.
Well, I do need to keep it on the topic at hand.
Which, again, where were we?
Can you repeat the question?
Right.
So I asked you where rights come from.
Where rights come from, if you can address that.
Okay, but then I get to speak.
More.
Yeah, you can, but it's on forced doctrine and rights.
Go ahead.
Okay.
Well, I think the fact that we're debating a topic that you came up with is a little bit strange personally, but I was going to say that I think that rights are inherent.
I think that they should be related to all people, just like the fact that we are human beings.
We shouldn't have to appeal to any person for authority.
And again, the fact that men are stronger, bigger, more powerful doesn't mean that they give or take away people's rights.
I'm not religious necessarily, but I think if I was, I would probably tell you that I think God is the person that relates and who gives people their human dignity and rights, but I think it's inherent.
I think that we should all have the right to live and be free of violence.
And I think that those who offend and try to put people in cages, those are the people that should be jailed.
Like, I don't think that that's a blanket statement.
Yeah, yeah.
So I would just, okay, you keep on saying rights should be inherent.
That doesn't tell me anything about where rights come from.
Where do rights come from?
Where do we ascribe rights?
Well, I think that you're thinking very like United States, like government-centric.
Anywhere.
You can pick anywhere on the planet.
I don't care where you pick.
Okay.
Where are rights coming from?
They are coming from the set of people that are in charge, the government.
And to your point, that's the patriarchy.
However, I agree.
So I concede to that point.
However, I'm saying that that is not, that does not mean that men, since they create the ability to give people rights and take it away, that doesn't mean that men, it should be that way.
It shouldn't.
I don't know if that makes sense.
So men have been guaranteeing your rights the entire time you've been alive.
No, that's definitely not true.
Well, I don't understand.
I thought that you just rights come from the government.
The government is the patriarchy.
The patriarchy then is giving you rights, right?
Right, but like the government isn't inherently like the government is influenced by patriarchy, but it's not like all men making decisions like in the past it was.
Would you say it's mostly in charge by men?
Yeah, but again, like I think that your points that you're making are very misogynistic.
Like I think the point of what you're saying is like we should be grateful to people.
I think the points you're making are very misandrist.
I mean that doesn't tell us.
But I don't hate men, so that's not a very good question.
I don't hate women.
Okay, but your question inherently is rooted in the fact that you think that there is male superiority and that men are in charge.
Descriptively, men are stronger than women, yeah?
Descriptively.
Yes.
You're not going to argue that point, right?
On average, I suppose, yeah.
Yeah, on average.
Well, I mean, it's a strong average, though.
Sure.
Yeah, like, I mean, you know, teenage soccer teams are beating, you know, female pro-player teams, right?
Sure.
You agree that that's the case.
Okay, great.
So if that's the case and we can agree, and you agree that the governments of the world are patriarchal, then you have to concede that the patriarchy is giving you your rights right now.
Again, I will never concede that.
And the reason why is because I think that that is rooted in the idea that women should be grateful.
Like, you're telling me that I should essentially be grateful to you for the fact that I'm not in a cage right now and that someone's not assaulting me as we speak.
Like that does not mean that.
It's not just your right to free speech and the fact that it's enforced by men.
The patriarchy is the ones giving you that by your own admission.
Listen, so my theory is the way it should be.
This is what I think.
This is the way that it was before we had colonization and all the imperialism and stuff.
There's a blanket statement, right?
Or there's a blanket right to life, to autonomy, to all these things, right?
That are just given to you by the nature of being human.
And there are certain entities and people and oppressive regimes that then come in and they try to take those things away from you.
Now, because warrant tribe theory.
Well, because they give you those things or because the government gives you the right to exist now, right, doesn't mean it's a benevolent patriot.
Like, doesn't mean the patriarchy is benevolent because it is currently giving me these rights and I'm not like sitting and trapped in my house like I am.
It would make it malevolent.
What would make it malevolent?
Yeah.
I think in places like the United States, which is a patriarchy by your own admission, giving you rights.
What would make it malevolent?
I think that there are a lot of current things that are malevolent, like in legislation and things like that, that are, you know, like right attacks on bodily autonomy and like the overturning, like the Dobbs decision or the First Amendment, a benevolent right, your Third Amendment, right?
Your Fifth Amendment.
I think these things are all inherent generally.
Like, I don't understand, like, just because it's written by the government doesn't mean that it should inherently be benevolent.
That's a contradiction.
You can't say it's inherent and the government gives them to us.
No, the government.
That's a contradiction.
The government does, but it doesn't mean anything.
Like, we should already have these things.
Like, just like if I. How do you have them?
How do you have them absent government?
You should just be able to walk around and be free.
How do you have that without force?
How?
I mean, how is it even possible?
I think you're looking at it through a lens of like imperialism.
And I don't think that force was always necessary.
It hasn't always been necessary to conquer the people.
I literally told you my lens of force doctrine, explained it.
Right, but you're looking at it.
It's nothing to do with imperialism.
Ask you with this.
You're walking around there.
Looking at it in the lens of modernity.
There's no government, though.
If you're walking around, there's no government, where do your rights come from then?
Okay, this is just like such a silly question.
Please answer the question.
Okay, so if I'm no government and I'm walking around, my right to be alive, my right to find a way to kill you?
Yes, but in that case, there have historically always been ways of punishing people who take those away.
So the people who take them away are government.
Go ahead.
Hold on, Andrew.
The people who take those things away from you, if they don't decide to take it away, it doesn't mean that they're good, right?
So like a really horrible example that for a lot of women is true is if I am a woman and I have not had intercourse with anybody and a man is my friend and he decides that he's not going to take my virginity from me, does that mean he is a good person inherently by not assaulting me?
No, it doesn't because that should be the standard, right?
And so if someone comes in and they take it away and then they tell me that they can or they can't in the future, right?
That's essentially to me what you're saying is just because the government is giving me the right to walk around and have this conversation with you today means that I should be thankful and I should not be concerned with things and that you guys are actually benevolent.
The patriarchy is benevolent because I'm not in a cage because I'm not being assaulted.
Yeah, that's not what's being said.
Anyway, can you answer my question though?
If there's no government, where do your rights come from?
I think we've already been over this.
I think you've asked me quite a bit of time.
Listen, what you did.
I mean, I've already told you human dignity.
Well, human dignity, you can't account for dignity in a secular worldview.
What is dignity?
It's just whatever you think dignity is.
So tell me this, real quick.
You have rights.
They're inherent rights.
Are you talking about legal, moral, or human?
Let's omit legal, right?
Because I'm talking about in a hypothetical society.
Okay, moral and human rights.
Yeah.
And for me, it's rooted in the philosophical natural law.
Natural law is Catholic.
You don't believe in Catholicism.
You would have to have God to back up natural law.
Okay, but that is what I develop my beliefs around because I used to believe that.
No, if you don't appeal to God for your natural rights, you're making a naturalist fallacy.
Okay, I'd say fallacious argument.
How do you know that I don't believe it?
Because you told me.
Okay, well, I just, again, I think this is like a really ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous?
So where do you get your rights from if they're not from God?
Okay, so again, I still subscribe to the human rights theory, which is the universal declaration of human rights.
We're not going to go talk about God or naturalism, right?
Which is that every human being has a universal, inalienable rights that are fundamental to each person.
And so this is what, you know, the UN subscribes to and stuff like that, regardless of whether there is a government in place or not.
So is that sufficient to you?
No, that's an axiom.
That's so all you're just saying is, I think we have inherent rights because I think we have inherent rights.
I think we have inherent rights because we are human beings who deserve to be treated with compassion, love, and respect.
And I don't think you think that.
So that's pretty well.
But the question comes in here.
Let's say that a group of people doesn't believe in these inherent human rights, right?
They don't believe in them.
I mean, there are definitely groups that have for certain people.
Yeah, they just don't.
So what is it that protects those inherent rights for you?
Well, you're right.
There is typically like a system in place of force.
It's not force per se.
All force, right?
Like name anything that's not.
But like there's a way to like isolate those people.
With what?
Force?
I mean, not necessarily.
What else could you isolate them with if they don't want to be isolated?
Well, not every arrest is made through force, right?
Like they might be.
Yeah, well, actually, all arrests are made through the implicit, implicit threat of force.
Either you come with me or else, right?
Sure.
So that would be force, right?
You would agree with that?
The implicit.
Yeah, I mean, just this inherent topic to me is very just like violent and seems like a moot point.
But I mean, I'm kind of, I feel like we talked this through.
No, I haven't talked it through yet.
You can continue.
I mean, I don't really have much else to say.
I've already like a critique of your worldview so that we can understand who you're appealing to for these so-called rights you believe everybody has.
In this case, it sounds like you're banking on force from men to protect your rights.
How are you not banking on the force of men to protect your rights if you say they're inherent, but all these inherent rights require force?
Well, also men is a generalization.
I mean, again, there are a lot of people who are currently working to enforce the system of government that we have.
It's not just men, but they all rely on male force, don't they?
I just told you that wasn't true.
I mean, okay, can you tell me how that's not true?
Like what agency of government doesn't rely on male force?
No, no, no.
My point is it's not all exclusively men.
There are men and women and everyone else as well that work to protect people here.
Like in the army, it's not like if you're using force, right?
The army isn't just male troops.
So like you're saying male.
Yeah, there's women who aren't allowed in combat for the most part, almost ever, unless it's by accident, who are in the military as paymasters and things like this, but they're not the executors of force.
There's not female armies being fielded to protect rights.
I just, I'm not super interested in this line of questioning because it just seems like inherently exogenous.
If you're interested in it, I want to know the world to you.
I think you care because like it's your podcast and like I'm kind of okay.
Well, you know what?
In your next argument, I'll just say, well, I'm just not very interested.
Okay.
Like, what does that do?
Well, you're not really letting me talk or like, you know, I'm just asking you basic questions.
You refuse to answer them.
That's it.
I just wish you would actually answer the questions and then we could get somewhere, but you just refuse to.
I'm like, okay, so what does that mean?
You're like, well, I just explained it when he didn't actually explain anything.
And then we get to the root of it.
So what you keep doing is appealing to patriarchy for your rights by saying, I would never say I appeal to patriarchy for my rights.
You say, hey, I want to appeal to men because we need men in order to protect us from the patriarchy, which means you're appealing to men for your rights.
I just like, it seems like it's a big circle.
So I'm just trying to decipher it out.
That's it.
That's it.
Okay.
I'm not going to not going to engage anymore.
All right.
I already told you I just don't have anything else to say on this.
So I feel like we've had a good conversation.
I mean, I've enjoyed hearing what you have to say.
I just don't have that.
Yeah, well, I mean, I would have enjoyed, you know, like actually critiquing the view, but since you don't make the view.
You already have for like the last like 15 minutes.
You know, you've just been very evasive and you've been very unwilling to actually answer questions, even when you've contradicted yourself.
You won't acknowledge it.
So.
Okay, well, we can take a little off the smoke.
There's more prompts, but we'll take some audience questions.
There's some super chats that we can get to.
So we have, let's see, we have Just Gerald here with the $100 Super Stream Labs.
Thank you.
When women say, I wish I would have gone to school or focused on a career instead, I hear, my children are preventing me from freedom.
If only these kids weren't alive, I could be happy.
All right, Just Gerald.
Thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
All right.
And if you guys are enjoying the stream, be sure to like the video, please.
And make sure to.
Oh, if you're watching on Twitch, go to twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Drop us a follow and a prime sub.
And oh, that's weird.
Did that not go through?
Okay.
Gonna get the super chats here.
We have Cole Marshall.
Why would anyone, this is from earlier.
This came in.
I saw this.
That's funny.
Why would anyone care if you leave?
Who are you?
You're supposed to be defending your world view.
W. Andrew from Cole.
Thank you, Cole, for the super chat.
Do you want to respond to this?
Oh, sure.
Yeah.
Yeah.
My name's Kylie Brewer.
I'm sort of like an up-and-coming like activist type person.
I feel like I have my goal here was to educate just about feminism generally.
So I'm sorry if that hasn't like held up to your standards.
But yeah, if I do leave, I think the debate would end.
So I think that might be why people would care.
But anyways, thank you for your comment.
We have chaotic fuzz.
Why are you letting her hold the debate hostage?
She's being a child saying, if I don't get my way, I'll leave.
It's disrespectful to the platform and listeners.
I think it's disrespectful to be talked down to the way I am.
So that is why it's not just about like leaving and holding the platform hostage.
It is rather a fact of protecting my integrity.
And I will never let myself be in a place where I feel unsafe or like I'm being belittled.
So if that does happen and continues to happen, I will leave.
And it's not a reflection of, you know, the platform or anything.
It's just like for me as well.
Okay.
We have Lucas here.
Ma'am, kindly address your emotional dysregulation.
It's unimpressive, but more importantly, a telltale sign of an intellectual mediocrity flailing away.
Well, a lot of big words here, Lucas, in the undertow of cognitive dissonance, fallacious logic, and ultimately a fully metastasized mind virus.
Do you want to respond to that from Lucas?
Sure.
Lucas, it sounds like you pulled out your thesaurus for this, so congratulations on that.
But I would like to say my IQ is relatively pretty high.
I'm not going to like talk about where I went to an Ivy League, but that doesn't matter.
If you disagree with me, you're going to hate what I have to say regardless of whether I'm intelligent or not intelligent.
But thank you for watching, regardless.
Thank you, Lucas, for the message.
Little Miss Feminist isn't interested in debating, only educating bad faith debate.
Do you want to respond to that?
Thank you, Rezzel, for the super chat.
For me, like a debate is about exchange of knowledge.
So if it doesn't become that, it feels more like an ad hominem attack on me.
I just will not talk.
Well, what a debate is to me is the refutation of ideas, or it can be the sharing of knowledge, also the reputation of ideas.
We're here to debate feminism, the idea of debating feminism.
I'll even grant one point that my opponent got, which was me dunking on me, right?
Was that I confused the Mankind initiative with the Mankind Project, right?
So that's one thing.
One thing I even did, right?
I did it dunked on myself, right?
By misspeaking on one of these things.
So there's a concession.
But here's what I won't do.
What I won't do is let you cross your arms and throw a fit and refuse to engage.
When you go, no, I'm just not going to engage anymore.
It's like, well, then we're not having a debate anymore.
So I'd like to get back to the actual debate.
And I'd like to don't have as much of a stake in this as you do.
So like I'm just if we end right now, I'm more than happy.
Like I'm so serious.
I would go and like lay out in the sun, enjoy the farmers market.
I'm here to say that.
So why did you come to a debate if you're unprepared to debate?
Oh, because no, I'm not unprepared.
I thought we were going to have more of an exchange, and this feels more like, again, like an attack.
So that's why I'm not having very much fun.
I mean, look, I don't think that's a fair characterization of the exchange you guys had.
There was a slightly open to interpretation.
There was a slightly heated moment exchanged from both of you at the beginning of the show.
I think it's okay.
We're going to continue on with the conversation.
Allow me to let, we have about three chats coming through, and then we'll get back to the debate.
Rachel Wilson says, this is, by the way, this is Andrew's wife here.
Oh.
Nobody's talking down to you, Princess.
Uh-oh, she wants to do Colin.
Do you want to talk to Andrew's wife?
Maybe she should make some.
I don't know.
But okay, Andrew is just beating your arguments easily and you feel embarrassed, so you're pretending he's insulting you.
Okay.
Thank you, Rachel, for that.
Appreciate it.
Donner, page 199, section 6.3 of the NIS4 shows all the stats Andrew pointed out about female perpetrators.
Anyone in chat can look it up.
All right.
Thank you for that.
Even though she said shifted up in two seconds, even though it's not a good idea.
There's no possible way.
Somebody says, unmute.
Okay.
Thank you, Andrew.
I'm not sure what's going on with that, but we have two chats coming here, and then we'll come back to the debate.
So we have one sec.
We have Glocktavius.
Thank you, Glocktavius.
Glocktavius donated $100.
Kylie, you said you have a high IQ.
What's your IQ?
I haven't taken an IQ test in a while, but when I was a child, they had me evaluated for having a high IQ because I was like talking really young and all these things.
