All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 12, 2025 - Whatever Podcast
06:17:09
Andrew Wilson vs. Charlie (Feminist, Leftist) | Rachel Wilson CRASHES Show?! | Whatever Debates #22

Whatever Debates are LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever

|

Time Text
Welcome to a debate edition of the whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
I'm your host, Brian Atlas.
A few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewer supported, so please consider donating through Streamlabs that streamlabs.com slash whatever.
TTS is $200 and up.
There will be no instant TTS.
TTS will come in in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
You can see the description for all triggers and full details.
Without further ado, I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson, host of the Crucible.
He is a blood sports debater and political commentator.
Also joining us today is Charlie.
She received a master's degree in fantasy literature from the University of Glasgow and a BA in English from California State University, Sacramento.
She's a political social commentator and content creator.
The topic today is feminism.
I want a good, clean debate, no interrupting.
I need very good discipline on this.
I will allow for some slight interrupting, as is normal in conversation, but excessive or repeated interrupting will first result in a verbal warning, excuse me, followed by a yellow card, which mutes you for one minute or until your opponent yields their time.
If this continues, it'll be followed by a red card, which mutes you for three minutes until or until your opponent yields their time.
Hopefully that won't be necessary.
There are no opening statements straight to open convo.
Let's get it on.
Cool.
Okay.
I think first we ought to agree on some definitions.
So feminism, the prompt was, is feminism good for society?
The definition I have here is from the Oxford English Dictionary.
Feminism advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex.
Are we in agreement on that?
No.
Okay.
What's your definition of feminism?
Feminism is the movement towards egalitarian systems and the deconstruction and removal of the patriarchy.
Okay.
So it's my belief that feminism cannot operate without an oppressor, oppressed class worldview.
And if there's an oppressor class, that oppressor class has to be the patriarchy because who else could it be?
I think that that's fair, but I do want to, you know, stipulate that like I think that men are also, they also benefit from feminism.
And they're still oppressed under patriarchy.
Is that yeah, I understand.
So your definition wouldn't, you don't disagree with my definition.
You're just clarifying a position on top of it, which is that you think there is a patriarchy.
It's just that it's also oppressive or beneficial to men as well.
Or I'm sorry, oppressive to men as well.
Yes.
Yeah, okay.
So can we largely agree then that feminism is an egalitarian movement which focuses on equity, egalitarianism, and the removal of patriarchy?
Okay.
So then I think we got the definition down there pretty well.
Oh, okay.
And then society.
I mean, I think this one is pretty obvious, but society, this is from Merriam-Webster.
A community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.
When I say society, what I'm going to be referring to mainly is the United States.
I'm going to refer to my country, my nation.
Is that acceptable?
Sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I don't have any issues with that definition.
Cool.
All right.
And then I guess, gosh, I really don't want to get into another meta-ethics debate.
About the word good.
What is good?
Yes.
What makes something good?
So when we're talking about good here, why don't we just stick with outcomes which are preferable to most people?
Okay.
Does that sound reasonable?
Yes, absolutely.
So outcomes which are preferable to most people for the good.
So I understand that you and I have different viewpoints on what good is, but like the good faith of not trying to bog the conversation down into three hours of meta-ethical jumping up and down, I'm fine with that too.
Sure.
Okay.
Awesome.
So I think we have our definitions down pretty well.
Cool.
Okay.
So I'll let you open with whatever you want to say.
All right.
So I guess we didn't technically have opening statements.
So I suppose I will ramble.
Feminism is good for society because a society that allows people the freedom to choose the life that they wish is a happier society.
I believe that hierarchies divide and weaken us.
Okay.
So the crux of your argument for feminism is that it's good because it allows for more choice.
Yes.
Is that the crux?
Am I getting that right?
I would say so.
Okay.
I don't want to strawman it.
So if you want to think about it for a second and make sure that that's what you mean by it or if there's any addendums that you want to give to it.
I think freedom of choice and egalitarianism.
Freedom of choice and egalitarianism.
Okay.
All right.
Choice.
Egalitarianism.
Now, Charlie, were you an advocate of the C-19 lockdowns?
COVID-19 lockdowns?
Yes, I would say so, but my stepfather is diabetic, so I had a personal stake in it because I did not want him to, you know, as a diabetic, he was more at risk.
Can you tell me how that helped with freedom of choice?
How that helped with freedom of choice.
lockdowns because the lockdowns seem to me.
So I kind of give you my take.
When I think of like a fascist dystopia, I think about things like checkpoints, state-mandated garments, state-removing media, independent media, in order to have state messaging.
I think of those types of things.
And those were all the things that I saw during the lockdowns from the side of the leftist progressive and the feminist side.
And they all seem to be in pretty good unison there.
And it seems like all that did was limit choice.
And so I wonder if there's not a contradiction in your worldview where at the same time you love feminism because it expands choice, but at the same time supported lockdowns, which definitely limited them.
I think that if we are going to, you know, consider something being good on the basis of creating the most amount of good possible, I think that you mean the most amount of best outcomes possible.
Yes, but the most amount of possible best possible outcomes.
I do believe that for a specific period of time, it was necessary to have everyone, including government officials, You know, do their best to not spread COVID-19 until we could mitigate the dangers.
I think that in some cases, I understand that many people grew very frustrated very quickly after some time, but I do think that in cases of emergency.
When it comes down to freedom of choice, we should have freedom of choice unless you are making decisions that would inhibit the freedom of choice that others have.
Isn't that a paradox?
How so?
So isn't this kind of the idea of the paradox of tolerance?
We should tolerate everything except intolerance.
Everyone has the freedom of choice except to inflict some type of damage on other people's choices.
Isn't it kind of paradoxical?
So in other words, I guess the thing that's interesting about this view is that you're telling me that limiting choice is necessary for good outcomes.
I think in very, very, very extreme circumstances, such as a plague.
Well, that's not a plague, right?
It's just a virus.
It's a virus, but I mean, a lot of people were dying.
Very few.
I mean, very few people total were dying, right?
It was pretty freaky.
Yeah, I mean, it was mostly like fat people and really old people who were dying.
I think that even fat people and old people, I would prefer them to not die from viruses if possible.
So how much freedom of mind can you take in order to make sure that fatty gets to live?
How much of my freedom do you get to take to do that?
How much of my freedom to walk into a store without wearing my government-sponsored, mandated garment around my face that marks me as acceptable?
Does that sound like freedom to you?
Or does that sound like some other kind of ism that you guys would normally call it?
I think that if there is an insane, infectious disease that, you know, doctors and scientists and professionals don't necessarily understand at the time raging around, I would say that you possibly infecting those around you and putting their lives at risk is, I do think, a time in which freedom of choice should unfortunately be limited.
For instance, it's like, you know, like when someone is checked for weapons, like that is technically removing a freedom of choice if we don't allow someone to enter a building with weapons.
But it's good because if they have weapons, they could use it to permanently eliminate someone's freedom of choice.
Yeah, but I guess this is what's interesting to me is that this is your view.
Your view is that feminism is good because it expands choice.
Right?
And then in the same breath, you say the COVID-19 lockdowns are good because they limit choice.
And so it just seems like limiting choice to you is fine as long as it proves or provides for good outcomes.
Well, as long as there's good outcomes, we can limit choice.
My rebuttal to that would be the COVID lockdowns were temporary emergency measures.
When I talk about feminism giving people freedom of choice, there was a time in this country where women's career options were limited, had limited rights and freedoms, and now they do not.
But why would that matter if the outcomes were better?
What you're saying to me, what you just got done saying to me is that you're fine with limiting choice as long as it's for the greater good and the outcomes, from your view, are better.
Well, if that virus is limiting a freedom of choice.
So, what if that virus had been here for 50 years?
Would you have still supported lockdowns if the state officials and experts came out and said that that was still the best way to mitigate the spread of this virus?
I think after 50 years, with all of the technology that we have, if they had not managed to get.