But the last time I took a test, I think it was like around 150, but I don't know currently.
It was a while ago.
150?
Yeah.
That's genius level.
And I know you're going to say I'm not, so it's like funny, but I know you probably think it's it's wrong.
I didn't say anything.
I just said that that's considered genius level.
Thank you.
He was about to congratulate you.
Oh, sorry.
I'm on the defense a little bit, but thank you.
I appreciate it, Andrew.
I appreciate it.
Poor me, I just have an average IQ.
Okay, literally.
Average IQ.
And you know what?
Look, here's a little, you know, a lot of the soup chats have been a little mean.
YOLO swaggins says you're hot.
Thank you.
So if it's any, you know, if it's any, you know.
Thank you, YOLO Swaggins, for that.
That does actually make me feel nice.
Thank you, YOLO Swaggins.
And then I'm in the chat here, then we'll get back to the debate.
Six-pack chat donated one.
Thank you, Six-Pack Chad.
I didn't go to school for four years to be talked to like this.
The girl boss can't handle the big meme, Andrew.
You are the most insufferable broad I've ever seen on this show, including the hookers.
We have had a couple hookers.
Yeah, I've actually had that said to me quite a few times.
So I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm glad you like Andrew and like you guys have that sort of connection.
I think it's important to have people that you look up to in contents.
So getting back to the debate at hand, Andrew, did you want to continue on with the forced doctrine?
I do.
But I need you to actually engage with my inquiry.
The reason I'm giving you...
Oh, I thought we were going to switch topics.
Oh, we're sitting on this one.
Well, I think he wanted to just finish.
Yeah, we weren't done with it.
Okay, okay.
Yeah.
So the reason I want you to engage with it is because it's a falsifier for your worldview.
Okay.
And if you refuse to engage, it looks like you're just refusing to allow the falsifier for your worldview.
So if we can get back to it, I'd like to.
My question starts with inherent rights.
You claim that they're inherent, and I'm asking you, if a government's not giving them to you and God's not giving them to you, where are they coming from?
That's a good question.
So if we just existed, there was no government and I was an atheist, I would, in theory, have the ability, the right to walk around freely, to make myself food, to do all these things without the fear of violence.
But if violence did happen, then we would have to create a new idea.
Because I believe that communities could just walk around without any threat of violence.
Because there were plenty of communities that have done that.
Does a rabbit have the ability to walk around without any threat of violence inherently?
No, but I'm not a rabbit.
Yeah, I know.
But the thing is, is like, why not?
Why doesn't the rabbit have that?
Because there are predators.
So what would our predator be?
Are you saying men are the predators?
Well, or women?
But if men are the predators, that goes against everything we talk about.
Or women?
Did you hear that part?
Or women?
Like, women can assault you.
Doesn't require a man, doesn't require a penis for somebody to assault you.
So the thing is, is like, if it is the case then that the rabbit has no inherent rights because there's predators or people who would be predatory, or even if we said that there would be some men who would be predatory, even how do you have this right to walk around unmolested and the rabbit does not?
So you are wanting me to say that we have force.
We have to enforce it, right?
Which we do.
I'm just asking.
But I don't think we have to enforce it through like physical force.
I think we can enforce it through like words and like being able to speak to each other.
And then like the rabbit screams and the coyote doesn't care.
So if it's the case that people don't care about whatever the wolves don't care about what the rabbit says, right?
They don't care about the rabbit screams.
Does the rabbit have rights?
If the wolf doesn't care if the rabbit screams, does the rabbit have rights is an interesting question.
I suppose.
The rabbit has the right to not get eaten by the wolf.
But like, again, I mean, I think most people would agree that there is a fundamental distinction between humans and animal societies.
So I don't understand how it's relevant to my point.
In this case, the equation would just be a rabbit is a biological walking being, right?
And so is a wolf.
The rabbit does not have the right not to get eaten by the wolf.
What gives you any inherent right to not be in any way assaulted, molested, undignified, or whatever, if it is the case that people want to do this to you?
What is the inherent right there?
Right.
I could ask you the same thing.
Yeah, but why don't you answer the question, then ask yours?
No, no, no.
I'm saying like, I could ask figuratively.
I could ask you the same thing in terms of what would give you the right to walk around and to like be respected and have your wife Rachel like, you know, like talk to you.
Force.
But I don't think it has to be.
I think historically a lot of it has been force, but I don't think it has to be.
I think there exists an egalitarian society where we can all collectively have the ability.
And, you know, they used to just say.
I don't even disagree with this.
Right.
Can this happen?
Well, they used to just like sort of expel people out of the community and they wouldn't be able to survive without the community.
Like they would die.
And so that's not necessarily, in my opinion, force.
Yeah, it's force.
They can't go back to the community.
So people are forcing them out, right?
But it's not like a physical force.
It's a physical force.
It's backed up by physical force.
Why can't you go back into the community?
What happens?
Well, there's also the emotional component of like ignoring the person, not giving them food.
It's not.
That's not what people did.
They didn't ignore them.
They said, if you come back here, there's going to be consequences, right?
Otherwise, that's not really a banishment.
I mean, what would stop them from just walking in and being like, you can ignore me, but I'm going to take your food, whatever I need to survive.
Sure.
But the point being, for me, I believe that because those types of societies are possible to exist, right, without the physical threat of force and having to put people in cages and kill people to preserve the social order, then therefore, I think that we should not have to have a patriarchy or a matriarchy.
I think we should just be able to exist in the right because the rights come within us.
I agree that you can have all sorts of different arrangements for how a society is.
But I'm saying because of those things, then yeah, but that doesn't give us the answer here for why it is that the rabbit doesn't have the right to not get eaten.
I mean, I don't think you have the right to not get assaulted by another human being.
What gives you that right?
I mean, I don't think I'm going to at any point give you the answer that you're looking for.
I'm just asking fundamentally.
I think the answer is that the question is.
What you said is because future societies can look different.
That doesn't tell me anything.
That's really not what I was saying.
I was also drawing from the past.
But I mean, personally, I think that, sorry, the problem here is that we have seen the patriarchy as something that should be either seen as malevolent or benevolent.
And I don't think that it should be classified as something that we need, generally speaking.
I think there are systems of organization where we don't have to rely upon men.
Can I try this?
Because that seems to be what you're trying to do.
Let me try a different way.
Can you repeat my question to me so that I know that you understand what my question is?
No, no, no.
I would just, I mean, again.
Can you repeat my question to me so I know you understand what it is?
Please.
I'm getting real close.
Why?
Because you won't answer this question.
I am answering in a way that you don't find satisfactory.
What do you want to say tonight?
And you go, margarine hat.
It's like, it doesn't tell me nothing.
But you're asking me the question repetitively.
Because you won't answer it.
No, no, no.
I won't answer it in the way that you're.
No, you just won't answer it, period.
Listen, do you think it's a fair answer for you to say, how tall are you?
And I say 83.
Is that an answer?
Well, I don't need an answer from, like, I'm not demanding.
I am not someone who you're looking at me like I have to answer you.
Like, just because I'm here doesn't mean I have to do anything.
What are you doing in a debate if you won't answer questions about your worldview?
I mean, there's a lot of reasons to be here, right?
Like, like answering questions about your worldview.
Your brand.
Do you think you're promoting your brand well when you won't answer questions about your worldview?
I mean, that's objective.
And I have been answering questions.
You haven't.
What you've done is every single time I ask you this question, right, you appeal to something that doesn't answer it.
You say, well, there could be futures.
According to you.
Okay, I'll tell you what.
But I've given you the answer to that.
That's why you're trying to force me into a corner that I just, I don't have to do that.
Let's try this.
Let's try this instead, right?
Because people do this all the time.
They say, I am answering the question when they're not answering any question at all.
Can we just try this?
Can you just give me a real quick summary?
Where do rights come from?
Okay.
So I think that, and you're going to say, but you don't believe in God.
So, but I'm going to give you, because this seems to be the only naturalist or the only explanation you will accept from me is the naturalist explanation.
I think that they are inherent.
And let's say human beings are God, right?
Like some people believe that each person has an essence that belongs to God.
So let's say that.
So therefore, it's apparent.
It comes from God.
We are God.
I believe that each person is made up of a collective that could be considered like a human spirit.
So yes.
But you don't believe in God.
But a human spirit to me is God.
So I think that each person has the ability to self-govern.
And those rights are given to us by ourselves because whether we're God or not, the rights come from us.
Okay.
Yes.
So, and that's coming from the humanist perspective.
So rights come from you, the individual.
That makes, okay, that's at least an answer.
So rights come from individuals.
So how do individuals then, if they grant themselves these rights, keep them?
By communication and compassion.
I'm an optimist.
So ideally, we don't have to use force.
And somebody does not want to agree with you and says, I don't care what you say, what happens then?
So, okay, I will concede your point that to preserve the order.
To preserve rights.
Sure.
You have to.
You have to appeal to force.
Then there are occasional needs for force.
Sure.
Okay.
Well, let me make this.
Because I know that's what you're trying to do.
Let me make this even wider.
Let me make this even wider.
I don't believe that you can name any, any type of governmental system or any type of anything in which force is not going to be the backer for what the establishment is, period.
I don't even think it's possible.
Like, how could it even be possible that you're not allowed to be a force?
Let's say I concede, then what's your point?
Like, relating back to the men are the enforcers.
Yeah, you're always going to be appealing to men for your rights.
But why do men have to be the enforcers?
Like, let's say your force is like forced off.
Because women can't overpower men.
Only men can.
But weapons exist.
So like what if women's better with weapons and who makes weapons okay, but what if like women somehow took over all the weapons and going into this hypothetical, right?
Sure.
Women take over all the weapons.
We teach each other how to use it and men can't do anything.
In theory, could then a matriarchy exist?
So I could say that it would.
I'm genuinely curious.
Yeah, yeah.
So I could say it's logically possible.
But just so you know, would I say logically possible?
Superman's logically possible.
Wolverine's logically possible.
All the X-Men are logically possible.
I could say that this is logically possible, that women could seize all the means of production, all weapons and enslavement.
Logically, there's no contradiction.
The descriptor for reality, though, is that I would say descriptively in reality, it's impossible that women could never overpower men collectively, take over any means of production, nor begin to produce weapons ever and have any great effect if men didn't want them to.
It's not even possible.
I don't see how it's possible.
So your conclusion, though, is based off of this scenario that you are saying isn't possible, but you're saying it's logical.
So I mean, I disagree.
I think it is possible, though.
But try to understand the difference between logical possibility, which just means no contradiction.
Yes.
So almost anything's logically possible.
Yeah, right.
It just seems like...
Like there's a world in which you're a man and a misogynistic man.
Sure.
That's logically possible.
Right, yeah.
So that doesn't tell us much, right?
But I'm saying like your force doctrine, though, like you're saying, okay, so let's say I agree with the fact that force is necessary to keep a necessary precondition.
Right.
So let's say I agree.
But then your conclusion that you're drawing is that therefore male.
So because of this, then men are the enforcers, right?
Because they're physically bigger.
Therefore, then men give us our rights.
Yeah, we all know.
I'll give it to you in this premise form.
It would work like this.
Yes.
Women cannot collectively overpower men.
Men can always collectively overpower women because the sexes need each other, literally need each other, cannot be disassociated.
Otherwise, there's no humanity.
There'll always be a banking of an enforcement arm, which protects women and men and children.
And that will always have to go to men because men are the physically dominant sex.
So if that's the case, it will always be the case.
You have to appeal to men for the very rights in which you think you have, right?
Yeah.
So, I mean, I think that what follows, based off of what you're saying, makes sense.
But I'm still going to always disagree with the fact that women, like your initial statement that women cannot overpower men with weapons, I just, I think that that would be.
Can you name it time has ever happened in history?
No, it doesn't mean it can.
Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen.
Wolverine can't happen.
Wolverine can happen.
Superman can happen.
It can't go on with this forever, right?
No, but not really, because if we're talking about descriptive reality, do you honestly believe that you're only disagreeing with this because you just don't want to agree, right?
Because you said, I agree that what you're saying, it makes sense.
I just fundamentally don't think this is like a very mistake.
That's because it refeats your entire worldview because you'd have to say that you have to appeal to yourself.
I mean, I just literally have so many pages here of like things that I would rather be talking about.
Like, I don't understand.
This kicks the pillar of your worldview out.
Do you believe that you need to appeal to men for you to be safe or not?
Do I need to appeal to men to be safe right now?
Yeah.
Currently in the patriarchal society, yes.
Should we have to?
Is it possible for us to not have to?
Yes.
But currently, yes.
And do men protect you?
Not always.
Yeah, but mostly.
Unfortunately.
No, not even most of them.
Aren't they the ones who are so aren't they?
Yes, mostly.
I'm sorry, are most women dying?
It just depends.
Are most women dying from violence?
No.
So they're mostly being protected by the menu.
It depends on what you mean by like protect, though, from harm.
Like, there's just ways that women are harmed by men, honestly.
Like you live in a nation in which you're granted massive amounts of rights.
You're protected while you sleep.
You can dial 911, have officers there almost immediately in most places.
But you're attributing all that to men?
They're the enforcement arm of all of those collectives, yes.
So, like, police officers, you would agree, vast majority male, right?
And that women tend to underperform in almost every standard because we lower standards for police officers so that women can be them, even though they don't actually perform very well against their male compatriots, do they?
Sure.
So, if that's the case, then you're still appealing to men, aren't you?
Sure, yeah.
Okay, I just don't really.
Yeah, I know, I know.
You'll just concede.
I mean, fundamentally, I don't think this is very interesting.
It's kind of funny, right?
I mean, there's a reason this isn't taught in Florida.
It's like a man's verbally assaulting you just rolling over and taking it because you gotta be.
I'm not taking it.
I'm just rolling over.
I would actually prefer to leave it.
You just do it dead fish on me, right?
Like a bear's attacking.
You went dead fish because you just can't refute the arguments.
It's not about that.
It's just about not being disrespected.
If I feel like I'm doing that, I'm not disrespecting you by asking you questions about your worldview.
No, no, no.
You're just being, how do I say very demanding and overbearing because it's actually that I would rather talk about, and we've been talking about your topic for 45 minutes, and I've barely even had an opportunity to steer what this conversation is.
You have a bunch of topics that you brought.
I brought one.
Why can't we talk about mine too?
We are.
Oh, great.
Then what's your complaint?
You're hiding a little behind the mic.
Can you try to, did that argument not work very well?
You brought 10 topics.
I brought one.
You don't want to talk about my one topic, but we should talk about your 10.
Fantastic.
Fine.
We can move on, but unbelievable.
We will do a couple chats here and then we'll get into our next topic then.
Bring in the chats.
I'm going to go have a smoke.
All right.
He sounds like you should.
Just can he pause it, or do you?
Should I stay here while he goes out?
Can I take a break after him?
Yeah, we can, okay.
Okay, we can do that, that's fine okay.
So we have Xerxes here, or actually, Xerxes donated $100 on these.
Hi Kylie, are you a communist or anti-capitalist?
Can women be sexist towards men?
Can minorities be racist towards white people?
Is misogyny worse than misandry?
That's a that is a great question.
Yeah sorry, can I answer it?
Yeah okay, you know what?
Why don't we do this?
Just because maybe Andrew will want to wait.
Yeah, he'll probably have things to say.
Okay, that's fine, let's see if any of these here, I'll let this one come through, because this one's kind of just.
General Red Fox donated $100.
Thank you to humanism naturalism, theism and relativism.
What a mess.
Your worldview in incoherent and destructive.
Your pretentious presentation is a turn off.
Bring on, mrs Wilson, not one step back.
Anything you want to respond to there?
Um no, I I just wasn't like prepared on this subject and it's an interesting topic, so I will uh, learn more.
I mean, i'm always open to learning more, so I will go do my research.
Got Jason to sell.
Thank you, Jason.
Jason Castle donated 100.
Thank you, man.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
This quote sums up reality.
But you refuse to concede because you don't like men.
Dumb yeah, I really.
Um, I do believe that men are important figures in our society, and I admire a lot of the bravery of men.
So, if you want to call me stupid, whatever you want to call me, that's totally fine.
But I never said that I hate men.
I do believe that men are important, and I like men.
I'm close with my dad.
I have a partner who is a man right now.
So, yeah.
All right.
And if you guys want to get your own message in, you can do so.
Streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
We're doing $100 TTS.
We have Jordan Flores here.
Hey, thank you, Jordan.
Appreciate it.
Jordan Flores donated $100.
Thank you.
Can someone tell her that the restaurant kids menu crossword puzzle isn't an IQ test?
Also, ironically enough, when she mentions quitting every 15 minutes, it proves Andrew's point.
Yeah, Jordan, I'm not like mentioning quitting.
I'm genuinely trying to leave here because I do not enjoy this environment.
It's very hostile.
And I know that the restaurant menu is not an IQ test.
That's kind of a funny joke, though.
But thank you.
Okay, we have some super chats here.
Honest question for the feminist: how is feminism in any way about equality when every single policy and law it advocates for is literally a move away from equality?
Even Charles Fourier, who coined the term feminism, was a staunch misandrist drist.
Maybe a little typo there, but do you want to answer Manny's question here?
Yeah, so I mean, again, that's an absolute not every policy is about a move away from equality.
Feminism has never been about female supremacy.
It has been about the importance of creating equality between the sexes and creating protections from, you know, for women in various areas, economic, political, whatever it is.
So, yeah, I don't know if that answers your question.
All right.
We have Andrew back here.
Manny, thank you for that soup chat.
We have two from Lucas here and two more.
It looks like some on Streamlabs.
Lucas, thank you, man.
Honey, you don't want to go toe-to-toe on credentials and alphabet soup with me.
I assure you, the alphabet soup is far more expansive than the law degree that Brian and Andrew might possibly be aware of.
That, notwithstanding, as logician, rhetorician, rhetorician, and debater Andrew continued, is superior to me by order of magnitude.
Rest assured, that piece of paper signifying your full-fledged year, four full-fledged years of imbecilic indoctrination is meaningless.
Oh, but hey, how many genders are there?
Would love to hear your take on that.
Do you want to respond to him on that or Lucas on that?
Bath and Break, if you have anything to say, because remember I was going to.
Yeah, do you want to do a quick response to Lucas?
Oh, yes.
And then feel free to tell me.
Yeah, that's an interesting question.
I think that for me, I believe that sex is biological.
So it's what's assigned at birth.
So it's like male, female, and then gender, I think, is really like open to interpretation.
But definitely, you know, man, woman, trans man, trans woman, non-binary are the ones that I really like, you know, see pretty often.
But, you know, there's, I mean, I just think it's very individual.
So, but yeah, good question.
Okay.
Yeah.
Feel free to take your break.
We'll read a couple chats here.
All right.
We've got one sec, guys.
We have one sec.
Where is it?
This one's for you, Andrew.
Chat for you.
from USMC.
Using croutinated $100.
Andrew, if you had some cleavage, maybe you could garner some soft feelings too.
Also, M's dipstick is touching the right side of her nose when she wants to be fed an answer.
USMC, thank you for your message here.
We have...
Well, the thing is, is like it's not like you can't look up a thousand different debates that I've done easily, right?
And know that you're coming into a debate with somebody who definitely is going to press your worldview.
I haven't even been mean.
Like, it's just like, how, how is it that these women are such girl bosses, but at the same time, they're so fragile.
They just break, you know?
It's like you barely even touch the server.
They just break.
They just crumble.
It's ridiculous.
Yeah.
You know what?
One sec.
I want to put it on.
I need to put it on intro for just a sec, guys.
No, it's okay.
I'll do it.
Sorry about that, guys, folks.
We're back.
Just needed a little private word there with Andrew.
Let's see.
I was officially chastised for the idea.
Only for the idea that I wasn't reading enough of these super chats because you guys aren't sending enough of them in.
So do that immediately.
We're on what we call on the crucible an obscene profit break.
And with obscene, orthodox-looking beard comes obscene profit break.
And don't tell me you haven't been entertained.
Yes, guys.
Are you not entertained?
Yeah, the viewership has been gangbusters.
It's 13,500 and concurrent just on my channel.
On, I don't know what you, I think you have maybe three, four thousand on yours.
And then on Twitch, on our end, we have, speaking of Twitch, we have how many on Twitch.
Over a thousand watching on Twitch.
So by the way, real quick message here.
If you guys can go to twitch.tv/slash whatever, drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one.
Brian, do you mind real quick while we have such a large concurrent viewership?
If I do just a couple of shout outs, I would really appreciate it.
I'd like to shout out some whatever guests who've come on recently.
Jay Dyer would be one.
Made by Jim Bob would be another.
Of course, Jake Rattlesnake.
I highly suggest all of you guys check their channels out.
They are fantastic.
I'm doing a little bit of shilling and making Brian a bit uncomfortable, and I'm fine doing that.
Yeah, we've had them on recently.
Yeah, great.
Good shows.
All right, guys.
If you have been enjoying the stream, like the video, please.
Also, you can always support us.
Then they'll cash up whatever pod.
They don't take a cut.
Just Ashley, thank you for the five.
And I think that's it for the shout-outs.
Thank you for the five on Cash App.
$100 TTS streamlabs.com slash whatever.
We do have a chat coming through here from, let's see, this one, yeah.
Zerkas donated $100.
Hi, Kylie.
Are you a communist or anti-capitalist?
Can women be sexist towards men?
Can minorities be racist towards white people?
Is misogyny worse than misandry?
There's like four there.
Why don't we start with the first one?
How do you, what's categorize yourself, I guess?
I'm reluctant to use any like label in terms of this, but I think that there are like definitely cons to capitalism, but there are a lot of pros, like, you know, like ingenuity and like invention and creativity.
So yeah, but I think that there's always room for improvement in a system.
But no, I would never describe myself as like a communist or anything like that.
Okay.
And then there was the, can women be sexist towards men?
Yeah, good question.
I think that women can definitely like have like not like men and have like a lot of like maybe prejudice towards men.
But I think like just the term sexism generally refers to like a systemic issue.
So like, you know, how for decades and decades, like women couldn't, you know, work in certain fields or they couldn't get a job.
Women couldn't open a bank account until 1974.
That's like sexism because it's a systemic issue.
So that's the way that I think of it.
Obviously, I'm sure he has different opinions on that.
But yeah.
Men, but you're not here to elevate women over men, even though.
No, I would like for women to like be sexist, though.
Only men, because it's systemic.
There was one more, right?
Yes, but it seems like if he wants to engage you on that, but here, yeah, we'll go.
How about we'll go through all of that?
I feel like we might go for a while on that one.
Yeah, so we'll, we'll, we'll get back to it.
But can minorities, I guess like black, Latino, whatever, can minorities be racist towards white people?
Um, there's there, yeah, like there's definitely a level of like maybe strong dislike or like maybe like prejudice towards white people, but I would say the same thing about like serious, like like racism is like systemic.
Like there were laws to uphold it, like, you know, Jim Crow laws and a bunch of other laws to uphold, you know, even like the institution of slavery, which is really, you know, for like hundreds of years.
And so because of that, the racism that is embedded into like our laws, whether on purpose or not on purpose in the United States is systemic.
And so that makes racism primarily that way.
And yeah, so I don't think minorities can be racist to white people.
I think it's prejudice, though.
I think the terms are different.
It's like, you know, you know what I mean?
Like the hatred or the fear exists about certain groups, but the term is the way I explained it.
Okay.
And then the final one was just, is misogyny worse than misandry?
Yeah, I would say so.
And the reason why is because misogyny is built into laws and policies as well versus misandry is just like a lot of the time is rooted in genuine fear.
It doesn't make it, you know, okay, but I think like it's better to see people as they are.
But I think misogyny is again more of like a deeply systemic issue and a lot of violence, gender-based violence is rooted in misogyny, which cannot necessarily be said for the other way around.
Obviously, there's always exceptions to everything.
And then so, Andrew, there was the, can women be sexist towards men?
Can minorities be racist to men?
So I reject.
Yeah, so I categorically reject these definitions.
These are what are called institutional definitions.
What they are is their definitions in order to reinforce a worldview rather than actually give descriptions for what is reality.
So if we're talking about race, for instance, right, and racism, if you're talking about what are perceived racial groups, why couldn't minorities be racist towards the majority?
Well, what academics do is they play this pretentious game where they're like, well, you have to have institutional power.
Well, that's also.
Hold on.
Can you just, I hate to interrupt you, Andrew.
Can you just repeat what you just said to me privately there?
Yes.
I will be needing to leave at 6 p.m.
So for anyone who is leaving or who was watching and not 6.30, because I have a lot of reasons.
And one is that I have to drive two hours tonight in the dark.
So I would like to leave at 6 p.m.
And I'm making that known.
And I hope that our agreement can be fulfilled.
But can you specify, I mean, you agreed to do.
6.30.
6.30.
That was the agreed upon.
Right.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't, again, asking me to continue to explain myself is a little bit tiring, but I just, there's a lot of reasons.
I mean, I have some health issues.
I just sitting here for this prolonged period.
I was not told, by the way, that this was going to be three hours.
I thought it was going to be an hour max.
So I agreed.
We didn't specify that it was going to be an hour max.
So why would you assume?
I actually, it was very poor communication on your end.
But anyways, I'm telling you that I will be leaving.
I was going to ask communication on your end.
You're going to a show and didn't bother asking how long it was going to be?
No, I did when I got here, but I will be leaving.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
When you got here?
I'm leaving at six.
Okay, so we can have as much of a debate as we want.
Okay, yeah, we understand that.
And if that's not satisfactory, I would like, I will leave now.
Like, I'm just letting you know, like, this is not an environment for me that I am.
I'm like, John, you whine so much.
You're such a whiner.
You just whine and crazy.
Yeah, I'm just letting you know.
I don't know.
But what was the, okay, what was the other thing you said?
He can't do a debate.
He's going to ask me questions about my deal with him prepared for.
I'm just here to teach and monologue.
And I don't know why.
I don't want to sound fucking ridiculous.
If the con, like, we I signed something about coming up.
She agreed to 6:30 right in front of me.
And now she's retracting it.
It's like, what is going on?
I don't know.
And mind you, Andrew has just already done two debates.
He did one on Friday and flew in also for my opponent.
Very kind of me.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Those debates.
I also don't live here.
I flew in.
I'm in Chicago.
So.
Right.
Those debates.
Wait, I'm a little confused.
You flew in.
I flew in.
My family that lives an hour away.
So I spent a little bit of time with them this morning, and then I'm going to see them again before I fly out tomorrow.
Well, okay, we'll discuss that after the show.
But if you looked at our channels and the length of our previous debates, the past two debates that we had were five hours.
Yeah.
I mean, again, I have a difference.
I have health problems.
Yeah, but why would you have to do that?
I mean, are you serious?
Like, are you fucking serious?
You're fucking serious.
Why would you have different assumptions?
But why?
How would we know that?
I'm telling you now.
Of course, but don't you think that if you saw the last two episodes, they went five hours?
Why would you presume that yours was going to go less and that we would know you had health issues?
Because I'm telling you, I have when you get to the show.
Oh, my God.
Wow.
This is an initial, this is a disclosure now.
But look, so we're going to continue the conversation, but there was one other thing you said to me there in private.
She's like, you're fundamentally a dishonest person.
Like, fundamentally dishonest.
There's no reason for you to hold that presumption at all.
On top of there being no reason for you to hold that presumption whatsoever.
You get to the studio, then say you have health issues.
It's like, yeah, you know, it seems fundamentally dishonest.
Right.
I mean, that's just kind of something that you don't want to disclose because it's a little embarrassing.
But we're not asking you quiet.
Look, strong woman.
I'm not asking you.
I thought you were a strong woman.
I hope you guys have a really good day.
I'm leaving.
Hold on.
You got a question.
Hold on.
Hold on.
We're not.
Look.
I thought you were a strong woman.
Kylie, do you want to just take like three minutes to gather?
I'm leaving.
Like, I'm driving home.
I mean, you look, you agreed to.
I agree to here, not stay during the entire.
Yeah, but that you can't do some technicality where, well, I showed up for two minutes and I'm just going to leave and get the benefits of.
Look, Kylie, just take a five-minute breather.
It's you still there, Kylie?
Yeah, I'm here.
Look, do you want to take a five-minute breather?
Come back, and we'll talk more.
Okay.
All right.
Here, I'll do some chats.
I'll read some chats.
Let's see here.
We have, oh boy, there's a lot.
And I think we were about to get into a really good segment there when it came to is misogyny worse than misandry?
Can you be sexist towards men?
Or can women be sexist towards men?
So let's do this.
Here, we got wait, Kylie.
I'm seeing already.
Okay, okay, that's fine.
All right.
I just, all right.
So we have Red Fox here.
Red Fox donated $100.
Brian, great job, Bazimod.
Andrew, I am sorry you have been putting in so much work, and this is the quality of your opponent.
Yes.
Glad your family is safe.
Not one step back.
Look, bring on the blood sport.
And for those of you, I know there's probably a few of you in chat who are like, how did he do that?
Well, here's the thing, right?
It's like, I've been engaging in good faith, engaging in a typical debate.
They're going to, they're, you know what I mean?
And the whole time it's been all about tone and Andrew's bad and this and this.
Like, you know, and then we get to it.
She lied through tea.
She agreed to 6:30 before the cameras rolled.
I'm telling you, she not only agreed to it, but basically, I mean, they discussed it and she was like, yeah, 6:30.
Then she changes her mind, right?
And then kind of was very dishonest about the reasoning behind it.
And you know, there's a form of female manipulation which happens when they're like, I don't want to disclose any health issues because it could be embarrassing.
It's like, well, then why did you agree to the show?
We didn't ask about the yeah, no, but of course not.
It's all fundamentally dishonest.
And so it's like, you know, what am I supposed to do?
Am I supposed to look at her when they turn on the water works when you know it's clearly manipulation and be like, oh, okay, then, yeah, fuck that.
Fuck that.
I've had two really good faith interlocutors we've gone back and forth with.
I don't hold any ill will towards them, but it's like, you came to do the debate.
I flew out here to do the debate.
Do the fucking debate.
Stop, you know what I mean?
Dude, just do the debate.
Yeah, yeah.
And I think we've been probably very, I don't know if charitable is the right word, but almost bent over backwards.
Yeah, like, you know, super annoying.
Really at the beginning, she was trying to dictate terms.
And look, to the audience, I know you guys didn't like that I was trying to kind of placate things a little bit, but in, you know, like I was telling Andrew, just in furtherance of ensuring that the debate actually happens, if you got to, you know, walk back an inch, you know, to be able to make it further, then so be it.
But we let me do these soup chats while they come through.
Yo, Gerald, appreciate it.
Coastal operator, thank you for the membership.
Okay, JJ Madd, thank you for that message.
Let's see here.
We have I'm honestly kind of lost on some of the chats here.
Okay.
All good?
Yeah.
I'm good.
All right.
Whoops, didn't mean to do that.
So, okay, here's where we left off, right?
Right.
Xerxes was: can women be sexist towards men?
Can minorities be racist towards white people?
Is misogyny worse than misandry?
Excuse me.
Andrew, it seemed like you wanted to.
Yeah, so it's just, it's just academic double speak.
It's just a way for them to hold dualistic standards.
So what they mean by racism is exactly what they mean by racism across the board.
It's just that in order to make whatever they consider the oppressive class not be oppressed, they call it something else by saying there's not enough institutional power.
But if you were to ask them something like, well, what about over in South Africa, right?
They would still say that, nope, whites really have the institutional power there, no matter what, no matter what.
So it's like, it's never, and I've been in these debates multiple times, it's never a consistent definition.
It's an academic double speak.
When it comes to misogyny, worse than misandry.
Yeah, right.
The only reason that she says that is because she believes in a bunch of stats, which are completely false.
They're totally false.
We've been over them multiple times.
Women do just as much damage with their misandry as whatever she considers misogyny to be.
And the truth is, it's all just demonization.
Yeah, I don't know why she's crying.