But if they did, if they did, would you have supported their mandate for a new normal?
No, that's ridiculous.
Why?
Because that's 50 years.
That's a lifetime of limited freedom.
But a year and a half where people can't see their loved ones, their loved ones die.
They can't even go to the hospital to see them.
And when they can, they can't have any contact with them whatsoever, right?
They can't even touch them.
People couldn't get medical care for years.
They were dying of diabetes and other horrible things because of these lockdowns.
You were fine with those things as long as you thought that the greater good was served as far as outcomes go.
My great-grandmother passed during the COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020, and my family was able to go see her as she was dying.
That's nice for your family, but you know that there's many families who were not, depending on the states they were in, or they would have a contact order where only one person could go in.
That's how they did it.
It was one person at a time, which is frankly not ideal.
But I think that's a good idea.
It's not only not ideal, but you couldn't touch them.
They had plastic between you and the person often.
Yeah, depending on the state you were in, you couldn't even, you couldn't, they would wall you off with plastic so that you couldn't touch them because of the threat of the contact of the virus.
And so the thing is, is like that doesn't, that's, that doesn't sound like this freedom of choice society that was designed to assist people.
And if you say, well, it's just a temporary measure, just limit your choices temporarily.
We don't know what temporarily is.
That lasted almost two years.
It was a year and a half.
So that was fairly temporary.
That's not that temporary.
And the amount of damage that it did was incredible.
And if another one comes, you'll do it again.
And if another one came, you do it again.
And if another one came, you do it again.
Given the unpopularity of the lockdowns and the politicization of the lockdowns, I don't think politicians would want to force another lockdown.
I also think that...
But you support them, though.
Whether the politician does or not, you support them for the greater good.
The idea is it serves the greater good to you.
And I guess that's my position too.
See, I think that limiting choice can serve the greater good just like you do.
I think that limiting choice in many instances serves the greater good.
And I think that limiting choice for a lot of people, like I think that limiting women's choice is to have abortions, I think that that's good.
I think that provides better outcomes for society.
I think that limiting women's ability to vote men into wars, I think that that's good for society.
Like I think the same thing you think.
If we're going with good as outcomes, I think that limiting choice is sometimes necessary for the greater good, just like you do.
So I want to address what you said about war.
I assume you're referring to the draft.
No.
Vote men into wars.
What do you mean?
That's only one aspect.
Well, I'll explain.
Okay.
Do you agree with me that no matter what the circumstances are, it's almost exclusively going to be men who engage in all frontline combat operations in basically any nation on planet Earth?
I think that that has historically almost always been the case, with some exceptions.
But in this day and age, I do think that boots on the ground is significantly less common.
Like in the Ukraine.
Oh, well, Ukraine's a different beast.
We're talking about America.
And Ukraine also had women.
The women volunteered to fight for Ukraine.
They're not in frontline combat roles.
In fact, they were allowed to leave, and the men weren't allowed to leave.
The men had to stay, and they were drafted right off the street.
Well, that's terrible.
I don't think anyone should be forced to go to war.
However, it's also a specific age range of men.
I think that when we're talking about warfare.
Hang on, it's up to 60.
They're drafting them up to 60 years old.
But it's common.
That's common in a real war.
We just haven't seen one in a long time.
Of course.
But when I think about war, I don't think about women voting.
Do you mind if we look that up?
Can you look up the max draft age for Ukraine, Brian?
Yeah, Mary, can you look that up?
I believe that it was up to 60 or even higher.
Well, that's horrible.
I myself am very anti-war and I'm very anti-draft.
I don't think that anyone should be forced to lay down their life.
But don't you agree with me, though, that it will be the case that if there is warfare in a nation, that it is going to be men who are going to be almost exclusively doing all of the heavy lifting for all frontline combat.
I have the answer if you'd like.
So there's a bit of detail on it, but hide that, Mary.
The maximum draft age for men in Ukraine is 25, though this age was 27 before April 2024.
However, after completing their initial service, men become part of the reserve and can be recalled for mobilization until they reach 55 or 60 for officers.
Yeah, that's also a system that we have in the U.S. My stepfather was Air Force Reserves until he got older.
Sure.
And if they need to, they'll raise the age more.
But there's also women who are in the reserves in the U.S.
Yes, but they're not.
The problem is with the idea of recall, even if you recall women from the reserves at 55 years old, they're not going to be doing any frontline combat.
I do believe in 2014, women were allowed to be in frontline combat roles.
Even if we grant that some women will be in frontline combat roles.
It will be majority men.
It's always going to be now not when we say majority, I don't want to get this confused as to think it's 51%.
90%.
Okay.
Or higher.
It may be higher.
Much higher, actually.
Probably like 97, 98, 99, probably.
Absolutely.
So the nature of warfare has changed.
I think mostly boots on the ground is gone.
I would like to point out, however, that it is only a specific kind of men that are being sent to do these things.
It's men without the means to wiggle their way out of the draft.
It is old, rich men sending young working class men to die.
Unless you need them.
The thing is, unless you need them.
So in Germany, when the Soviets were invading Berlin and And after they took every able-man-bodied man right off the street in order to fight.
I mean, that's what they did.
And of course, women were told to flee because they become a hindrance.
And so I guess all I really need here is just the agreement that it will always be the case, no matter what, that it'll be heavily 98% or so of men who will be engaged in frontline combat operations.
If that's the case, then they have the most to risk when it comes to warfare.
And if it is the case that they have the most to risk during warfare, and it is, I think that it's a fundamental unfairness in society, not just an unfairness, but a great injustice that women are allowed to vote on policies for warfare that they then don't have to go fight.
As much as it upsets me that Congress can make laws and exempt itself from them, it's just as much of an injustice to me that Congress can do that as it is an injustice to me that women can do this to men.
I mean, so would you say that only able-bodied men under a certain age should be allowed to vote?
No, because of what's called fighting potential.
So the idea is just this: it may be extraordinarily rare that you'd ever need to get somebody who's disabled or very old or very infirm to fight in frontline combat.
But if you do, it's going to be men.
And the potential remains for men, and the potential is not there for women.
Do you think that men with significant disabilities would be better frontline combatants than women?
It depends on how severe the disability is.
All right.
I guess like.
Yeah, it depends on how severe the disability is.
But I still think that even if you have moderate disabilities, then yeah, they're probably still going to be better off.
You're still probably going to be better off with men with moderate disabilities than you would women.
Yes.
Is it not true that I forget which kind of shooting competitions it is, but no, women are not better at shooting than men.
No, but it's about equal.
Yeah, well, hang on.
I would say that like frontline soldiers, what is the do you?
I don't know if you could look this up, Brian, but how many bullets for how many people killed?
It's usually like an average of like hundreds of bullets shot.
Thousands.
Thousands shot?
Actually, it's tens of thousands.
So it almost seems like I think if a woman meets certain requirements, they don't meet the requirements because you have to carry the ammo and you have to carry the equipment and you have to carry those things.
Then why is it that we can't ever seem to get a woman who can be a Navy SEAL?
We never had one.
Well, that's some pretty extreme.
Most men cannot become Navy SEALs.
I agree.
But only men, but only men can.
And when it comes to the idea of frontline combat, they have to lower.
So women can be in the infantry, that's true, but they get lower standards.
Women get lower standards in the military than men get.
Well, I think if you are, you know, polling for whoever in defense of your country or homeland, you would take anyone who might have.
I guess even if I grant that we could have some very small percentage of women who are capable of doing this, and maybe we even feel them, because the vast majority, the overwhelming majority, don't even have the potential, they don't even have the potential to do this.
It seems to me that it's not just that women can vote to send their men off to fight just by a simple majority.
It's by a simple majority they could do this by electing the politicians in office that have their pro-war stance, perhaps.
And that's a fundamental unfairness in society.
And it seems very obvious to me that that's very fundamentally unfair.
But women are in the military.
And they're not supposed to be the standards.
they pass standards which are lesser than men's standards.
In fact, I can have Brian pull it up if he'd like to see it, but they have a different...
No, I'm fully aware of that, but they're still competent.
And support roles are still important.
I agree.
And also, you don't have to be on the front lines to be killing people.
My aunt flew helicopters in the army.
And she was, you know, participating in killing people.
Well, there's another reason why you don't want them there.
It's not just because of the capability of combat.
Is it resources?
Nope.
It's because your enemy will capture them and they'll essay them and then they'll send them home pregnant in order to demoralize your population, which is what the Soviets did.
So, and it's what they would do in Afghanistan.
And unfortunately, many times it did happen where they captured American female soldiers, and that's exactly what they did.
They essayed them.
Wartime rape is absolutely a thing, which is why.
Let's not say the R-word because it's YouTube.
Yeah, yeah, you're good.
You're good.
I forgot we have to TikTok policy.
So the problem is not just onefold, right?
It's threefold.
Problem one, 98%, and that's being very charitable of women would never even have the potential to be involved in a war that they could vote for.
I strongly disagree with that.
Secondly, well, you could disagree, but the historic standard disagrees with you.
And then secondly, the idea that women would be particularly useful in combat situations where enemy soldiers could have access to them, knowing that they would be prime loot, their loot.
That's what they would be.
They would become booty, right?
You think men don't get essayed in wartime?
Not like women.
Not even close.
It's not even the same thing.
I think the idea of them being booty or loot is kind of ridiculous.
But again, even if I grant you all of this, do you think like the ugly mudcatfish over in the Middle East, they get themselves some prime real estate of a nice big-breasted blonde chick, you think that that's not like prime real estate to those guys?
Do you think there's no men out there in the Middle East that are into men and wouldn't be deliberately?
Do you know what happens when you're in the Middle East and you're into men?
Do you know what happens in the Middle East when you're into men?
There's a special thing they do called fucking kill you.
That's what happens.
Absolutely.
Yes, but that is why essaying prisoners would be ideal because it can be an excuse to demoralize.
They're a very good thing.
And so what would you do?
Like, let's pretend Charlie is the enemy commander.
Okay.
You're the enemy commander, and your orders are to win the war by any means necessary against your enemies.
And you found out that your enemies were fielding female soldiers in frontline combat where your troops had access to them.
Now, what would be more diabolical or easier than creating special units whose entire job was to just capture these enemy soldiers, these female enemy soldiers, essay them, record their screams and send it to the enemy, and then release them pregnant with their babies.
How did that work out for Japan?
I mean, it worked out fine.
They went through Nanking and they absolutely did that.
It was called the raping of Nanking.
That's what it was called.
I'm fully aware of what it was called, but I mean.
It worked out well for them.
They completely demoralized the Chinese.
They completely subjugated them under their boots.
We dropped two atom bombs on them.
And now they are assisting.
Did China do that?
No.
No.
But their allies, the U.S. did it.
And was the U.S. fielding women in frontline combats in Japan?
No.
but the Chinese, right, they were greeting anybody they could.
And the thing is funny is the first thing the Japanese did as part of their demoralization campaign was essay all the women and make sure that, and one of the big pieces of propaganda that they had was all of your future children are now our future children.
Yeah, it's horrible and awful.
But again, look at where China is now and look at where Japan is now.
You know, people joke about the Chinese century, but I think China is a very powerful world superpower and Japan is an American vassal state, essentially.
So I think at the end of the day.
I mean, I would argue that more people would want to live in Japan than they would in China.
That doesn't change the fact that China is much more powerful than Japan.
Yeah, but it's also got way more people than Japan and a much larger landmass and way more access to resources.
And we allowed them to continue to have an offensive military post-war in Japan.
We took that away from the option to take from China.
But because they were our ally.
Well, we did, right at the start, have the option to, but we didn't.
But the point is, is that the Japanese have not been allowed to have a military.
We don't allow them to have an offensive one.
Yeah, because of what happened last time.
Yeah, exactly.
But the point is, is that, again, that's the second reason.
That's the second.
And then you have the third reason, which is that they can't meet the minimum requirements which would be necessary for us to even fill them if we wanted to in those situations, because they would get killed so quickly.
I mean, they would just get killed so quickly.
I don't know if you have a good idea of what, no offense, but like, I don't, I don't, I feel like maybe you, your idea of like what war looks like now is like dudes charging at each other with guns, and that's not really how it works.
What do you think war looks like right now, Charlie?
It's drone warfare at the moment.
We don't really do boots on the ground anymore.
Is there a lot of drone warfare going on in Russia and Ukraine?
Guerrilla warfare.
Yeah, there's a lot of Russian women.
I'm probably not super familiar with Russia and Ukraine, but I know there's a lot of tanks and they're blowing people up.
They've mostly been focusing on drone combat.
I'm going to tell you something really interesting that happened.
Okay.
So the Russians brought back the dragoon, the actual dragoon, and instead of using a horse, they use a motorcycle instead to outpace drones.
And they mount AK-47 machine guns to the front of their motorcycles and they fly past the enemy and they mow them down.
A woman couldn't do that?
No.
No, she couldn't.
A woman has a motorcycle and she's not going to be able to do it.
No, I don't think she could.
I don't think you really understand the physical weight requirements that are necessary to both control a motorcycle, have a heavy machine gun mounted to it that you're also firing, and carry the requisite equipment to do this.
I don't think you have.
It's tied to the motorcycle.
That doesn't make it less unwieldy, very hard to wield.
It requires physical strength to do these things.
Yes, I've shot guns before.
It's just I don't, I'm unclear how a gun being mounted on a motorcycle, you're not having to carry it.
You were just riding the motorcycle.
You have to control the motorcycle with your muscles.
Yes, I know how motorcycles work.
Yes.
And the heavier the front end of them is, the more you have to use the muscles to steer it.
These probably aren't American.
And by the way, what do you think the 110-pound woman's going to do?
Kick up the kickstand and keep it up?
Or do you think she's going to fall over with it?
They wouldn't be recruiting 110 pounds.
But it's not just that.
They are in Russia and Ukraine charging at each other with machine guns.
They are on the ground fighting, just like it's World War II-looking combat more than anything else.
It's infantry-based warfare all over the Ukraine.
Why do you think so many people are dying?
Why do you think they're dying so much?
Because they're engaged in frontline infantry combat day in and day out.
Is it not a lot of guerrilla stuff?
Yes, of course.
Guerrilla fighting is always part of warfare.
All right.
I feel like that is what the majority of warfare is now.
Bombs, drones, guerrilla stuff.
War will always come down after you get past the technological barriers.
So if you have a first world nation attacking third world nation, sure, right?
They're left with guerrilla warfare.
We use massive amounts of technology to level major cities, things like this, and then send an occupying force.
They fight the occupying force with guerrilla warfare.
That's true.
But when it comes to first world nations, that's different.
They have technology.
They're going to blow the hell out of each other, right?
But then when they blow up each other's technology, it still comes down to infantry-based combat.
Why do you think they train people to be infantrymen?
Because it still comes down to that.
And there's lots of places you can't get technology.
You can't always get technology in the deep, dark jungle or in the high deserts or in the snow-covered fields and plains.
I think they're pulling very, very old.
It's not just that.
Think about here in the United States.
You're going to get a tank through Michigan in the wintertime?
I don't think so.
I don't think that's no.
I don't think so.
So the thing is, it's like, yeah, it requires the requisite is a lot of strength, regardless of technology.
And even utilizing technology requires a lot of physical strength.
Tanks require loading from shells, carrying tons of shells, carrying tons of equipment and ammunition.
And not only that, you have to be more resistant to the elements.
And men are.
Men are more resistant to elements than women are.
And so they have kind of everything going for them.
They're the super soldier.
And they were designed basically to be super soldiers, right?
I mean, I think you might have an exaggerated idea of what the average starving Russian farm boy might look like.
A lot of the boys recruited into, you know, or drafted into warfare over like across across the world.