I don't know.
I have no idea.
I'm not crying right now, but yeah.
Okay.
This seems very manipulative, by the way.
I'm just pointing that out.
Yeah, you're entitled to your beliefs.
Would you like to engage with the misogyny being worse than misandry?
Sure.
Topic.
Yeah, I mean, I'll just read out the statistics that I have here about violence against women.
And that's basically what my, you know, my belief that misogyny is worse.
Misogyny kills and misandry annoys is sort of a phrase that people say.
I think both definitely aren't healthy, but one in three women experience violence in the home or just generally in their lifetime.
World Health Organization, 50% of women are murdered in 2017, were killed by an intimate partner, United Nations.
A lot of child brides with victims being women married to older men, as well as 71% of human trafficking victims being women, you often use for sexual exploitation purposes.
And that a lot of that is rooted in the belief that women are property and objects that men can do what they want with.
And yeah, so that's why I believe that misogyny is worse.
I think, again, though, I will concede, I think both can be harmful.
And can I just point out real quick that sexual liberation is a key cornerstone of feminism, including OnlyFans, things like this.
And that's been linked heavily to sexual trafficking.
And still, the left does everything they can to promote that women should be able to engage in prostitution, even though it leads to those very same outcomes, which is insane.
On top of that, she says misogyny kills misandry and noise.
That's not true.
We look at post-divorce stats for suicidality, for instance.
Same thing.
Even pre, when it comes to men's health, they do unalive themselves at higher rates, right?
Now, I would still argue that that's mostly because they're better at it, but also because, and what I mean by that is that like women will basically not use, they just won't use guns, right?
And men use guns.
But yeah, I would say also, when we're talking about misogyny versus misandry, what's really interesting about this is they'll often only point to the stat of death as though that is the only stat which is worth looking at.
You look at what's going on in society, we also have to look at children, the effects and outcomes of children.
The demonization of men through misandry often will lead to men or boys, young girls, things like that, losing respect for men.
It also leads to men losing custody of their children, which leads to bad outcomes for children.
Like, just be even if it were the case that I accepted all of her stats, by the way, that also proves that feminism is not doing a good job protecting women.
It literally failed its promise of protecting women.
But on top of that, can we just point out that she doesn't bring up the outcomes for children ever?
They never bring up the outcomes for children, which are completely and totally awful when we have these split family homes and the glorification of single motherhood, which feminism has done.
They only point to the fact that, well, misogyny can lead to the unalivement.
Also, can I just point out, what about the fact that there's about, you know, a million women plus a year who murder men's children in the womb?
I just want to point that out while she says, well, this is basically misandry's just harmful, harmless annoyance.
At the same time, remember, having a million abortions a year.
May I just ask, were you?
I'm trying to get away from you.
Were you listening?
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
All right.
I was listening.
Okay.
Do you want to dispute or counter?
I think that like being pro-choice, like the way that it's defined about taking life is always going to be open to interpretation.
I think people will think different things about when life begins.
And so ultimately the crux of that, it seems like you believe in God.
Do you?
Yeah.
So I think that because of that, we will never see eye to eye because I don't consider it to be murder before a certain point.
Like obviously, like if the fetus is viable, if, you know, like there are certain points where it's not.
I only ever use secular arguments.
So even if it is the case, I believe in God.
Yeah, I've only ever used secular arguments.
So what would your argument be?
That the case for sentience makes no sense.
And that scientifically, the established scientific consensus, the legitimate scientific consensus, non-sociological consensus, is that this is a human life ad conception immediately.
That is the scientific consensus.
You can look at any source you want.
That's a scientific consensus.
So if that's the case, right, then we should treat it as though it's a human life.
Sure.
Yeah.
And again, I think that's going to vary from person to person.
I think that there's a lot of people in the scientific community.
And again, the scientific consensus does vary on when life begins.
It does not.
Because the religious idea is the consensus does not vary.
There's no source you could ever look to, and I'm willing to be corrected right now live.
There is no source I've ever been able to find which refutes that the scientific consensus is that human life begins at conception.
Oh, thank you.
There would be no other way to determine human life other than that it began at conception.
You wouldn't even be able to determine it another way.
But you can go ahead.
What does scientific consensus say?
When does human life begin?
Sure.
I'll wait.
So it's saying that there are three different perspectives, the scientific, philosophical, and religious.
Scientific, most biologists agree that a new unique human organization comes into existence at fertilization.
So human life at conception.
At conception, right?
But they're saying that a new human organism, but there's people that have different agreements.
That doesn't necessarily necessitate that.
That doesn't mean life.
Well, what is life?
It's alive?
I mean, that's what I'm saying: it's different for everyone.
They're saying that the human organism forms at conception, but that doesn't mean it's life.
Well, what is an organism?
Is it alive?
I mean, like, they're talking about human life.
Yeah.
Okay, but what, yeah, what is life?
An organism would be alive, right?
I mean, but again, there's a difference between human life and an organism, don't you agree?
Isn't it human?
Well, if an organism is alive and it's a human organism, then it's human life, right?
How could it not be?
I mean, yeah, you can believe what you want.
I think just different people are always going to have different opinions on it.
I was just pointing out the scientific consensus.
Yeah.
And I was correct, right?
Scientific consensus by most biologists, which would be consensus.
Yes.
Say that a human life begins at conception, right?
Sure.
So then what we're left with from the secular perspective is sentience, and that really makes no sense.
That's it.
So I would always use the secular argument.
The secularists can't determine when sentience begins, since he can't determine when sentience begins.
There's no reason for us to assume it doesn't begin at conception of life.
Okay.
Yeah, I mean, there's different arguments for it.
Like, so I understand your argument's more biological.
That makes sense.
I understand your argument.
I mean, there's different reasons people argue for being pro-choice and pro-life.
So pro-life, pro-choice.
But, you know, there's different ways of looking at it.
And I don't think we'll ever agree.
So I don't know.
But yeah, but good.
I enjoy hearing about your arguments and what you have to say.
So I've never been, you know, yeah, I never heard that specific point.
So.
Kylie, you mentioned that there were some topics you would have, other topics you would have liked to speak on.
Is there, from your prompts, would you like to bring any of those up?
Yeah.
I just, would you, so do you really believe that out of the four components of the four principles of general feminism, which is working to increase gender equality, that's number one, and expanding human choice, number two.
How do you suppose that those two things could be problematic?
Yeah, let's start with expanding human choice, actually.
Okay.
That's one of my favorite ones.
So you're not really for expanding human choice, right?
Like just only kind of.
Like you don't want me to have a choice to be able to drink and drive, right?
Sure.
Yeah, you don't want me to have a choice to stop at a stop sign.
Like sure, yeah.
Yeah, like short of some like externalized emergency.
So what choices do you want me to be able to have?
Let's start with those.
Sure.
Anything related to agency, like within reason, without harming others.
Yeah, but I mean me drinking and driving doesn't harm others.
Opportunity.
Right.
Does me drinking and driving actually harm others?
It can.
But everything I do can harm others.
Right.
So that's a strange argument because when you're talking about freedom of choice and you say, well, we can limit this choice because it can do harm.
That would be everything.
So let me clarify that.
Okay.
Expanding human choice such that it promotes autonomy and agency without infringing upon the rights of others or the safety of others.
Yeah.
Now you see why I was so specific about rights because it's definitionally part of what you believe, right?
Being specific is important.
So yes, being specific is super important.
I was very specific about rights.
That's why I wanted to know where they came from.
Right.
Because I looked at your definition, which I wrote down earlier, which was the four parts.
And I'll read it to you, the four parts if you don't believe that I wrote it down.
No, I believe you.
I believe you.
You've definitely been paying attention.
But you kept on saying, like, I don't think that this is pertinent when we're talking about force doctrine and rights.
But the entirety of your second pillar of feminism revolves around choice and rights.
So everybody should have a choice unless it expands to infringe on someone else's rights, right?
Like a living person, yeah.
Yeah, like a living person.
Okay, we'll just, we're going to leave abortion and all that aside.
We'll just talk about, we'll just say like, you're alive.
At least we'll agree you're alive when you come out of the womb.
Sure.
Right.
We can agree to that.
So, but here's the problem, right?
It's like, let's take something easy, like guns, for instance, right?
Should I be able to own an AR-15?
Depends on who you ask and which specifics.
I'm asking you.
Do I think you need an AR-15?
That's not what I asked.
Should I be able to own one?
Should you be able to own an AR-15 that has, because there are specific types, right?
There's like ways you can prevent the AR-15 from firing around the map.
No, I mean a fully automatic machine gun.
Okay.
Why are you taking away my choice?
Because that would be an example of the specification that I made about how it infringes upon the safety of others.
Okay, what about a semi-automatic?
That's a good question.
I don't really know why anything even that large and semi-automatic would be useful, but I don't know a lot about AR-15s.
I understand.
I'm not trying to hold any potential ignorance you have about the operation of guns against your argument.
Sure.
I can say tractors do a lot of damage and not know anything about tractors, but still know they do damage, right?
So I think that that's a legitimate argument for you to say.
I mean, I know, yes, but yes.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, what is the chambered in this?
I mean, my dad is like, has a lot, he has like a gun save, and I grew up with him like shooting and stuff.
Do you know what caliber an AR-15 shoots?
No, I don't.
Okay.
So I mean, again, I'm not familiar with AR-15s, really, but.
Yeah, yeah.
So we would say like functionally, you don't know too much about the product we're talking about.
Sure.
I'm fine with that.
I was just pointing that out to be hyper-charitable.
But how is that, considering the fact that I will never and almost nobody who ever owns an AR-15 will use one in a violent act, why is it worth limiting our choice?
Is that true?
Oh, yeah.
Do you know, for instance, almost all gun crime is committed with handguns, and almost all of it is committed by one segment of the population with handguns.
When it comes to long guns, that would be the black population mostly.
With handguns?
With handguns.
And then with shotguns, is that what you're saying?
No, no, no.
With rifles or shotguns, you're more likely to be beaten to death with hands and feet than a rifle or a shotgun, including an AR-15.
That's if we took all of the mass things, I can't say what they are, but the mass things that you know happen.
If we took even all of those into account, you're still more likely to get beaten to death with hands and feet.
Interesting.
Than you are to.
So, but how does that expand my choice then, though?
That this is an operational thing that I want, and somebody definitely wants to sell it to me, and I want to buy it.
Why are you limiting my choice?
Yeah, I mean, I think that's a good question.
I feel like it's very philosophical at that point.
I do think like the stigma around owning guns, like I'm definitely for stronger, I just don't understand why anyone would need to own like a fully, like just the fact that if anyone got their hands on it, it just is scary.
I don't know why anyone would need to be able to shoot that many rounds that quickly.
Well, you believe in rights, right?
Yes, the right to own guns, I do believe, is important.
Yeah, so that would be a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state.
The right of the people to keep in mararm shall not be infringed.
Right.
That's our second amendment.
Yeah.
No, I mean.
And that is a right.
Sure.
And wouldn't it be infringing?
I'm not trying to take it away.
Like, yeah.
Well, you're trying to limit my choice with that right.
And you haven't explained how exactly it infringes on anybody that I own an AR-15.
I mean, there have been.
Yeah, I mean, I think the most notable example wasn't it.
I mean, I'll have to specifically check, but the one in.
I can grant any like mass homicide event that may have happened with an AR-15.
Sure.
What does that have to do with me?
Right.
I think the point being, I think, is to determine if something infringes upon the rights of others or the safety of others should be something that is up for debate.
And so I'm not here to tell you what does or doesn't, what is or isn't.
Like, I'm not a governing agency.
You should probably ask somebody who knows more about it.
But it's the second pillar, the second pillar of your ideology.
Right.
I'm talking about human agency in terms of like, not like the right.
Like, I'm specifically talking about the ability for someone to get the job they want.
Like, you immediately brought it back to guns.
I'm talking about the ability to have the equal opportunities to have someone take care of your children while you go to work and stuff so that you can advance your career.
I think that's fair.
I think that's a fair point to make.
So if a woman wants to get a job at a firm where a man controls the firm, doesn't want to hire her because she's a woman, you would say that that's infringing on her choice.
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
I think that that's completely fair.
If it is the case, though, that's- I feel like I don't know enough about guns to be able to accurately come up with something.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, yeah.
Well, we could use anything that you could ever know about gun-wise and just use that instead of an AR.
But the point is, is that if I wanted to have a firearm of my choice, and it wouldn't actually hurt anybody, the expansive of choice seems like you're saying that that business owner doesn't have choice because she has the right, right?
However, if it harms him and his business, it's the same argument you're making for the AR-15.
You're saying because other people may do bad thing with this, right?
May just be, may do, you know, like horrible things, some people may.
The vast majority of people do not, right?
We need to govern their choice in order to have safety for society or safety for individuals.
Right.
How is it, though, that if you tell people who they have to hire, you're not also limiting choice?
How's that work?
It's not saying who you have to hire.
It's saying who you cannot discriminate against, like, you know, the 1970s.
That's 64 Civil Rights Act.
I think that racism is designed to combat, or that legislation is designed to combat racism and sexism.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Versus like, so the protection is more for the person.
Like there's more protecting being done for the person who is being hired than there is harm being done to the business by being told they can't be racist.
So that's how it outweighs it.
Can we demonstrate it?
Sure.
So if I'm a woman and I'm equally qualified as a man and I go in to get a job and I, you know, they're telling me that I can't be hired because I'm a woman, then that causes immense psychological and financial harm, right?
For the company to have to hire me instead of the man, even though I'm equally qualified, that does not actually harm them in any way because I have the same qualifications and abilities as the man does.
Okay, so I want to go buy a fully.
Does that even harm the company?
I don't know.
Well, I think it does.
Well, because it limits the choices and demoralizes the agencies at the top who may not want to hire you for whatever arbitrary reasons.
But like let's say specifically it's like they don't think women are good and like at the job.
Sure.
Let's just say that that's true.
You think that should be protected?
Well, I mean, from their view, it's going to hurt them, right?
Like there's no doubt that that's going to hurt them.
You may not agree with the reasoning why it hurts them, but you can't hurt them.
Subjectivity versus like you're saying for the subjective.
Well, it's all subjective there.
No, but the subjective, no, I mean, not necessarily.
Like the objective, there is an objective truth that discrimination is harmful.
Wait a second.
You don't agree?
Wait a second.
Hang on a second.
Then that would also be an objective truth then, that if people are forced to do things they don't want to do, like hire people they don't want to hire, then I would make the same argument that you think that's as bad as racism.
Do you say as bad or objectively harmful?
Okay, so let's.
So when I say like, I want to go buy an AR-15 and you say, no, you can't, right?
That's doing the exact same thing.
I don't understand.
Like, what's the distinction here?
It sounds like you're telling me what I have to do.
Yeah, I mean, I think some people see it that way.
I do have an interest in public safety, though.
So I think that sometimes, you know, certain actions, if they're racist, sexist, harmful, cause a lot of psychological or financial or other physical harm.
I don't think that those should be protected over the beliefs of the inferiority of the person.
Are you aware based off of a characteristic they can't control?
Yeah, are you aware of how many DEI laws there are?
I mean, I know there's a rollback now that Trump is in office, but Shark, go ahead and explain.
Yeah, I mean, when it comes to hiring practices or non-discriminatory practices, right?
There's hundreds and hundreds of laws of both the local, state, municipal, and at the federal level, right?
Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds which govern this behavior.
You're telling me that none of those, which all of them are designed to expand choice, are infringements upon the hiring practices people want to hire who they want.
Like if I wanted to have a male-only firm because I just wanted one, why is that actually a problem?
Right.
I mean, I guess to your point, there are like women-only gyms, you know?
Yeah, if I want a male-only firm and literally in public about it, I'm like, I just don't want to hire women because I don't really like them that much.
If I just said that, like outright, I just don't really like them that much and I just don't want to work with them.
And it's my company.
I fucking own it.
I built it.
I invented everything.
What is actually the problem with that?
Why can't I just do that?
Why do you want to infringe on my choices?
Like the 1964 Civil Rights Act is probably going to be a problem for you.
I don't know.