How do you think you would do in a physical fist fight with the average Russian starving farmboy?
Depends on how tall he is.
I have beaten, well, it's been a long time since I've been able to get a fight.
I mean, honestly, out of just a random, any random Russian farm boy who's starving that you can think of, who you came across, right?
How well do you think you would do if you tangled up with him in a physical conflict?
Physical fist fighting?
Not well.
Not well.
But if I had a gun, I think we'd be about equal.
Yeah.
Or a knife or a spear or swords.
But if he had a gun, I don't think you would be equal.
I think that that starving peasant who's male is still going to be 10 times more dangerous than you with a gun.
With a gun?
Yes, he's fat.
He's going to be faster.
He's going to be stronger.
He's going to have better predatory instincts.
Like they are equal when it comes to using guns.
You're thinking about this the wrong way.
If I set you up right here, okay, and we lay you down on a table and you have a rifle and the rifle's been sighted in and all you have to do is aim it at the target and pull the trigger, you can do that equal to a man.
Totally agree.
But if you have to carry that fucking thing for 60 miles and all the ammunition that comes with it and all of the equipment that you need to sustain yourself to survive in any sort of environment with you, you're going to have a huge problem.
And the reason you're going to have a huge problem is because you don't have to just carry your equipment.
You've got to carry the guy's equipment next to you as well for the things that they're doing.
And men are on average 50 to 75% stronger than women.
That's why they're capable of doing that.
Women aren't.
Well, the me of right now is perhaps, yes, not equipped to do that.
But there are certainly women who, you know, carry very heavy loads when they camp or hike.
I agree.
And travel far distances.
There's also a lot of that a woman who hunts regularly would be much, you know, better equipped in that sort of scenario than like, I don't know, a teenage boy who's never picked up a gun in his life.
Because it's the strength differential means so much.
Not with a gun.
With a gun, it means a lot.
You have to.
Okay.
I wish we had one here so I could demonstrate this for you, but I think I can at least express it for you.
Okay.
Do you agree with me that ammunition weighs a lot?
Yeah.
Okay.
It weighs a lot.
It weighs a lot.
Okay.
How would you feel about carrying 400 rounds of it on your chest?
I would hate it.
Yeah, along with full magazines and the rifle itself and your cleaning kit with it and your food for the day, your basic mesh kit, your basic mesh gear, your sleeping bag, everything else that you have.
And then at the end of a long hike, you're expected to fight.
I wonder, this is kind of an insane proposition.
I do want to go back to, again, like women during warfare because, okay, let me actually not make a.
I was going to say, I mean, my goodness, if we really needed to, we could just start giving women testosterone if we needed to get them as buff as the average man.
Yeah, but you see the whole network.
If we were desperate for it, we could start giving women tea and they would get pretty jacked pretty quickly.
Yeah, do you see the issue there, though?
That should be pretty obvious right away.
It would be forcing someone to take HR.
No, no, no.
That's not the issue.
The issue is it's like, why wouldn't you just give it to the men?
Because now testosterone in men just turns into estrogen, which is why people looking to transition to, you know, have more male secondary sex characteristics, they have to be careful about the dosage of testosterone they take.
Otherwise, it loops around and turns back into estrogen.
Sure.
But if it's the case, you're looking for a strength differential, right?
Most men are short on testosterone anyway.
And you could give them TRT.
Why not give it?
That's one.
But two, for women, TRT and its effects and changes on your physical body would take years.
It doesn't take weeks.
Takes years for your muscles to start to increase.
It's a little bit about this.
It doesn't.
It does.
It does.
It definitely does.
Your very personal experience with this, it doesn't work.
You became 50% stronger using TRT.
You became equivalent in strength to the average man using TRT.
I mean, my muscles immediately grew, yes.
Yeah, your muscles will immediately grow.
But they immediately grew.
And I also wasn't even working out.
They would need working out while I was on tea.
I would be jacked out of my mind.
Sure.
I would be stronger than most men.
And you would still be weaker than the...
No, you wouldn't be stronger than most men.
That's the problem.
I think I would want to see a, for that reason, a study on if, you know, FTM people are like how long it takes for them to become as strong.
Can I logically demonstrate it for you?
Surely there's.
Okay, I can just logically demonstrate it for you.
How many of these F to Ms are in male contact sports?
Can you name one?
Yeah, there's a...
It better be a contact support.
Better not be water polar.
Wrestler.
Wrestling.
What wrestling?
Pro-wrestling?
No, no, no.
The story was on an FTM teenager in high school who was getting a lot of flack for being on the women's team.
And so they switched him to the men's team.
And he did fine.
So, yeah, that's a male contact sport.
I would like to know what this story is so I can look into it.
It's been like Tumblr and Twin.
Yeah, I'm not aware of any professional, any professional athletes in the NFL or in the NBA or in any of these places which are F to M.
And I mean anywhere.
They can't compete with the men.
I mean, they'll just get crushed.
They get to be destroyed.
Peak athletes.
Like, are we talking about that?
But isn't it scalable?
Like, they would be peak athletes too.
Do you think that everyone else, like, I feel that everyone has, based on their genetics, a level of potential that they can reach?
Yeah.
And I think even if you take testosterone, you still have that limit.
I think that the vast majority of men will never be.
You know what?
I'm just going to grant that you could jack women up on TRT.
Make a mega jacket.
Which would be ridiculous.
Yeah, it's ridiculous.
You ain't going to do it.
But even then, it doesn't deal with the problem of the SA.
It doesn't deal with that issue at all.
Well, they'd start growing beards, and their voices would drop.
Do you think that that would stop them from being SA'd?
No, of course not.
Okay, then.
But that's also a consequence of, you know, going to war.
Unfortunately, you can be captured and tortured.
It's horrible.
But it's worth it.
But it's going to be way more horrible for women.
I mean, God, prisoners of war, male prisoners of war, suffer quite horribly.
I mean, we could also consider that it's quite possible.
They're not SA'd 50 times a day, and women would be.
Sure, but I would assume that female prisoners would not be given harsher, would be given less harsh physical punishments versus the men.
Less harsh physical punishment than being raped?
No, but what I mean is like...
What's a less harsh punishment than that?
Like having like your freaking legs and arms broken and being like beaten to a bloody pulp every day.
Didn't you think that most women, if they had to choose, would prefer that over SA?
Because most of the feminists I've talked to would claim that they would.
Over having my legs and arms broken.
My God, I would have to decide in the moment because those both sound pretty awful.
They both sound pretty awful.
They both sound pretty awful.
But being sent back home pregnant with your SARS kids, too, that would be hugely demoralizing on your countrymen, wouldn't it?
I don't know what starvation and long-term imprisonment would do for someone's family.
Why does it even need to be long-term?
They could just do it over a couple of weeks, send you home pregnant.
Sure, and then that person could abort or keep the child.
That's their choice.
That's horribly traumatic.
It's horribly traumatic.
Yes, Claude.
Not just for you, for your countrymen, for your husband, for your parents, right?
It's the most demoralizing thing I could ever think of doing to the enemy.
It is horrific, and it happens all the time.
Women are SA'd and forced, you know, keeping it.
Not only that, can we just point out that in the military itself, the SA rates for women are really high, just being in the military, period.
They're not good for women anyway.
They probably shouldn't be in the military anyway because they're constantly SA'd anyway.
I don't have any thoughts on that because that is a very significant issue.
Huge issue that would go away.
It's a very significant issue.
It would go away if women weren't in the military.
I think different units could be better for that.
However, I do want to...
going to have the charlie all-female fighting force i mean yeah didn't the you know what i would do if i were soviets have an all-female sniper They had all-female sniper units, did they not?
Yeah, I hate to be the person to, because it's like telling a kid that there's no such thing as Santa Claus.
But the female super soldier snipers from the Soviet Union were, they were propaganda.
They didn't exist.
They weren't real.
Well, I'd have to look into that.
Yeah, look into it.