Well, let's, well, I mean, do you know what freedom of association is?
Freedom to associate with who you want.
Yeah.
Do you think that that's an inherent right?
I think for corporations, corporations aren't people.
Corporations are people.
What else would they be?
They shouldn't be people.
I think that's where we disagree because in some cases, the Supreme Court has upheld that the corporations have the same rights of people.
So if you own a company and you're religious, then you don't have to pay for reproductive services or birth control.
Or what else would you couldn't classify them as anything but people?
People are the things which run corporations.
Corporations are people.
I disagree.
I think that corporations are entities.
They are run by people, but I think that they should be held to different standards.
Is there any conscious entity that you can think of that talks and can speak like you and me and make decisions like you and me that's not people?
Yeah, sure.
No.
No.
So, I mean, if that's the case, they're making the same types of decisions that you and I are making.
Why wouldn't they be assumed to be people?
They have different sort of way, like standards of operation.
They have laws they have to follow that are different from people.
Like in terms of the government's eyes, I believe it should be considered not a person.
I think it's fundamentally the way that it operates is different.
I mean, it's not one.
It's like a conglomerate of things and people who work in a company.
So, like, so I don't have a corporation, let's say then, and I have a private business practice where I'm a landscaper.
And I just, there's a woman who comes in, she's definitely qualified for the job.
And there's a man who comes in who's slightly less qualified for the job.
But I just kind of want to hire him anyway because I just don't really like women.
Why is that not something I should have the freedom to choose for myself?
Why?
I mean, I just think we're operating at a different moral capacity.
I mean, a lot of my things that I say are rooted in morals, and you're making yours vote like in sort of like laws.
I'm asking you for the moral argument.
I'm telling you that I believe it's wrong to make someone feel ashamed and not hire somebody and give them different outcome based off of their race or sex.
But you don't believe it's wrong to tell people that they must do a thing they don't want to do.
Not at all.
No, I don't.
Because I, because then it's not about choice, then, is it?
I suppose if you want to make the argument you're making, then no.
Then it's not really about choice.
Okay, so the second pillar of feminism is debunked it so fast, just like that.
It's pretty false.
Yeah, it's pretty false.
You just said it's not really about choice.
It's really about an agenda, right?
What was the third pillar of feminism?
Well, I think we're getting close to the end.
Is this what we want to talk about for the last few minutes?
Well, we have another 30 minutes.
Sure.
It's 5.59 right now.
All right.
Well, I might just have to take another break because I'm not feeling so hot.
Is that all right?
But I'll tell you what I would like to talk about next, though.
One thing here.
I think it would be fair.
I just told you I have medical issues, though.
Like, I genuinely need to take a break.
Hold on.
I'm fine with you taking the breaks.
Okay.
But given the frequency and the duration of said breaks, I think it's reasonable to ask for an additional 10, 15 minutes to make up for the breaks that have occurred thus far.
Sure.
I will give you 10 minutes more.
We can go till 6:40.
But other than that, I truly cannot stay longer.
Like, I have problems.
Yeah, no, look, do you want to go ahead and take the break and we'll let some chats come through?
All right.
We're going to, here's what we're going to do, guys.
Since we are getting close to the end of the show, make sure you get your messages in now.
There's quite a few.
Andrew, if you can just stay for just a sec.
There's quite a few.
We'll try to get them all in.
We'll do a bit more.
So streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
$99 TTS.
Also, like the video if you're enjoying the stream.
I need to do a quick sidebar with Andrew here really quick.
I'm going to put it on intro screen.
Give me 10, 15 seconds.
We'll be right back.
All right.
Sorry.
Sorry about that, guys.
We are back, though.
I'm going to read a couple chats here.
Riptor, the problem with feminism is that men overwhelmingly allow women to redefine what masculinity should be, while women often concede no such ground to men who have a preference for how women should behave.
How is this equality?
Since she's gone, Andrew, do you want to quickly like that?
Yeah, very quickly.
This is why I always tie them to virtues.
And thus far, nobody has argued this definition.
It's a big defeater for feminist ideology as well.
All right, Riptor, thank you for that.
We have Lucas.
Here it is.
Truth is, the little lady is weak and intellectually feeble and otherwise mired in eco chamber with her views never challenged.
Just a hunch here, love, but an oral argument in front of SCODIS is probably not on the cards for you.
Now bring out the therapy dog.
Okay.
You know, Lucas, you maybe wanted that directed at her, but she did have to step away for a moment.
But the audience did get to see it.
And we do have a bit of a time limit here.
So I'm going to see if there's any Streamlabs messages that we can let come through.
Get the super being in the super chats.
Let's see here.
One sec, guys.
There's a lot.
So I'll try to get through to all of them.
One sec.
Ah, shoot.
We have USMC.
Use McCrutton $100.
Big fan of Andrew, even though I'm older than him.
Member at Crucible.
This lady hasn't had an argument since you hacked her phone reception.
Lolly Lola Lol.
Yeah, we, you know, we've got Faraday cage in the studio, so they can't.
It allows our signal to get out, but all right.
Thank you for that.
Christopher Murphy, thank you.
Or Christopher Murphy is about to come through.
USMC, thank you.
Christopher Murphy donated $100.
I'm a proud Crucible member.
Thank you.
You and Rachel are finally getting the recognition you two deserve.
Keep it up.
Brian, don't apologize for being a good host.
You're the man.
I appreciate it, Christopher.
Thank you.
I'm trying to be as fair as I can.
All right, here, I'll let the.
I've actually had someone offer to pay me because I'm assuming if I leave early, you won't pay me.
So, but I've had someone in my comments offer to pay me the amount that I was paid to be here.
So I'm going to go because I, again, I have medical problems.
I'm not feeling good.
What if somebody in our chat offers to pay you more?
Do you think they would?
Yeah.
Well, they would pay me and then.
Yes, if someone offered, I would stay and I would cry on camera.
But I don't know if they would.
This is why we have the wage gap.
This is literally why we have the wage gap, ladies and gentlemen.
But I highly doubt that someone will offer that.
I wonder, so they're offering you 50.
So if you stay for another two hours, what would that cost?
Oh, my God.
Like 500 bucks?
No.
My God, more.
On top.
Like, probably double.
Double original.
Okay, double the original.
So I think we would need in order, would you actually, if it was doubled, would you?
If it was actually doubled, I would stay.
Because again, I am like, I do have a problem.
Like, so I could probably stay a little longer.
Two hours.
I would just have to two hours beyond.
So we're talking 8:30.
Sure.
Then I would need like triple because I like Troy.
Triple.
You're a tough negotiator, Kylie.
You're a tough negotiator.
Again, I like this girl over here.
Tough negotiator.
I genuinely do flitches, though.
Like, I'm not.
That's not a lie.
So I just don't like to talk about it.
But I like I have a hard time.
Yeah.
Like I could like give you a little bit of a bad thing.
What is the issue anyway?
I don't really like to talk about it, but I've had like concussions and stuff like that.
So concussions.
It's like a brain leak.
It's like TBI.
It's yeah, I mean track brain injury.
Yeah, it was a traumatic.
It was, it's like, I get like really bad headaches and like you want, we have like difficulty breathing.
Tylenol or ibuprofen, we could give you.
But I don't really want to go too much into it.
Okay.
But I have had someone offer me, but I just don't think this is a good environment.
So I think I will just take the offer that the person has given me of the original amount and I'm just going to head out, I think.
So yeah.
I just think my health is more important than whatever you've offered me, which is not much.
I mean, I don't think it's fair.
You know, we've been very generous here at the whatever podcast.
I don't know if that's a fair categorization.
So you said the double.
So if somebody does essentially somebody wants to send in like an Ethereum.
And again, like this isn't really my network.
So I don't think anyone's going to offer it.
So, but I guess, you know, nothing is impossible.
Are there any takers in the chat who want to see this?
Wait, let me ask the chat.
Why don't I pull the chat?
Chat, does anybody want another two, two hours on top of, so like 8:40 Pacific time?
Pacific.
Is it standard time or is it standard time or is it daylight?
All right, standard.
I know how we can raise the money.
So here on my notepad, right down here.
Okay.
I have, we're going to play hangman.
I'll play hangman chat.
Okay.
Yeah.
We're going to play chat hangman.
Okay.
Here's what we're going to do.
We're going to play chat hangman.
It's only four letters.
That's it.
You send in a hundred bucks.
It gives you the letter.
I'll put in the letter, but we got to do it quick.
Okay.
And then I'm going to rule them out.
We'll play chat hangman.
That's how we'll raise the shit.
Well, hey, look, hey, tell me, you got a better idea?
You got nothing.
All right, let's do chat hangman.
Let's let's do a crystal pop.
A crystal pop.
You got ogle.
You guys have been lovely, but I really, like, again, I need to leave.
Like, I'm not feeling good.
But do you?
I appreciate the debate.
It was so long fun.
Do you want to give a closing statement?
My closing statement is that I love to learn and to meet new people.
And I wasn't putting my medical issue aside for money.
I didn't know how long this was going to be.
That was my fault, I will admit.
But I appreciate learning new perspectives.
I was hoping this would be a more calm and demure experience because I've been trying to be more, you know, about facts and negotiating.
But I appreciate the time that I've had here.
And I'm, you know, looking forward to learning more about you both.
So.
Wait, what does that mean?
I just, I mean, like, like learning more about, like, I knew about your network before coming in.
I had seen some videos, but now I'm more interested in you guys.
Yeah.
So what about this?
We'll double.
We'll double, but we add two hours on top.
So that's.
It's like we'll double it.
I'm not going to ask the audience.
Right.
We'll double it.
Whatever podcast will double it.
Right.
You stay.
If I didn't have an actual issue, I would stay for the money.
Like, if that makes sense.
But I like have to go.
So I'm going to go.
Like, it's not like a money thing anymore.
I'm willing to stay for Andrew's closing statement and a few chats.
Yeah, I will stay for that.
But can we make it five minutes?
Okay, 10 minutes?
That's fair.
That seems fair.
I mean, I literally just.
Here, just, we got Leonidas.
Here, listen to Leonidas, and Andrew's going to give his closing statement.
Leonidas donated $100.
Highly curious.
Age of kids you teach.
Also, what is a woman?
Also, are women as a group oppressed in the U.S. If so, how are you oppressed?
If so, how?
And are men as a group oppressed?
And you said you're an educator.
Are you teaching?
Like, are you a tutoring?
I'm a private tutor, and I'm also a substitute teacher.
And I teach in, you know, three primary high schools in Chicago.
Yeah.
So you teach like elementary school kids?
No, high school.
Oh, high school.
Okay.
He asked, what is a woman?
Quick answer if you can.
I think a woman is someone who is, I mean, it depends.
Like biologically, female is different from being a woman, but someone who's a woman is someone who's characteristically a person who associates themselves with femininity.
And that is open to interpretation of who wants to identify as one.
If I may just ask one clarifying question, can a female become a male?
Or can a male become a female?
Like biologically speaking, I believe like, you know, the sexes of male and female, but I think if a person wants to be a woman or a man, absolutely.
And then are women as a group oppressed in the USA?
Your answer?
I think it's possible, but I really need to leave.
May I just at least, can you stay for Andrew's close?
No, I don't.
Look, we're not kidnapping you.
I'm just asking if you can at least stay.
You have to clarify you're not kidding.
But you said you could stay five minutes.
Come on.
I'm leaving.
I mean, what?
No, I'm going.
But I hope you guys have a good day.
Thank you for the experience.
Are you oppressed?
Do you want to just answer that?
you don't need to sit into the mic just yell it out maybe that's my closing statement But for a champagne pop, for a champagne pop, you guys were here for those.
For a champagne pop, I will send you the Andrew Wilson notepad with a special note right here for all my feminist little notes that I took, along with the complete and total dominant victory.
I win.
I fucking win.
Just saying.
It does say, I just want to point.
I win.
I think that was a pretty, I mean, that's a pretty decisive victory.
Pretty, pretty decisive.
I'd like to congratulate you on your victory as the moderator.
Pretty happy.
Pretty happy about it.
Not upset a bit.
The thing is, is like I why?
Why are they so fucking, you know, these are the fucking ass kick at you?
Oh, women can fucking be in the military and ninja up men.
They fucking get in a debate with them and suddenly they're fucking crying and shit.
You barely say anything.
Barely say anything.
Fucking tired of it, dude.
Tired of it.
Fucking She-Ra on the one hand, and then on the other hand, they're so sensitive they just break immediately because you're just talking about you're having a fucking debate.
What does she think a debate with?
You know what it is?
I know what it is.
They think a debate is they hit the mute button on TikTok and then just talk to you, talk at you.
That's what they think a fucking debate is.
And you were, there was like a, both of you were doing it.
They're a little like mocking each other.
Which is fair.
It's rhetoric.
Yeah, it's rhetoric.
You know, look, she had a bit of a tone.
The men.
The men do it.
The men do it.
We want equality.
Was there not a man yesterday who we were going back and forth, lots of mocking going on, shit like that?
Well, that guy on Thursday, too.
Yeah, but did it look like, did it look like anybody was going quiet?
Well, you know what's interesting, Andrew?
You've raised this point before is that, you know, you're treating them as equals because you, when you're debating a man, so you conduct yourself in the same way.
Exactly the same way.
And so you're giving her equality, basically.
You tend to word this a little better than I do.
I'm treating her exactly like I would treat a man, which is exactly what she demands I do.
Which is wild to me.
And, you know, we've had so many debates now.
Nobody can say any different.
Nobody could ever accuse Andrew Wilson of not being the same universally with men and women.
And the thing is, like, look at the reaction.
They pretend that they want, give me a fucking break.
They like a fucking cheap chair.
I barely even pushed on the worldview.
I barely even pushed on.
She had 10 topics.
I had one topic.
We get to my topic first.
The rest of it's going to be a critique back.
And what happens?
Folds right away.
Fucking ridiculous.
Andrew, let me ask you: can you ask the audience to like the video?
We need to like, we need likes on the video.
Ladies and gentlemen, especially those of you watching live from the Crucible, who right now are putting W's in the chat, and you better get the fuck over here on whatever and put W's in the chat here as well.
Please like the video and send in just hundreds and hundreds of dollars for the kindness of Brian.
He did, by the way, in his own dime, fly me out here.
He did take care of the hotel rooms.
We do want to, we do want to, we do want to play the kickback game.
Remember the Crucible's motto is always, we take care of the people who take care of us.
Thank you, Andrew.
Appreciate that.
And by the way, just, you know, I was getting a little heat in the chat at the beginning of the show when I was kind of trying to moderate, trying my best to.
It's an impossible.
It's an impossible position for Brian to be in.
For those of you who think, well, that's not really fair or Brian's being too nice or something like this.
Brian's job is to keep the debate on course.
It's a way harder job than you think when you have such ideological distinctions.
You're trying to keep the peace.
Cut him a little slack.
I've been in his chair hundreds of times.
Not that chair, but been in the moderator chair hundreds of times.
And I'm telling you, it's a harder job than you think.
Guys, if you want, get in some chats here.
$100 TTS if you want.
Maybe we'll, if you're fine with it, Andrew, we'll probably try to wrap this earlier than we have been usually.
Yeah.
But maybe we'll lower the TTS a little bit, let some audience questions come through.
Let them roll, ma'am.
Yeah.
And by the way, I win.
Oh, were you playing Hangman?
Or no, oh, you went.
Yeah, well, that was the four-letter.
That was the four-letter.
It was going to be I win.
I thought it was clever.
Here, I'm going to read.
Pretty good for a guy with an average IQ against a 150 IQ.
You know, it's funny, actually, Andrew, that woman on Twitter who was, who, she challenged you to do an IQ test.
An IQ test off.
Yeah.
And Brian contacted her.
It was Jiggly and said, okay, we'll do it.
He would get a person in here who was unbiased to give the IQ test.
And guess who didn't want to do one?
Yeah, she said, you know, I've been waiting on her to try to give me a date.
She's not going to do it.
She's not going to do an IQ test because she was a DEI hired.
We have Kakashi.
Thank you for the super chat.