But the big female ass-kicking chicks, 99% propaganda.
And by the way, for the men, it was too.
99% propaganda.
They had outrageous kill counts, 70, 80, 900.
Give me a fucking break.
Yeah, right.
Not even close.
But what are you going to say?
That your enemy comes out with a report that says that their sniper killed 120 of yours.
Is your report going to say that you only killed 10 of theirs?
No, of course not.
You match propaganda with propaganda.
Well, yeah, it's also World War II.
It's not like we can really value way, but that being said, that being said, women in the military whatever um, do you think that women do not suffer when their uh sons husbands brothers, fathers are sent to war?
Because I would um I I, I can't say what I would do if you know my brothers and father were sent to die uh, just to make some rich guy more money.
I can't tell you what I would do.
It's it's yeah, but I mean it's preferable to not die yes, than to die yes, so you still get the better end of the deal.
Why would I, why would I vote to send my brothers and my dad to war?
Why would I go?
Yes oh, just what I wanted.
I want all the men I love to die.
Like that's, I feel, like that's ridiculous.
Women are susceptible to propaganda in many ways that men aren't, and they're the most susceptible to it.
Would you like the sniper over overview?
Yeah yeah, sure so.
So Soviet female sniper units were a small percentage compared to male snipers.
There were uh, 430 000 snipers trained in the Soviet Union during World War Ii, only 2 000 of which were women, and a fraction uh yeah, a fraction of the total sniper force force were women.
Okay yeah very, very small.
I knew that about the them being very, very small and their kill counts were also very small and wildly blown out of proportion.
Wildly blown out of proportion does say that the male snipers had higher kill counts.
Well, I guess a kill is a kill yeah, but I would just point this out that, um that, that aside, the the problem is is that right now in the Ukraine, if you're part of the voting bloc and you get invaded, for instance, women can vote to leave the men behind, to kill while they go, while they leave, and and that's exactly what's going on the women aren't required to fight, they're leaving, they're allowed to leave.
And if the Ukraine men are not allowed to leave, do you think that the men?
I think that's horrible, but how do the men in Ukraine feel about it?
Because I do think that there are often men with very uh, you know strong uh, ideas about chivalry who would say, that's my duty sure, totally agree to to carry on our conversation.
Women need to go, because that's that's very much to do with the justice of it all, or the injustice of it all.
Well, there's no justice in that.
That's not there.
Yeah, it's not just.
And so the thing is, is that when I, when I for the practical, these sorts of votes to pass, is it a woman in power that is making these things happen?
Well well, in a democracy yes, aren't all women in power?
In a yeah no no, you don't have the power to vote.
I can vote, but the people who are deciding what I can do, then you have equal power to men certainly yes, the men of of of my status, But, you know, not the lawmakers, not the politicians.
You're in charge of the politicians that you get put into office.
Hardly.
I think that's a.
You and the collection of voters, yes.
And you vote for collective interests, just like we vote for collective interests.
We try to, but do you think that American politicians and lawmakers largely reflect the interests of the people?
You know, interestingly enough, I think now they do.
I think that the truth is, is that when I talk to the average progressive, yeah, I think they do.
I think that we're getting exactly what we paid for and what we vote for.
So, yeah, I do.
I think that we have an immoral government because we have an immoral populace.
And I think that that's always the, that that generally tends to be the case.
Now, not always, but I think generally, yeah, we have exactly the government we deserve, which is a bunch of incompetent fucking assholes who are out there to fuck us over, right?
That's very bleak.
But I can't say I disagree with you there on that.
However, my point is, is that we typically don't get a say oftentimes in what we vote on, what laws are passed.
I mean, we can try our best, you know, when the midterms come up.
I don't know how democracy works in Ukraine.
I am woefully uneducated on Ukraine and Russia.
But again, I feel like you would want to turn to the politicians and lawmakers that are allowing these injustices to occur.
Well, I guess before we get to that, can we just start with agreeing that that's an injustice and it's an unjust and non-equitable system that women can vote to send men to wars they don't have to fight?
I mean, I think being able to, I don't, it's not just women.
It would also be old men.
It would be disabled men.
Because there's still the potential which exists there uniquely for them that even old men, if they have skills and the government wants them, they are definitely going to go.
And the government can force them to do it via the draft, via these various draft acts.
No.
For instance, my what do we want?
What skills do we need from women in warfare?
They don't have any of this stem.
They have none of the STEM degrees.
Medicine.
Why would we need women for what?
For nursing?
Correct.
Yes, for healthcare.
But they've always been nurses.
Yeah, and we did also have female nurses in wars.
Florence Nightingale was a nice person.
And they didn't get shot because they were nowhere near the front lines.
They're always behind.
All right.
Well, you know what?
My papa, my grandfather, was drafted into Vietnam and he was a doctor.
He was not near the front lines ever at all.
He was a very valuable nurse.
But he had the potential to be.
No.
Yes.
They were not going to waste a doctor on the front lines.
Are you crazy?
Unless the war came to him.
And the thing is, is that sometimes it did.
Like they had the Ted Offensive.
They also got bombed.
They had the Tet.
There were also female nurses in the same housing on the same boats that were also bombed.
Usually they keep them separated and evacuate them first, just like they did during the Tet Offensive.
When the Tet Offensive happened in Vietnam, that was during the Tet holiday, they're like day of the dead, and there was a Tet ceasefire and they broke the ceasefire.
They attacked military bases all over Vietnam and just fucking decimated us.
It was brutal.
But the thing is, is like even the nurses who were there, which, by the way, are still mostly male, I believe.
But even the ones who are female, they get evacuated first.
Women are always evacuated first.
In other words, the potentiality is always there for these men.
It's not really there for these women.
And I don't know why it is that you, for like any other form of social injustice, you would be all about this.
If I said, hey, look at the fact that, like, for instance, these white people can vote to have black people go fight wars.
They don't have to fight.
You would be like, no way.
We're not going to allow.
No fucking way.
And if I gave you the same potentials for that, I feel like you'd be like, we need to stop that right this second.
But for some reason, when it's between the sexes, you don't care.
Would the response be, you know, okay, no white people can vote?
That wouldn't be the correct thing.
It would be no white people can.
No white people can vote.
No white people can vote to send black people off to war, right?
They're not allowed to do that.
And yes, if it was the case, I think that you would actually.
I think that you would advocate if it was the case that white people could vote to send black people off to war, that they didn't have to go fight, I think that you would say that you should mitigate suffering in some way for that or suffrage for that.
So you feel that I would say that all white people, like no white people should be allowed to vote.
If it was the alternative that they could vote black people to go to war when they didn't, yeah, I think you would.
Unfortunately, I'm selfish to the degree that as a white person, I still want to be able to vote.
I want to have a say in the country that I pay taxes to.
Even if it's the case that we can vote to send black people off to war and we don't go fight them ourselves?
I think that most white people would not vote to send black people to war.
I think that's kind of a strange scenario because that also gets into the trouble of determining, my goodness.
I mean, like, how would that even work?
The same way it worked in the drafts.
They would go to low-income black neighborhoods and draft them.
Well, I mean, that's kind of how we recruit into the military now anyway, is we, you know, find the poorest people possible and go, hey, free school, free healthcare.
I agree.
There's a lot of bribery.
Die for the weapons.
But my point is, is that I think that this form of social injustice, you would be like, I just think that if the roles were reversed racially, that you would be outraged.
And you're just not because.
I would be upset.
I just think that you're, hang on.
I hate the draft.
I hate the draft. I hate the draft.
It's not just about the draft, though.
My argument here is not even about the draft.
My argument is that it's a huge injustice that one portion of the population has the potential to always fight wars on behalf of the other.
The other doesn't have to fight it, gets all the benefits of them doing it.
All right.
And we're supposed to just be like, well, okay, then.
It's like, yeah, fuck that.
No, that's not okay then.
The benefits like having your male family members die, potential wartime rape if your country is.
The benefits of you not being fucking occupied and being able to get all your resources, those are way bigger benefits.
Doesn't ensure that you'll never not be occupied.
Again, what that means is that a good chunk of the money that we make will be going to be.
I assure you, you're wrong.
Our country will go to the war.
I assure you that if you refuse to go to war, you will be occupied.
Let's finish.
Let her finish.
Go ahead.
We will also be, again, if our country goes to war, any country that votes to go to war, there's a chance that they could be invaded and their women could be subjected to wartime essay.
Again, also, in times of war, things are tough.
Your resources are not there.
People starve during wartime.
There is very few people who actively benefit from war except for the ultra-wealthy.
Yeah, but do you understand that the case in point is that it's going to be men who are going to do this?
And when you say things that are, they just sound absurd to me.
Like there's no guarantee that you still won't be occupied even if you send the men off to war.
It's like, so what?
You're still sending the men off to war.
And you just don't ever have that potential.
Like, that's nothing you ever have to worry about.
When you go down and you sign up to vote, you don't have to sign a draft card.
Like, you don't get put in a draft system.
Your number is never going to get called.
That's nothing you ever need to worry about, ever.
And that is a potential that all men need to worry about.
And by the way, even the ones.
It's not really.
We haven't had a draft since Vietnam.
So what?
because the way that warfare works has changed.
We have an insanely bloated military.
The chances of either of you being called in a draft to go to the front lines to fight slim to none.
However, I am against the draft, and I would support any motion, legal motion to remove the draft.
I would vote for that.
I would use my power as a woman.
Yeah, that's great.
It's not even contending with what I'm saying.
That's like not even contending with what I'm saying.
Even if that's the case, that's nice that you say that, right?
But our global leaders are never going to get rid of the draft because their military advisors tell them not to, because it's a huge weapon for mobilization of military force if you need it.
So we're never going to get rid of it.
That's just a fucking pipe dream.
It's never going to happen ever.
So remove women's ability to vote and then we'll never go to war.
Is that your thinking?
No, I'm saying that this injustice and unfairness.
And by the way, like when you bring up, you say, well, what about 60-year-olds?
They can't be drafted.
Okay, but they could have been when they were in their 20s and signed up for the draft, which you didn't have to.
So their potential was already there and exhausted.
They already had to go through that stage of life where their number could be called and yours couldn't.
So yeah, they still get the benefit.
They still did the thing that you guys will never fucking do.
They still did it.
And so the thing is, so the thing is, is like it just stands like this to reason, right?
It doesn't matter if the 18-year-old never gets called to a draft.
The potential is only there that he will.
And you can't get mad at him later because he still maintains voting rights or certain rights that you don't get because he still went through the process of signing up for the draft and had the potential to be called and you never did.
So it's like, why do you get anything extra?
Why is it that they don't get extra, in fact?
Why do you get anything on par with that when the social status is such that men can be called to defend you and die?
And that's never a service you have to render on their behalf.
You know, I have multiple male family members who went to war.
My grandfather, who was drafted, and I have never had them express to me, it makes me so mad that you as a woman get to vote because I was drafted and went to war.
I've never encountered this attitude from anyone that went to combat.
Yeah, but do you that was deployed?
Like I have I have until this this I had never heard that before.
Yeah, but do you understand that maybe I think you do against the politicians?
Well, I think you do understand though that many times injustices are perpetuated on people and they don't even know that they're being perpetuated on them.
Perhaps most injustice is that way.
So just because a person tells you or has never told you that they felt that there was a weight of injustice in a thing which was happening may never have been explained to them or they may never have even thought about it before.
Like most people don't think about the weight of injustice.
Women aren't responsible for this injustice.
It is the lawmakers and politicians that put the draft in place.
Well, but my opinion on this is that it doesn't really matter.
What matters is that this injustice is happening now and it's going to continue to happen for the rest of our lives and you're never going to get rid of it ever.
And even if it were the case that women could be drafted, it wouldn't matter because they would never be able to serve in the same capacity as men.
And since the draft is never going to go away ever and it's not ever going to go away.
You're not going to be able to vote it away.
There will always be some capacity for it because it's just too useful of a mechanism if you ever have to go to war.
Your generals will never allow it.
Okay, then, you know, hang on, hang on.
Let me finish the point, though.
If that's the case, then it's a fundamentally unfair proposition that women can can vote in politicians against the will of men, and they do all the time because they're mostly left-wingers, who could then vote to send them to war.
Like, that's completely unjust.
In every capacity I can think of, that's totally unjust.
It's my understanding that political divides are a lot more stark when it comes to ethnicity and education versus gender.
Like there is a divide, but if we're talking about populations sending people to war, like most white female voters voted for Trump, I think in 2024 and 2016, they were voting with men.
Correct?
I've heard this with white men.
Yeah, I've heard this argument.
And so the argument is that it's actually more stark along racial, ethnic, and social lines than it is along gender lines because races tend to vote together.
Yes.
You have a problem with that, though, which is that you saw that the Hispanic men really did start voting differently than Hispanic women.
That's uncommon.
The reason that you saw so many of the white women voting with white men is because they were married to them.
And that's still a demographic with a high marriage rate.
But as the marriage rate decreases, whites don't vote together.
And races don't vote together.
Women will vote how their husbands are.
And as long as the marriage rates are still higher for whites than they are other demographic groups besides Asians, as soon as those marriage rates continue to plummet, no, in fact, women do vote against men's interests, for sure.
I would say, I believe in black American populations, the marriage rate is fairly low.
Extremely low.
But regardless, black women and black men tend to vote the same.
Except this last election.
Really?
Yeah.
When you look at the black female vote versus the black male vote.
But yeah, like I agree under Obama, right?
90%.
But black people have voted as a monolith for a long time.
That's not the case with other races.
And we can look down ethnic lines and we can see that, yes, it's true that white women tend to vote the way their husbands do, but when they're not married, they tend to vote left.
And that's that.
What about women who are more likely to be unmarried and of age to vote?
You're looking at a lot of the time college students, women, educated women.
So again, I think that education plays a huge role in how someone votes.
I believe that most white people, male and female, educated, tend to vote left, whereas uneducated tend to vote right.
Yeah, well, when you say uneducated, you just mean not college degree.
Yeah, yeah, sorry, high school diploma or equivalent.
I do believe that it is the case, yes, that when it comes to the voting record of people with college degrees, they tend to move more progressive, yes.
That's the case.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So my point is, again, that educated people almost like 99% of the time end up marrying other educated people.
People tend to marry people of the same social status.
Or higher.
Or higher, yeah.
So then would they not just be voting the same as their husbands in that case as well?
Yeah, they are.
So the white women are voting the same way as their husbands are.
But the case is that most white men are not college educated, don't have college degrees.
They have trade degrees.
Most of them are smarter than the educated.
And they vote right.
And their wives vote right along with them.
But when they're not married, they tend not to.
They tend not to vote.
They vote left, very much left.
And I can ex so we should have the social expectation that as marriage rates decrease for whites, and they are decreasing rapidly, that women will continue to vote left and men will continue to vote right.
So it is a massive gender divide.
It's a big problem or sex divide, right?
I mean, it just is, objectively.
Right.
I mean, sure, I forgot what.
So if that's the case, then women can, well, the point is, is that women can vote against the interests of men.
Now, maybe you could say that that's okay when it comes to democracy, but it's really not okay when it comes to things like warfare when they can vote to send men off to war.
Like, that's just like criminally unjust from my view.
It's so unjust.
This is going to be a tricky conversation.
But I would, you could make the same argument about abortion.
And I know that, you know, you believe that it is murder.
However, I hold the view, and I want you to trust in me in the sense that you don't think that I would be very cool with like murdering babies.
So when I say I think it's your view, it's not a baby.
It's not a baby.
It's not scientific yet.
You don't consider that to be human life.
Well, you consider scientifically.
You consider it scientifically to be human life, but you don't consider life to begin until there's some sort of cognitive sentience or something like this, right?