Thanks to Andrew and Brian for pressing feminist women and men for their weak worldviews.
From the outside looking in, seems like what these debates are asking feminists to do is uphold worldviews to a standard.
Sometimes the answer is not, it depends.
It's relative.
Thank you, Kakashi, for that.
Lenny, thank you for the gifted membership.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Guys, if you want.
And thank you.
Let's get it in.
By the way, to once again, the whatever audience for being kind enough to host me.
It's always a pleasure to see you guys.
I know that there's a bit of cross-pollination where you guys come over and chat with me in the Discord from time to time.
I really do appreciate that.
All right.
Here's what we're going to do, guys.
We'll do like QA for a little bit.
We're going to lower it to a $69 TTS.
Give me a sec to get that going.
I'll let some chats come through here.
Maybe Andrew can answer some of them.
And I do apologize.
I know some of you guys directed these chats at her, but she left.
She raged with.
There's nothing I can do, but I'll let them come through.
Thank you, Jason.
Appreciate it.
Jason Castle donated $100 in a hostile environment.
What?
Are you implying that you feel threatened by Andrew and Brian because they are asking questions?
You really are, Boz.
You are trying to hurt their reputation.
Real buzz.
Well, and Brian did every, do you know why Brian tried to extend that?
He was trying to extend it so that she could meet her agreement so that he could pay her out.
That was the ultimate fucking kindness.
He was trying to extend it to make sure that she met her end of the obligation.
And she just refused.
She just adamantly refused.
In fact, told Brian, stuff what our end is in our deal.
Somebody else offered me a higher bid.
I bid you adieu.
And it's like, you think, well, Brian, why is Brian trying to keep her here?
Well, he's just trying to make sure that she upholds her end of the contract, right?
Yeah.
And not to mention also, you know, we've had a lot of scheduled things for Andrew so far, but we had this scheduled for him today.
He flew all the way from Michigan.
Yeah.
You know, the flight, the hotel, all that.
Not to mention his preparation for the debate, which Andrew does significant preparation for the shows and don't want wasted time and money for either of us.
So that's just, yeah.
Anyways, we have Michael G here.
I live for the rage quit.
Now we get quality bro time.
That's right.
Her asking the moderator if she could leave is proof her worldview shattered.
The patriarchy wins again.
I can tell you the exact moment it was.
One of you guys can clip it.
The exact moment was when I said, how is that not you appealing to the patriarchy?
And the thing that she said is she went through it and she was like, well, it is true that we have to appeal to the government, which is mostly run by Mitt.
And then went like this.
And that was it.
That's when it shattered.
Just so you guys know, you can look that up.
I took a little note in my notepad.
It was right then that it clicked.
I should actually, I've got Patrice there.
I should actually put a black crystal.
Black crystal, yes.
Yeah.
I'll just leave this one here.
All right, there.
Crystals.
The pink one seems a little gendered, Brian.
You know, that, yeah.
This seems a little bit gendered.
All right.
We have, thank you, Michael, for that.
Appreciate it.
Let me get, I need to get everything changed, but I'll try to get these coming through here.
One moment, guys.
And guys, if you're enjoying the stream, once again, like the video.
We have Christopher Murphy for the fund.
Christopher Murphy donated $100.
I tried.
I tried.
Well, it's going to go into the Brian backpocket fund, which he deserves.
He took, you know, he spent several.
For those of you who don't know, let me give you a little bit of backstory.
Brian's has spent several weeks, several weeks.
In fact, it was over a month, you know, pre-setting these up in order to meet with my schedule appropriately so that everybody can kind of converge at the same time for the purposes of getting these debates done, the panels done, this and that.
It's a lot of work.
You know what I mean?
It's a lot of work.
And you can imagine flying people from all over the country from different locations into one location, setting them up with hotels, airplane tickets, all of that.
It's a ton of work.
You know what I mean?
So credit where credit's due.
Thank you, man.
A month in advance, all of these were planned.
And so far, I got to say, they've gone pretty well.
Yeah, these have been some really good shows.
And yeah, there's a lot that goes into doing the guest booking.
And, you know, there's people who are in, they cancel, got to bring somebody else in.
And, well, especially the, and you've probably encountered this because you request to debate people.
It's difficult to get left-leaning, Democrat, feminist people to step outside their mute button.
Yeah, but it's difficult to get it's difficult to get opposition who will debate who will actually show up and debate.
And he's right about that.
Not only is he right about this, but let me give you an interesting example.
So you guys have been live with me many times during the TikTok invasions.
You might as well call them the mute Andrew invasions because the second I make a point, muted, and then over talking.
What happened here was immediately, I can tell you how this went.
It was this idea of social dominance.
So the idea started with like, you will not do this.
And the idea of me laughing and scoffing at the very idea that you're going to govern how I debate, that was it.
The second it was the realization is, well, I can't control the tone.
I can't mute.
I can't threaten.
I can't abuse.
That's when it was over.
Right.
And so then the worldview collapses shortly after there because you don't have any control anymore over what the opponent's asking or what the debate is over.
Where I take it or where you take it is no longer specifically up to you.
This whole thing, all of this, by the way, just so that you know, was about one thing.
It wasn't about no chick being fucking sick.
Don't be stupid.
It wasn't about no fucking health issues.
Don't be stupid.
It was about one thing, and that was, I want control and I don't have it.
And that's it.
And for any of you who wanted to know what feminist ideology is really like in front of a patriarch, you just saw it.
Well, in front, not a patriarch, but in front of the patriarchy, right?
In front of anybody who won't kowtow to a feminist.
That's actually what usually happens.
And then they go appeal to simps, and the simps need to come beat me up and do this to me.
You know what I mean?
That's how they actually run their ideology, their ideological worldviews, their NGOs, all their bulls.
That's how they run it.
All right, guys, we've gotten the TTS lowered $69 TTS.
On that point, though, Andrew, do you think some of that was performative manipulation?
Of course.
Of course.
But it starts with this idea.
The idea was like, you will do this.
And the second there's no kowtowing, and I say, no, I'm not going to do that.
I'm going to have a legitimate debate like I always do.
That's it.
Right?
What do you mean?
I can't threaten.
I can't coerce.
I can't browbeat.
I can't do this.
And then the second that, now, what happens when all of that fails?
What happened?
The water works, the final form of manipulation.
Oh, I can't coerce.
I can't threaten.
I can't do this.
This guy doesn't give a shit.
He doesn't care if I rage, quit, right?
He doesn't care.
He's here to have a debate.
Then came the manipulation.
That's the waterworks.
And I'll cry.
But what did she say?
I'll cry on camera for enough money.
Don't tell me it's not fucking manipulation.
I'll cry on camera for enough money.
Didn't she say that?
Yeah.
She said, I'll stay and cry on camera if it's for $1,000.
Oh, man.
That's what I'm saying.
It's unbelievable.
And like you guys, you guys, you know exactly what I'm telling you.
How many hundreds of these have you seen now with me and feminists?
It's always the same shit.
If they can't control or dominate, right?
They lose their fucking minds.
Kaibaka, again, I'm sorry.
I don't know why Streamlabs keeps doing this.
She looks like she gifted 20.
Yo, Kai Paka, I think if you have 20 gifted memberships over there on Twitch, we're going to let you bro.
That's so funny.
I'll pull it up in just a sec.
Let me get these Streamlabs, though.
We have Peacecraft here.
Hey, Peacecraft, thank you.
Peacecraft donated $100.
I strongly support the woman's right to pro-choice.
And you should pro-choose to get the flowers out of the debate chair after getting your bunnies paddled.
Refund the degree.
Almost for that, Mr. Peacecraft should be allowed back in the Discord mystery.
Just for that comment, you know, make it so.
No, I'm kidding.
I'm kidding.
I can see Peacecraft already seething.
I do love you, Peacecraft.
You know that.
We have Lucas here on Streamlabs.
Thank you, Lucas.
Lucas donated $100.
Appreciate it, man.
One slash hell no dot.
Screw the tone policing and her playing the crying woman card.
Toughen up buttercup.
There are a shit ton of female attorneys that are total beasts.
Do you think Camille Vasquez, Johnny Depp?
To which he continues.
And it's hard for me to argue with that because I've had feminists across from me who go right for the juggular and they're brutal debaters.
And I'm like, you know, fucking, yeah, here we go.
You know what I mean?
Let's fucking do this.
What a fucking disappointment.
What a fucking disappointment, right?
Right.
And you know what?
She could have just made arguments.
Yeah.
She could have just made arguments.
I would have loved that.
That would have been good, but half the time it was tone policing.
And yeah, so we have Lucas with his continued message here.
Thank you.
Lucas donated $100.
Two slash dot dot would have whimpered out like this manipulative snowflake.
You should be embarrassed.
The world has no obligation to coddle you and cater to your weak constitution.
Especially when you're saying that women are not in a position of privilege, but are instead the oppressed class and that they deserve the equality with men.
You can't even sit across with one and have a fucking debate.
You guys, you don't even have a perspective because it's on camera.
This table is really long across, right?
We're not that close to each other at all.
Like, there's no, there's just nothing.
You know what I mean?
Like, the whole thing is fucking cope.
That's why the waterworks happened.
You really believe?
Do any of you really believe that suddenly this chick forgot she had a medical condition that she didn't previously disclose?
Suddenly she's crying because of this medical condition.
And on top of that, didn't do any research on how long these debates go, even though Brian asked her, haven't you done research?
And she's like, yeah, the last two have been about five hours plus.
So she knew.
It's bullshit.
It's fucking bullshit.
Also, just I want to add one point of clarification.
I originally reached out back.
I reached out to her March 28th of this year.
So that's almost two months ago, asking if she would like to come do a debate on our podcast.
And let's see.
Yeah.
And I think we locked it in.
Well, how does that feel for an almost 100 IQ guy, if I'm lucky on a good day, against a 150 IQer, Brian?
All of those degrees and all that big IQ, you know, to some guy who fucking is drinking some mixed vodka and soda drink.
Very masculine drink you have there.
Yeah.
I feel purple.
That wasn't like a shot, was it, Brian?
That wasn't a shot at me.
No, not a shot.
Fucker.
Not a shot.
It is a masculine.
It's very masculine drink.
We got Shaw here coming in.
Hey, Chaw, thank you, man.
Shaw XD donated $69.
What are the odds she was soliciting excuses to leave each break she took?
Exactly.
Right.
There's no way he's not right.
I've been there.
Oh, well, a couple things.
Remember when her phone went off?
Yeah.
I could, I guarantee you, she probably didn't end up using the excuse, but it was like, oh, somebody's calling me.
You ever like, how do I get out of a situation?
Okay, call me in 10 minutes.
Tell me I got to go.
What happened was probably made the excuse to go into the bathroom to make the text.
And then, right?
That's, yeah.
The whole thing was, yeah, it was set up for sure.
He's right.
Tell me he's not right.
Well, and what's weird, though, is who would offer to like the conversation was pretty tame.
It was.
It was, especially, look, maybe at the beginning, it was, even at the beginning when there was a modicum of heat, it wouldn't have warranted, I need to leave.
But then that passed.
The conversation, she was losing the debate, but the conversation was fine.
Yeah.
Conversation was fine.
No need to leave at that point, but whatever.
We'll let the rest of these chats come through.
We have.
But you know what she'll do?
Sancho directed $100.
Wait.
Wait.
She can handle teaching at three Chicago high schools.
But the slightest, she gets crippling headaches.
What a load.
Oh, a total bullshit.
That's a good, that's a really good thing.
Total bullshit.
Well, not just that, bro.
Like, Sancho, let's point this out.
That Brian was extremely charitable and came down on her end.
Came down on her end and was like, no, this is going to go, Andrew, you're going to A, B, C, and D.
And I was like, okay, I'll conform to the moderator.
Now, that's part of my agreement.
Part of my agreement when I come on the show is that, yes, I will adhere to moderation.
And I've always been pretty good about doing that.
There's some times where I get maybe upset with the moderator, as every debater is going to do, right?
But that's part of the agreement is to adhere to moderation.
That's what makes a debate fair.
There is no fucking way.
No way that this wasn't a setup, dude, where she was setting up an exit strategy when she realized she was losing and losing quickly.
And with the phone, also this, do you think that, and it hasn't come up too much in previous debates, we should disallow phone usage?
Do you think that that, like, neither person can use their phone?
I think.
Because she was on it.
I think it's fair.
I'm like, I'm okay when people are bringing up stats.
Yeah.
And she's like, let's pull up the stats.
You got to have some way to do that.
In a legitimate debate, you should be able to pull up the stats that you want.
But what happened was I crushed her with the stats immediately.
And what got her immediately was she was like, well, I just looked those up and I can't find them anywhere.
Do you know how long that comprehensive analysis is?
And I'm like, there's no fucking way.
And one of the chatters points out, he's like, go to page this, this, this.
Everything Andrew's saying is right there.
Oh, but I looked.
She didn't look.
She was not prepared for the argument.
And neither are most of these sociologists who are feminists.
They're never prepared for the argument that these people are fucking wrong about their stats.
They're wrong about the things that they're saying.
They're not telling you the truth about any of this.
Feminism has led to far more abuse of women than anything a patriarchal system could ever even envision.
So you think allow the phones?
I think you should allow the phones for the purposes of stats.
I don't think that like chat GPTing an argument is legit.
But I think that if we're doing statistics or we're pulling up studies, I need to be able to look at what she's referencing.
She needs to, like, I'm fine with that.
Got it.
Got some chat out there.
I mean, that seems fair, right?
Intel and Wilde donated $69.
The only thing 150 about this chick is the weight scale.
I guess this is the roast session.
All right.
What do you think about this, though?
We could say, and I don't know if this is too little or wouldn't be helpful, but instead of phones, no phones, each person can request to look up up to three studies or should there not be anything.
Yeah, so the way that I always did it was I would always say, take your three best support studies you're going to reference and then send those in before the show.
I'll send them to the to your debate adversary.
He'll send you his.
Then both of you can have your refutations, but anything external, those refutations are unacceptable.
Okay, got it.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, no, that makes sense.
That makes a lot of sense.
That's how, because studies come up a lot.
Yep.
So what is when you're debating somebody, is there an argument?
Like if somebody does say, well, where's the study?
Isn't there an argument that you can make?
Like, I don't need a study.
Of course.
You can use logical argumentation.
You can use even intuitive argumentation.
You can use all sorts of different arguments.
And you can also say, well, it's an appeal to authority anyway.
The second she said, you're right, sociology suffers from a replication crisis.
You're right that it's about 60, 70%.
That's enough intuitive evidence for us to fucking dismiss anything we're reading.
You can imagine if I was like, here, this will cure you.
70% chance that it kills you.
Would you take the pill?
No.
No.
So why would you believe the study?
If I said, this is true, but there's a 70% chance it's wrong.
Would you bank on the truth of that?
No.
No.
That's it.
No.
And didn't you bring this up during the debate, debate the replication crisis with a lot of these studies?
They do the one, and then there's a bunch of bias too.
Like they're seeking an answer.
Yeah, yeah.
So here's how this works.
The problem with the falsification of science, and this is not the way science is supposed to be done, by the way.
The problem with the falsification is this.
If you have like a newer study, especially a sociological study, there's nothing that's going to come for a while that refutes it or looks at the methodology.
That's going to take a while, usually a year, sometimes two, sometimes three.
But because this study hits the market, people reference it.
They then ask this question: where's the refutation to the study?
This is what current science tells us.
But that's not true.
It's not scientific.
It's not really scientific at all.
And the truth is, is they present that as being evidence, knowing that a refutation is likely right around the corner.
That's how indoctrination works.
That's why so many people know so much that isn't true.
I started the debate by pointing out there's a refutation for this.
She made this TikTok video not very long ago.
I point out the refutation to this study.
She didn't even bother to look up the refutation to it that falsified it, said that it fell under the replication crisis, essentially.
And what do we get?
We get like, no, no, no, that's just not true.
Well, have you looked at it?
Well, no, how do you know it's not true?
Well, I don't know.
You know what I mean?
She never even bothered to look at her own sources.
It's affirming the bias.
They always affirm the bias.