Yeah, something to that degree.
I think it was, was it St. Augustine that said, when it starts to kick, that's when it's a person, something like that.
I think that abortion and birth control, because women are, you know, very much encumbered by our physical forms, our biological capacity to have children, I think that the only way we can have equality is to have access to birth control and abortion so that we can participate in the economy the same way men can.
So when men vote against women's interests and can force us to carry children and destroy our, you know, our avenue to freedom, financial freedom, financial independence, it strikes me the same way as the draft does to you.
I feel like that's yes.
Here's something interesting, though.
Let's just start with this, because I think we should get our terms correct here.
Okay.
When you say force, right, nobody actually forces you to have a child, even if you can't abort it.
Isn't that actually the case?
Nobody's actually forcing you to do that.
The case is that you're using what's called an ambiguous equivocation, which is a fallacious form of argumentation.
The equivocation is that you would have us believe, through the nebulousness of the language of the term force, that somebody is using some type of physical compellance to make you do a thing when in fact the truth is that they're not doing that at all.
You're just simply not allowed to do a thing.
That's different than forcing you to do a thing.
I mean, a law that says I cannot drive in the left lane or I cannot drive, you know.
Yeah.
I don't know, I can't go 100 miles per hour on the highway.
Yes, I can technically do it, but there will be consequences.
Mostly, you know, most likely me probably dying in a horrible accident.
Yeah, so is a red light.
Do you think that a red light is force?
No, but there's consequences.
But it's not force.
And that's the same thing here.
You have a law, but there's no force that's being used.
Technically, no one's forcing you to go to war.
You could choose prison.
You could, you, What is it?
What is the term for abandoning?
Desertion.
Desertion.
Yeah, you could desert.
Like, you don't technically, you aren't technically being forced to do so.
You could take the penalty for not signing up for the draft.
You try to diversify the potential.
penalty for draft dodging can be you get shot that's a little bit different than is that is that the case That's the case, yeah.
Because there were a lot of people that dodged the draft.
And they were given immunity, basically, from the government.
They pardoned them.
But it's not just imprisonment.
If you do desertion, for instance, you can be shot.
And they shot people for desertion all the time.
People were shot for deserting their posts.
And you're still not being forced to do it.
My search here, just on this topic, in the USA, desertion is a serious offense.
And the penalty for desertion during a time of war can be death, though other punishments like imprisonment are possible.
Okay, what about draft dodging?
And what happens if you refuse to sign up for the draft?
You can't vote.
Is that essential?
You can't vote.
You can't buy a gun.
There's other penalties associated with it too, which have to do with tax filing.
You're not being forced to do it.
There will be severe consequences, but you technically don't have to sign up for the draft.
No one's forcing you to.
No one's holding a gun to your head and saying you must sign it.
Do you want the penalties for draft dodging?
Yes.
It can include federal felonies like fines up to $250,000 and or up to five years in prison for failing to register.
Other consequences like state-level restrictions on things like college eligibility or driver's licenses can occur.
And I believe there's some preclusion from receiving federal student loans and preclusion also from certain federal jobs.
Yeah, so I understand the argument you're making.
The argument for equivalency here is, wait a second, nobody's forcing you to do this to go off to war or something like this, right?
I guess my argument there would be pretty easy, which is that this is outside of your control.
Drafting is outside of your control.
Having a child is not outside of your control for almost any woman who's ever been pregnant.
They're almost always pregnant, and that's within their control.
And so I don't think that men, given the punitive punishment of years in prison for felonies or potentially being shot for desertion, even if they do go, or having the penalty raised for draft avoidance if we needed men, which would probably be, again, you'd probably get shot.
I don't think that these are equivalent statements because one, you are being voted and force is to be used in order to compel you to do these things.
Nobody's compelling you to get pregnant.
Nobody ever forces you to get pregnant.
Well, unless it's SA, right?
But the thing is, it does, but it doesn't account for the majority of cases, the overwhelming majority of cases.
And if it were the case that you argued to me, but in the case that I am forced, right?
What about then?
I think that you would be able to negotiate that out with the other side.
I think they would be willing to say in cases of SA, incest, of things where force and compellance was used, they have said many times that they would be willing to negotiate that out if it stopped all of their abortions.
But the left, so that's not really your argument because you want women to have that regardless.
Well, the issue with that is that getting someone charged with SA, I'm sure you would agree, is a tedious and can be a very long process.
So how would that work?
If let's say I was essayed and I became pregnant and I showed up to Planned Parenthood in a state where, well, I guess they're closing the Planned Parenthoods, and I said, I need an abortion, I was SA'd, and they go, okay, we need the paperwork to prove that you were SA'd.
I could potentially be looking at months, maybe even years of trying to prove that I was essayed.
And in the meantime, I would be pregnant, and then I would reach a point where an abortion would not make any sense.
Well, let's even assume that you were able to negotiate this out in such a way where if you just made the claim that you were essayed and named whoever the victimizer was and you were in the process of that, then you could still get the schmushmortian.
But if it was determined that you were lying or made it up, then there was some sort of criminal penalty towards you.
But what happens?
Do you think that every time a charge is dismissed, that means that the accused is innocent?
No.
Because I think a lot of the time people do things like that.
By that same argument, then I have reason to doubt the SA standards because do you think that if a person is convicted, that that means that they're guilty?
No.
Well, then if that's the case, then we have, so all we can do then is go off of, go off of data unless it's questionable data, right?
What else can we do?
Because the idea here of you just saying, well, you know, they may be innocent, it's like, okay, well, then that person who was convicted of SA may be not guilty, right?
He may be innocent.
And the person who's innocent may actually be guilty.
It's hard to say.
But in this case, if you went and you filed this, right, let's just say somehow we got it to where you actually could.
You could actually move through the system very quickly in order to get this abortion if it was proven that it was due specifically to rape, right?
Great.
Got that.
But that's not really what you want, right?
You want unfettered access to abortion by every woman, don't you?
Yeah.
So any of these arguments, the micro-nuanced arguments, which are around rape and incest, don't really matter that much because ultimately that you don't have to do that.
I do have a lot of concerns about that being, you know, the process of having to prove this to get that exemption.
I do genuinely, not out of self-interest, but out of fear for other women and going.
Yes.
But assuming that that was a possibility that we could expedite such a process quickly.
Yeah, I would still want abortion to be.
Yeah, so then who cares?
Where you're arguing over something that's almost inconsequential in comparison to the overwhelming amount of abortions which are done and they're done as a form of birth control.
I mean, they're not frequently done.
Yeah, they're frequently done.
They're not rare.
no they're not and they were always we were promised they were going to be rare but they're not rare lifetime occurrence Actually, Brian, could you Google what percentage of women have an abortion in their lifetimes?
Because again, it is a form of birth control.
I think it's over 40% of women have one.
Yeah, but are they having abortions every year or are they having one?
I have it.
According to the, well, that doesn't matter.
An estimated 24.7% of women in the United States will have an abortion by the time they're 45.
Okay.
And that translates to approximately one in four women.
Okay.
Okay.
So it's not quite as high as I thought.
Yeah.
But one in four is still fucking high.
But it's, it's, I don't think that most people get repeat abortions.
It's usually the cases of that I think are fairly rare.
Brian, I don't know if that factor is.
But why does like frequency here matter?
It's still being used as a form of birth control.
That's the truth.
I'm talking about a birth control, birth control, and we're thinking about, you know, like birth control is typically something you have to use every time you engage in intercourse or it is a some sort of hormonal thing that you are you know using all the time.
What I'm saying is that abortion it's this idea of it as like comparable to the pill or to a condom is well it's comparable only in the way that it's being used as a form of birth control.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean yeah, I guess it's it's preventing a birth sure.
Yeah.
It's you being it's that so it's comparable to birth control because that's what birth control is doing preventing a birth.
Yes, but it's a painful traumatic process that most people do not want to undergo.
It's like a last resort, you know?
But it happens.