So always be careful when somebody says, well, here's what the data says.
And then it's like a study from 2023, 2024.
That's the most, that's the most recent, but that doesn't mean it's fucking correct.
We have a big Z here with the champagne puppet after the donated $1,000.
Thank you, man.
That's pop shampoo.
So congrats.
We send him the notepad.
Enjoy.
I didn't message that.
Do you want the I win?
Wait, should we, should we?
We got to raffle the notepad.
You want the I win, the big, and I'll sign it for you too with your name.
Do you want the I win notepad?
Because we'll send it to you.
I wish we could have her cope notes, though.
That would be even better.
The cope notes?
The cope notes?
Yeah, the cope notes from her.
Oh, yeah.
She left her a little.
Yeah, that would have been great.
Oh, you got it, bro.
There we go.
All right.
Brian, can I ask you something?
And the audience is dying to know this.
What?
You've opened like 200 bottles of champagne and you still fucking suck at it.
How is that possible?
How is it possible?
You still, 200, you still suck at it.
That was a sub-30-second.
Fucking ridiculous, dude.
Look, you know what?
You know what's happened?
And this is backed up by science.
Backed up by science.
You're supposed to store champagne bottles on the side.
Otherwise, if you store it vertical like this, the cork starts to dry out.
It becomes very difficult to open it.
And so you got to wait for me.
What the?
You got to wait for me, Andrew.
I was testing it to make sure you didn't spoil it.
That's backed by science.
The latest studies say.
So that's what's been, that's why it was so difficult to open them.
I've now been storing them horizontally.
So cheers to you, Andrew.
Cheers to Z. Thank you, Z. Salute.
There's only one way to do this.
Cheers.
Hang on.
Cheers to people.
Hang on.
Cheers to the whatever podcast audience.
It is through you guys and all of the viewers that all of this is made possible.
And I sure hope to God you're having a great time because I'm doing everything I can possibly do to make sure you do.
Salute.
Cheers.
Even my haters.
I couldn't have haters if I didn't entertain you two.
Got a lot of chats coming through, so I'm going to get them.
Hoop.
Guys, if you want $69 TTS streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Hooplinaro.
Thank you, man.
Hooplinaro donated $69.
Appreciate it.
Andrew, if you could recommend two books, one non-fiction, preferably about logic, critical thinking, passing out ideas, and one fiction, what would they be?
I would recommend Faith of the Fallen as the fictional book by Terry Goodkind.
That's a great one.
It's just a great story.
And then it's a little libertarian for my liking, but I would still get it.
And then the first one I would recommend, I believe it's by Will Durant, and it's called The History of Philosophy.
It's a fantastic book.
I've read it a couple of times.
And I really like it, not just because he goes into the arguments a bit, but he goes into why the various philosophers started coming to this through their life experiences, which I thought was pretty interesting.
We have USMC coming in.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
She was a cheating buzz.
When she is discovered, then she melts.
Easy to see.
You know, it's watch the video.
Lolla lolla lol.
You know what's interesting, Andrew, is two decades ago when I was in high school, I was on the wrestling team.
And there's a strategy that you can employ in wrestling.
It's called stalling.
This is also something that you see in other martial arts, MMA, jiu-jitsu.
I think a lot of what she was doing was stalling.
She knew probably pretty quickly that she was outmatched.
And some of her tone policing stuff, the breaks, stalling, stalling, because she didn't want to actually engage with your arguments.
And I think that's what a good portion of it was.
I don't disagree.
I also think, though, like, I don't want you to undermine or undersell because I've dealt with so many feminists, this idea of control.
You have to understand, like, think of it from their perspective.
They're on TikTok and Instagram, places like this, where they'll have controlled conversations where all opposition is muted, spoken over, dominated, right?
Here, that's not possible.
Imagine the panic you would feel.
Yeah.
You know, wait, this person, I can't just mute him.
I'm going to have to actually engage.
This is going to make me look fucking terrible.
You know what I mean?
That would instill a massive sense of panic in somebody.
Yeah.
And how many times, Crucible Crew, have you seen this?
These people panic because they actually have to defend the world.
It's fucking crazy.
Well, I've seen your TikTok invasions and I've participated.
Just, you know, I'll be, I'll have one or two hours.
Sure.
I'll hop on TikTok and I'll just hop into these.
Always welcome on the invasions.
You'll get like 10 words in and they're like, uh, and then they mute you.
And if you mute you and then they just talk, And then they eventually kick you.
The criticism, sometimes, you know, here at the whatever podcast, we get some criticisms like, well, you know, you guys have kicked people out or you have, we have an option where you can mute somebody, which has happened like a dozen times, maybe total.
For people who are super problematic.
Oh, it's often used not because somebody is winning an argument, but because they're like literally yelling into the microphone or they're just hogging.
Well, but isn't that kind of like the most diplomatic approach when you think about it?
The most diplomatic approach is not to try to shut them down or this or that, but say, hey, you know, the show has to make some money and ha ha ha, you know, somebody needed your mic.
Yeah.
That feels very diplomatic to me.
Yeah.
You know, and non-abrasive.
And not to mention also, because it's a panel show, you know, if one mic is muted, other people can speak too, which is kind of the point.
But I mean, you've encountered that yourself.
You've debated with Dean and it's been hundreds and hundreds of times the Christian crew has run into the problem.
Now we have a way in which we deal with it.
And usually with those particular people, we never have that problem again, interestingly enough, because there is a way in which to deal with it.
But the truth is, is that I'm not going to undersell it because I think for sure there is a sense of panic, which wells up when the control aspect is gone and you actually have to do the defense aspect.
Yep.
Got feminist lover here.
Feminist lovers.
Thank you, appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
150 IP BMI.
Anyways, got put onto the pod after the recent J Dire episodes.
And got to say, you guys are both awesome.
Thank you.
Keep it up and thanks for the entertainment and wisdom.
Of course.
Thank you, Feminist Lover.
Interesting name there.
Got Spyro.
Thank you, Spyro.
Appreciate it.
Spyro, the Master Programmer, donated $69.
Not only did we witness why a lot of feminists can't actually defend their positions.
You also just saw why software slash websites slash video games, tech in general, has degraded.
This thinking is a mind violence.
By the way, because you don't know this, I know Spyro pretty well.
I would actually consider him a buddy.
And Spyro has been working behind the scenes kind of tirelessly to expose what's been going on in software video games with the woke mind virus and why that stuff seems like it's so shit now.
Highly recommend his channel.
I think it's called, now you can hop into my Discord if I'm wrong about this.
I think it's called Spyro Fluoropolis, maybe.
But it's a great channel.
And he hasn't updated it as much as he should because you're fucking lazy, Spyro, but you really should get back on that.
Well, I mean, don't they just get into like the HR departments?
But I mean, I've seen that.
No, no, no.
It's things like this.
Like you can't say, you know how like you have hard drives on your computer?
Yeah.
You can't say slave master drive now.
Oh, yeah.
Like shit.
I'm not kidding.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
The chat doesn't like all my World of Warcraft references.
But you know what's crazy?
So I think we actually reacted to this on the dating talk.
I don't know if you were there.
So it used to be World of Warcraft came out 2004, 2005, two decades ago.
Long time ago.
The character creation screen, you know, when you create a character in a game or whatever, it used to have the gender symbols, the male or the sex symbols, male, female.
Now, there's a bunch of other examples in this game.
Blizzard is completely captured, ideologically captured.
They've redone a lot of their art assets in Hearthstone, in well, so for the gender symbols, the sex symbols, they changed it instead from those to like just body type.
So there's body type one, body type two.
There's no longer male, female, man, woman.
They've renamed items.
Like, for example, there used to be Finkels Skinner.
And they changed the name because it was a reference to the Ace Ventura movie, which he was making a joke about transgenders back in the 90s, by the way.
Well, I would say this.
Spyro goes, like, these are good references.
Yeah.
But he goes in depth into the programming side of the world.
Oh, like what's going on in the game?
Yeah, what's going on inside of the programming side of it and how detrimental it is and why you see such shit coming out for programs because it takes them like he explained it to me one night.
He's a fucking smart guy, right?
Like, so it's hard for me to keep up with him.
But he's like, look, if I broke this down to you, how these programmers have changed the language, we can't communicate anymore.
It used to be a universal language, right?
And now they have to learn all sorts of new code and this and that for the purpose of what?
Nobody's even going to see it.
You know what I mean?
Crazy.
You know what I was just thinking is maybe we should have tagged in Oliver.
He's gone.
Oliver's gone.
All right.
More chats coming up.
Being a fucking gremlin.
You're being a gremlin, bro.
No, I was just saying.
No, it was.
We got most of the debate out of the way, so that was good.
Thank you, Christopher.
I will give my left nut to see Andrew and CrowdAttack team a full panel.
You're doing God's work, Brian.
I just want to let you know.
You know, you never know what the future is going to hold.
Yeah.
I was, yeah, we'd love to have Crowder on the show.
I think that'd be epic.
He might be able to maybe do a call in one day.
We'll do it.
Turn Police Patriarchy donated $69.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Very entertaining.
Thank you both again.
Brian, is that lovely blonde lady that usually sits behind you and you guys hit symptoms?
Well, here's the thing.
We've actually had Homath on the show is back in like 2023, I think.
He did a call-in.
He doesn't show his face on camera.
I'd love to have him back.
It's just call-ins are difficult to begin with, but then that added complexity of, and look, I'm not, he wants to keep his privacy totally fine, but it does sort of complicate it.
But he's, I love his content.
His content's great.
I've talked with Homath several times with him, too.
He's a very, very, very sharp guy, right?
Enjoys company a lot, but we're going to respect the ideas that he has around his anonymous status.
I think that's fair.
Thank you for that, though.
You do have to pay the symtax, though, for mentioning the, I think you're mentioning Felicity.
So Sancho.
Thank you, Sancho.
Sancho donated $69.
She originally said she had a two-hour drive back.
When Brian pushed back on her travels, gee, he's right.
Well, the other thing is, is that the so what we do is we offer to cover in the same way that we cover your flight in the hotel.
We'll offer, we cover their flight in the hotel.
Of course.
And so, but if my recollection, I'd have to look at the message.
Didn't give me a suite, though, Brian.
You didn't get me a fucking suite, Brian.
It's a nice hotel.
It is a nice hotel.
It's a nice hotel.
But Brian, you didn't get me a fucking.
Oh, look at this DevOps.
It didn't get me.
Look at this DevOps, but let me see where it is.
Yeah, Spring for the Talent.
What the fuck?
No.
It is a nice hotel.
You know what, Andrew?
Plus, Jake is down here with me, and we have a big announcement coming soon, but I'm not going to say any more about it.
No, we got.
Wait.
What's confusing to me, though, is so when it came to the compensation for the flight in the hotel, she mentioned driving.
The offer was to fly her from Chicago to Santa Barbara.
Why would she be staying like she would have had to fly?
So the excuse was, I have family who's X away and I wanted to go visit them.
But what's the distinction in visiting them one hour or two hours away?
I have no idea.
Like, oh, the show goes.
But it's when she revealed, I know how long these go, but for some reason made the assumption that it's not going to go that long for me.
Right.
That was, she brought a laundry list of things to talk about that she wanted to discuss.
Does she think that this takes three, four minutes to debate these issues out?
Yeah.
We barely even gotten to that debate.
I've been in this studio debating with one person for like nine fucking hours before.
I don't want to hear shit about this like couple hours we barely got to nothing.
We barely got to nothing.
The long form debate content.
The long form debate content requires on each of these topics oftentimes like a long back and forth as we deconstruct the various worldviews, reconstruct them, get the positions, understand where the person's coming from.
It's not, it's not so easy.
It's just like, oh, there's 90 minutes and it's settled.
And so Brian runs these long form, and we sometimes have four or five hour debates.
And you know what's really funny?
It's like, I'm an old man.
How come these fucking 25-year-olds can't keep up with me?
That's what's fucking bullshit.
That's why the wage gap exists.
I make this argument on the bottom.
This is why I get fucking hired everywhere.
If I walk in with my resume, they want a fucking robotics mechanic anywhere in the United States.
When I walk in, they're like, oh, it's a 12-hour shift.
And I'm like, it's not 14.
It's not 14.
Yeah.
Hey, you say, thank you, Heyu.
Hey, you donated $69.
The stats are extremely important.
I'd prefer if they were on screen.
Yeah.
Remember, many of us are learning from the facts being shared, and it helps us support our arguments against feminism, etc.
But here's the realm.
Okay, but here's the thing, right?
What happens is the reason people are so resistant to send in their studies, especially to the opponent, is because they try to use fucking studies like Yu-Gi-Oh! cards, right?
They're like, oh, it's blue eyes, white dragon study.
Well, I have fucking, you know, brown eyes, brown dragon study, and that negates blue eyes, blue dragon study.
And that's not how it's supposed to work.
How it's supposed to work is that you send over, it's like a discovery almost like a court.
You say, here's what my arguments are going to be in my studies, right?
You can vet those and vet the argument.
I can vet yours and vet the argument.
And then you can really go at it.
If people did that, we could put those studies up on screen.
And I could say, like, go to page, you know, 221.
Here's where you can vet that information.
And Brian could pull it right up on screen, right?
But just remember, not everybody's willing to do that.
And so the thing is, like me as a debater, I have to be prepared for fucking everything, which is insane, and always perform at a high level, which is insane.
But I do.
I would vastly prefer to be like, here's my top three studies, and here's my arguments.
Here's what force doctrine means, this and that, and just go at it that way.
But it's difficult to do, guys.
It's not as easy as you think.
We have Justin Martin.
Hey, thank you, Justin.
Appreciate it.
Justin Martin's donated $69.
You should use her feet to order the leaning Andrew pineapple pizza so we can watch him cry too.
Yeah, that would make me cry.
That would have been kind of the, yeah.
Pineapple pizza.
Where is it?
All right.
Thank you, Justin Martins.
Jim Walsh here.
We tried.
We actually already tried to get you pineapple pizza.
It was not effective.
Jim Walsh, $1,162 donated $69.
Thank you, Jim.
I'd bet a year's salary she was on Coke.
She had Destiny Jaw and couldn't stop wiping her nose.
I mean, I didn't know that she would.
I don't think she was on anything.
Wait, wait, you noticed what?
Well, she, at least a dozen times, she'd kind of not, I didn't see anything, but like, she was constantly, like, touching her nose like this.
I don't know if that means any.
That probably doesn't mean anything.
Well, the problem is, is that I'm a very beautiful man, so I was busy looking at the monitor like this.
Yes.
Actually, the reason I often look at the monitor during debates, if you guys are wondering, is because I'm old and I've been shooting guns for years and years and years, and my left ear is my more dominant ear.
And so I actually am, the reason I'm looking this way, and you'll see me look this way often, is because I can hear people way better.
Got Chaw.
Hey, thank you, Chaw.
Appreciate it.
Chaw XD donated $69.
I'm a software engineer at a game company.
My company is filly with women who have never played games and hate players.
I also was made to work for three months renaming repositories for DEI reasons.
God.
Yeah.
Just data repositories, really?
Is that what he means?
Data repositories?
Doesn't is Spyro's stuff related?
I mean, this.
Well, that wasn't Spyro.
No, I know it wasn't Spyro, but it's kind of related to the stuff that's going on with gaming companies, for example.
Is his stuff related?
I mean, this goes way back to like Gamergate.
Well, Spyro, Spyro is a brilliant, he's a contractor software engineer, and he's brilliant.
Yeah.
So I'm not going to get into everybody he's contracted with.
That's not my business to tell.
But he's been in with some of the larger contractors out there between every sector you can imagine, which would include like military, others, you know what I mean?
Right.
And he knows his shit.
Like defense contractors and stuff.
I'm not saying that.
Did I say that?
No.
Got Crojus.
Hey, thank you, Croatia.
Crogus.
012094 donated $69.
Asian game developers don't care what feminists think.
Marvel Rivals releases female heroes with giant scoops and bucks with zero care for what screeching feminists cry about.
What do you think of it?
Well, I think that it's like the like mustache man on Twitter that most people don't give a shit about mustache man.
They just think it's really funny to watch people freak out about mustache man.
I think they just think it's really funny.
And so they do that, right?
And I think in some ways Asian countries actually are trolling the United States, right?
Like you'll, you'll notice that some of the old Dead or Live games in Japan or China don't actually have like the breast enhancement thing.
But in the United States, there's actually codes for the breast enhanced.
I think some of it's like, I think they're trolling us.
Am I crazy?
I think they're trolling us, dude.
Could be.
It could be.
I know in like World of Warcraft, there was a warlock pet that was a succubus.
Yeah.
Succubi?
Succubus?
Succubus.
Succubus.
Or it's like a female, female demon or whatever.
Yeah, that's the succubus.
The incubus is the male.
And it was always a female, but then like, because they're like, oh, well, this is sexualizing and objectifying pixelated cartoon demon in a video game.
They introduced the male to the incubus, I believe.
Like you said, it's called.
Just stupid stuff.
I don't know.
They're changing the original game.
It's weird.
Let's see.
We have Lucas here.
Lucas, thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Lucas donated $70.
You have a second one coming in?
I'm sure it's probably just me being an old croc shitty flowers.
But I have no patience and tolerance for an incompetent, sniveling weak weasel.
This chick was the epitome of Chihuahua syndrome.
Tough.
I don't see the second one coming in yet, Lucas.
I'm going to let Yikes come through, but I'll put numbers up next.
Thank you, Lucas.
$69.
This is how you know feminism is weak.
Imagine MLK fighting for civil rights.
And the moment someone challenges his worldview, he threatens to walk out or has a man started to try.
Actually, this is a really good point, right?
And this is a good case of the idea of how women treat men versus how men treat women.
The demand is that I treat this woman like an equal, so I did.
But you can imagine if it was me in that same stance, right?
I came in the very first night.
I hadn't slept in 24 hours.
I was sweating.
I was all fucked up because I hadn't slept.
And I could barely even process what was coming at me, right?
But I'm like, got to do that shit.
You got to get through it, right?
That's part of how it goes.
That's part of work.
I have different, totally different mindset about how these things are done.
And it's like, but from her view, at the same time, she must be privileged and treated as an equal.
And it's like, well, both of those things don't actually mesh, right?
I mean, it ties back into her, I think, weak arguments as it relates to the wage gap.
No arguments.
Well, yeah.
Men are just more willing to, they're more willing to work through when they're sick.
They're more willing to work overtime.
Well, speaking of what she said with the wage gaps, I want you guys to remember this framing.
She starts the framing by saying this.
There could be three different reasons for this.
And I wrote it down.
And the first thing I wrote was like, no, there could be 50 reasons for this.
There could be 100 reasons for this, right?
But the framing was, there can only be three.
So what she wanted me to do was select from one of the three.
Like, fuck it.
I'm not selecting from one of your three bullshit reasons for the wage gap because that's all how you frame it.
Fuck that.
Here's what's actually going on.
That's the right way to argue.
What she did was try to frame it as a false dichotomy.
In this case, there was a multitude of dichotomies.
It was one, two, three instead of just one and two.
So it's like, you know, what are you doing here?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And to your point, you know, Andrew, you've been doing a bunch of traveling.
Like you said, you came in that one day.
You hadn't slept for 24 hours.
You still did the show.
I was sick last week.
Still did the show.
I had a terrible sinus infection.
I had a fever.
When Jim Bob, it was Jim Bob.
I think it was when, yeah, Jim Bob and Oliver were debating.
My fever was getting so bad, I had to excuse myself and go lay down.
Yeah.
And I was on the verge of throwing.
But that's going to work.
I still came in.
Still came and worked.
Still came and did it.
Still came and worked.
And that's the thing is, like, I got off the plane and was like, oh my God, I don't know how I'm going to do this.
I literally can't even think.
You know, you guys know what I mean what I mean where like you're so tired, you can't really process information well anyway, and you're just on autopilot.
That debate was over.
I was like, I still won the debate, but holy shit, man, that was hours of debating, too.
Yeah.
And just pure autopilot.
That was just pure autopilot.
All right.
We have Lucas here with his follow-up chat.
Then we're going to get this here wrapped up.
Lucas donated 72.
Last call if you guys want to get one in.
Bravo, Spyrusynonimate.
Andrew, in my opinion, Will Durant is arguably one of the best somewhat recent historian.
You think so?
I enjoyed the book.
The guy has a bit of flourish for storytelling, too.
It's not just a matter of, you know, how you can read some historical accounts and they're really fucking boring.
The guy has a bit of a flourish.
I really enjoyed it.
And by the way, it's my wife who picks up a lot of those books for me.
Hey, I just, what she'll do is she'll be out and she'll be like, I just saw this and I thought you might like it.
And I'm like, I don't fucking, and I find myself at night, I grab the shit and I'm like, hey, yeah, she was right.
This is actually pretty fucking good.
Yeah.
By the way, we still, this is one of our, I mean, I think there's been a few episodes where we've had more than this.
We still have just under 12,000 concurrent viewers just on my stream.
We peaked at about, I think, 14,000.
I think it would have been great to keep going.
Unfortunately, she just dipped.
Dipped, did the.
I don't know if it was a rage quit.
What would you call that?
A crime?
That was a rage quit.
Was it a rage quit?
Oh, yeah.
Okay, well, that's a rage quit.
And in fact, there are other rage quits, which were way less legitimate than that.
That was a fucking rage quit.
Yes, yes.
Oh, while we have the viewers here, I do want to ask, guys, I'm asking for.
Oh, well, there's that.
But I need to ask for some assistance from any viewers who may be able to help.
For almost six, seven weeks now, my Twitter has been, I don't know how to exactly explain it.
Basically, every single video or photo I post, so if I post any media, it gets put behind a sensitive content warning.
My entire Twitter profile, X profile, is behind what they call an interstitial, a content warning.
I think there might have been one or two posts, not even my own videos.
I was just doing like reaction commentary on something.
Got flagged.
I've reached out to X.
They don't have support.
If anybody's watching who has a contact at TwitterX, maybe you've worked there.
If anybody can just maybe send me a DM either on Twitter, that's at whatever, or you can DM me on Instagram at whatever, or you can email me, Brian, B-R-I-A-N at whatever.com.
If you're able to help me get my ex Twitter account fixed, I would be, I will name my firstborn son after you.
And if you're a woman, I will name my firstborn daughter after you.
If you're a woman too, huh?
What?
Wait, what do you mean?
Firstborn son, yes.
Not firstborn daughter?
Not firstborn daughter.
What if it's a woman who helps me?
You always name the firstborn daughter after the grandmother you've loved.
Everybody knows that.
Okay.
That's like those are the rules.
Well, then if it's a woman who helps me out, my son is going to have a really weird game.
He's not a gay name.
April.
April.
It's going to be, his name is going to be Sue.
It's going to be Sue.
I'll name my son a female name if it's a woman who helps me out.
But yes, I've been having issues with my ex-account.
It's been scuffed.
I've tried all the avenues I can.
If anybody can help me out, again, contact with me if you're able to help me out with my ex account.
It's been seven weeks, so help a brother out here.
Help a brother out.
Help a Caucasian out.
Also go to Debate University, buy it, buy it now.
Hurry up.
Don't listen to Brian.
Buy it.
Buy it as much as possible.
Buy Debate Universe.
It's great.
It's fantastic.
It's awesome.
High production value.
And also, we're going to be adding to it soon.
So go buy it.
Yes, get to that, guys.
Okay, we have Michael G here.
He writes, Her right-wing dad owes Andrew a case of single malt.
Oliver was a champ compared to her.
Men are better feminists than women.
Isn't that interesting?
But here's the thing.
In my opponent's credit, she did say that her objective is to win as many men to her own side because she obviously knows that that is the case.
That more of the smart feminists actually are beginning to realize that they need male feminists to come in and make the arguments and dominance because of force doctrine.
They literally need that.
Isn't it hilarious and ironic at the same time?
Yep.
And then we have the state of things.
Let's take it one step further.
Women are so privileged that once they're taken down to the privilege of men, they're disrespected and shouldn't even dignify entertaining the men they're equal to.
Right, which is the like pre-assumption there is that men are dirt and garbage, right?
They're dirt and garbage and they shouldn't even be dignified with an answer the second they become equal to men.
Isn't that fucking hilarious?
Let's see if we have, it looks like we have something from Kevin here.
He says.
Kevin 89 donated $69.
Thank you, Kevin.
For the first time, men were the deciding factor in the presidential election.
Do you think women like this are aware of how off-putting they are to the average male voter?
If not, then cool lol.
No, no, actually, listen, they don't.
They're going to double and triple down, quadruple down this ideology.
I will say this about Oliver.
Oliver, when I was, after the show was done, I went on the balcony to have a smoke.
He came out with me and Jake.
And he literally said, it's because leftists are so fucking cringe and he's a leftist.
That's why we keep losing.
Like, they don't really realize to the average person who's watching it.
Like, imagine, like, there's ladies out there watching this right now.
Their husbands are working their fucking asses off.
They get home and they're like, this is how they expect me to treat this guy or husbands who are like, why would I want my fucking wife to ever be like that?
You can't say the word Indian?
Like, what the fuck?
That's how people, normal people think through that prism.
And it's like, it's so wild to me that they double and triple down on that.
Yep.
Let's see here.
Okay, guys, final thing.
If you want to support the show without platforms taking their cut, then they'll catch up with everybody.
Let me ask you something.
Sure.
Okay, so you get home.
It's like fucking 10-hour shift at the factory, right?
And what you've been doing at the factory all day is some heavy ass labor.
Let's just say that you're a hylo driver, right?
And then and then you do stalking on top of that.
So you get out of the hilo.
You have to get off of it, on, off, on.
You're driving this thing all around.
They extended your shift another three hours tonight.
You get home.
Your wife has a meal cooked for you and you're like, oh, thank God.
You're so exhausted.
You sit down, you take that first bite.
You haven't eaten all fucking day.
Okay.
You take that first bite and you're like, oh my God, anything would have been delicious.
But this is extra delicious because she tried to make it exactly tailored how you want.
And you take that first bite, right?
And you say, man, this guy at work today, we were talking about Indians.
And she's like, Native Americans.
The wife.
Yeah.
Native Americans.
Like, doesn't, now the food tastes bad.
Now the food is awful and horrible.
Like everything around you now is just like the imagine the shot.
Like you were about to take that second bite of the delicious meal.
Now it just tastes like fucking ass.
You don't even want it.
You throw it to the side.
You throw the whole fucking plate on the ground.
Like, the whole thing is just like, you're just done right then and there.
It's Native American.
You know what I mean?
Imagine coming fucking home to that.
Imagine that shit.
Just saying.
Yeah, that'd be fucking terrible.
It'd be fucking terrible.
The way I thought you were going was she fucked the steak up and she overcooked the steak.
No, no, no.
It's a beautiful steak.
But here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
Even if the steak is beautiful, the second she says now it's Native Americans, it's fucking garbage.
And you're going to throw it on the ground.
You got to throw it on the ground.
It's fucking worthless.
And fuck that shit.
That's it.
It just ends.
It ends the whole experience.
You know what I mean?
And what you want to hear is like, yeah, those fucking idiots.
That's what you want to hear.
That's what you am I wrong.
That's what you want to hear.
Just saying.
Yeah, it checks out.
Checks out.
Yeah.
All right, guys.
Oh, go to, guys, Twitch final call on this.
Twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Drop us.
Guys, if you enjoyed the stream, it's been 25 minutes since we last had a prime sub.
Can somebody, I think it's bugged, boys.
It's been a while since I've done the bug thing.
I think it's bugged.
Can somebody check in the chat to if they have a prime subject?
I don't believe that one.
The deviosity?
I don't believe that.
Oh, well, that's a fall.
Yeah, fuck that.
Where's the sub still?
Yeah, we need some master manham thing for the prime.
Yeah, I don't believe that either.
Tier one.
Kaibaka.
There it is.
Kaibaka thank you.
No, look at that.
The blue meow.
No way.
That ain't real.
That's not real.
We need another couple tricks right now.
We're in the matrix.
There we go.
And I think for the prime.
Appreciate it.
All right.
Thank you guys.
Just check if you have a prime sub available.
Twitch.tv slash whatever.
Join our Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
I post a bunch of the cool behind the scenes here on the show.
There's various happenings.
You know, there was the Priscilla incident.
There's like stuff that wasn't captured on camera because we had to go to when she was here.
So we got some like, you know, stuff that you don't always see on the stream when people are rage quitting.
Some girl was like crying in the hallway after she was being obnoxious.
And she, I think, what did she, she called me the N-word and a bunch of.
I'm, I'm, yeah, she probably shouldn't have done that.
But so Discord.
Brian, you got a bunch of white flecks right here, bro.
That's why.
Oh, bro, what about your ADD, though?
Look, I have.
Can we get it?
Can you give me the roller real quick?
Give me the roller so that we can make sure, Brian, you got to roll yourself up, bro.
No, you got to roll yourself.
Everybody can see it, Brian.
You got to roll it, bro.
Head and shoulders hasn't been working, but now I'm all freaked out.
Before, by the way, guys, before the show, I'm always making sure Andrew looks sharp.
So, you know, I double check if he needs sometimes if he you want, you want to do your hair, you know, it's a little, and also I'll foam roll.
I'll get the foam roller for him because he got sometimes, you know, got to keep him.
I'll offer it to the opponent.
Then he hands it to the female assistants.
The most awkward thing ever is I take it from her and roll myself, right?
It's the most awkward shit in the world.
It's not that bad.
Brian.
It's not that bad.
Okay, sorry.
All right, guys, kindly like the video here.
Let me just double check.
I don't want to leave anybody hanging.
Thank you guys for the prime subs.
Really appreciate it.
All right, guys, we're going to get this wrapped up.
Let me just double check here, make sure we're all looking good.
I'm just trying to think if there's anything.
No.
No, just really the only thing is, guys, if anybody can help me out with my Twitter account, that's pretty much it.
Send me a DM on X or Instagram at whatever.
Spyro Mystery, you guys, take a look at that.
It's been, it actually, like, that's a critical resource for booking.
Take a look and see what you guys can do diving into whatever Brian's problem is.
And that's also the propaganda arm for Andrew Wilson clips.
Millions of views.
No, no, no.
Over a billion views.
On X from your YouTube, it's like billions.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
But on X alone, I think it's over a billion views.
Well, I was doing like 100 million impressions on X, and then they do the content interstitial.
Done.
And I'll get 10K impressions.
It all gets blanked.
Okay.
Spyro, thank you for the.
Oh, it's just at whatever on X, Instagram.
You can also email me, B-R-I-A-N Brian at whatever.com.
All right.
Thank you, Spyro, for that super chat.
Very much appreciate it.
Okay, guys, kindly like the video on the way out.
I'm assuming you don't want to give your closing.
Nah, nah.
No, no, no.
Here's my closing from all of us here at the Whatever podcast.
To all of you out there in whatever podcast land, I'm going to give my own Exodus here.
You guys have a wonderful night.
All right, guys.
07's in the chat.
I hope you guys have a good weekend.
Tomorrow, Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific, dating talk.
Andrew will be there.
Got a fantastic panel.
And then we have a debate Monday.
And then it's looking like something on Tuesday, but we've got a debate Monday, 3:30 p.m. on Monday.
That's going to be a very, very solid debate with a very jubilee guest.
Very jubilee guest.
That's the only hint I'll give you.
Tomorrow, though, dating talk, Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific.
Is it that Mexican kid?
Am I debating that Mexican kid?
No.
He's a good debater, though.
He's a good debater.
Mexican guy?
Oh, wait.
Yeah, we'll figure it out.
You had him on.
You had him on.
What's his name?
Eliazar?
Yeah, there we go.
No, Yeah, oh, come on.
But he's a good debater.
He's a good debater.
Wait, you want to debate him?
What?
What?
Wait, what?
Okay, whatever.
What?
What?
All right.
We got to get this wrapped.
We got to get Andrew some hamburgers.
So, okay.
All right, guys.
07's in the chat.
▲
Export Selection