Yeah, and as a form of birth control.
So like that's in the most common forms of abortion are forms of birth control.
So the thing is, is like almost all women have an abortion not because they're SA'd or because of incest or their life is at risk, but because they use it as a form of birth control.
Well, it's because the birth control that they were using failed typically.
So now they use this other form of birth control.
Yes.
I think we're saying the exact same thing here.
I don't feel like we're even speaking past each other.
So the thing is, is like that to me is, that's fucking insane, first of all.
Like, why would you, why would you even want to advocate for a society in which female hormonal birth control was even a thing anyway?
It fucks women up.
Like, it fucks them all up.
Um, I mean...
It makes them all mental and fucking crazy and fucking retarded.
You know what kind of shit?
I mean, it really depends on the woman.
I do think that hormonal birth control, by and large, ass, horrible.
But there are women who, you know, when I was 14, I, when I've, sorry to TMI, but I got my period and I got it for two months straight.
And so to fix that, I was put on birth control for a while to balance that out so that I was not bleeding every single day of my life.
And then I was taken off of it.
There's women with PCOS.
Maybe we can find common ground here.
Hang on.
Maybe we can do it this way.
You want women to not have to have unwanted births.
Yes.
That's what you're after, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
I think every child.
I propose that if you take away birth control, hormonal birth control, and you take away condoms, that women will actually have less unwanted children because they'll have less sex.
Because that equals pregnancy.
And my proof for this is that we can go back to a time not that long ago before we had hormonal birth control and condoms, and there was way less unwanted babies being born than there are right now when we have all those things.
That was also, I think society expected you to have a child.
However, I will concede, so I did a debate, like I think last month, about like, do abortion laws meaningfully decrease abortions?
And what I saw from the data is that after, you know, abortion restrictions are in place, there is a small spike in births, but then it starts to decline at the same rate.
Rapidly.
And then, yeah, in the surrounding states, abortions go up.
So it does work.
Yeah, like I guess it does work, but I mean, that sucks.
Because you want to fuck.
Well, I mean, okay, you're a married man.
Yeah.
But I mean, here's the thing.
Probably you don't want 10 baby Wilsons running around.
That's a lot of mouths to feed.
Oh, sorry.
Like, presumably, Married couples don't want to be at risk for having children all the time, especially as a woman grows older and the risk to her body becomes more extreme where she could miscarry or die in the attempt.
Right?
Like, wouldn't we want birth control to be accessible?
I mean, there's other alternatives, right?
I guess the poll-own method could work.
No, there's other alternatives to that, too.
Like, women, if they've had four kids, they often have their tube tied, right?
Oh, yeah, that's pretty much it.
That's pretty common because their health is at risk at that point.
Yeah.
Or there could be a possibility.
Yeah, I've had seven children.
You know, they have a vasectomy, though.
It's frowned on in religious practices, right?
Really?
Yeah, of course.
But the tubes being tied, though, that's not, right?
That's for the health and the welfare of the mother.
So it's like there's other alternatives if you want to stop having children after you've had them.
But the most common way in which we could probably reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies is to stop fucking each other.
Oh, well, and then the amount of children.
Well, I mean, sure, why not?
But I also think that there will be more STIs spreading.
There'll be less.
How could there be less or more STIs if there's less sex?
Because the people who are having sex are having unprotected sex, and it would most likely be.
Yeah, but there's going to be less people having unprotected sex who don't want kids.
That's the whole point.
So gay men cannot get pregnant.
Yeah, but gay men.
That's my concern.
Gay men rarely use any of that stuff anyway, or what they do, because of the nature of what it is that they do.
Their STI rates are like five times.
No, I think they're higher than that.
Can you look up in comparison to the normal population, how high it is, gay STIs, they're like, it's an astronomical difference.
Well, I mean, if you combine the male libido with no risk of pregnancy in both parties, men typically have much higher libidos.
But if you combine...
That's what happens.
But this is the problem here.
They're crazy with each other.
With promiscuity and sex and this type of thing, it's the same exact thing.
You combine man-woman now with no risk of pregnancy, and you end up with promiscuous society.
Our STIs are higher than they've ever been in history.
Do you think promiscuity is bad?
Yeah, of course.
It's terrible.
Terrible idea.
It's like, it's just a terrible idea for the promotion of society.
I mean, just not, not even just STIs, which are just at an all time fucking high again.
They're like, are they really?
I think they're higher than they've ever been.
Again, we can look that up, but they're extremely high.
I do have the same thing.
Do you want to?
I do have the statistic really quick.
A 2018 study found a 35% STI positivity rate among gay and bisexual cisgender men compared to 15% for heterosexual cisgender men.
Yeah.
Way fucking higher.
Yeah, yeah.
And of course, like I said, it's because no risk of baby, two men with very, very, very high-end.
How many can you check if the STI rates on the general population have been steadily increasing?
By age, though, because I do know that there's like STI booms in elderly homes, like senior citizens.
That's because they're being sexually assaulted.
It's mostly because they're having sex with each other.
No.
I have two.
Because of elder, I'm telling you.
I mean, elder abuse is super duper real.
Super duper real.
Two data points here for you, really quick on the first one from before.
The syphilis rate for gay and bi-men was 309 cases per 100,000, while for heterosexual men, it was just 2.9 per 100,000.
Much higher rate.
And then the general STI rate over time, it says overall in the U.S., the STI rates have seen a substantial increase over the past decade.
If you want, I can find you going back further.
Well, they've been increasing because people have a lot more promiscuous sex with multiple partners.
And my generation is having, like, I don't know if you've seen that stat.
My generation is having less sex than older generations, correct?
Gen Z is like less.
Not the women.
Just women.
It's basically just the men who are having less sex.
Women are having tons of sex with the same five men.
Nuns.
Huh?
Most of the women I know are like nuns.
Well, that's nice, I guess.
But the case of the matter is, or the fact of the matter is, is that, yeah, they're promiscuous.
There's a lot of promiscuity.
It's led to a huge increase in STI.
It's not just that, but that's where all the unwanted pregnancies come from anyway, and why you have all these abortions.
And the same reason that you see them decrease exponentially and unwanted pregnancies decrease exponentially after abortions outlawed is for the same reason if we got rid of birth control.
You would see unwanted pregnancies decrease rapidly because people wouldn't be fucking if they thought it was going to lead to a kid.
You might see herpes increase, though.
Maltherpies.
Probably mal herpes increases a bit, but still better than the alternative.
And so the thing is, is like, I don't see how that's liberating society or helping society at all.
Well, you know, what you're advocating for, it seems to me like we're back to the limit debate.
Is it the case that we can limit behaviors in society for the good of society, just like you did with COVID?
I think we can.
And I think it's fine.
I don't think that limiting abortion benefits society.
I mean, how does it not?
It seems to significantly benefit society.
We have less abortions.
That's great, right?
The whole point of abortion is you want to get rid of unwanted pregnancies.
We're giving you a way to have unwanted pregnancies go away, right?
And they do go away.
The unwanted pregnancies drastically decrease.
So it's like, what?
I mean, people are still going to get pregnant, though, because people are still going to have.
But I mean, we can't.
Here's the thing, though, right?
It's like, we're not going to be able, it's like murder.
Like, people are still going to murder.
There's still going to be people who do the thing.
But for the overwhelming majority of people, they don't.
You see abortion as something that is innately bad, while I see it as something innately good.
Because again, it's not.
Wait, it's good in and of itself?
I mean, what it means.
Should a woman get pregnant just to go have an abortion?
No, that's crazy.
All right, again, but is it bad?
To get pregnant just to get just to go have an abortion.
I think it's weird.
Is it bad?
I would question that person.
But is it bad?
Is it bad?
I mean, probably it's a drain on resources.
That's it.
That could go to other people.
They pay for it.
Well, yeah, but it's a waste of everyone's time.
How?
Everyone's getting paid.
Everyone's getting, yeah, but then, you know, women who are.
Like, how could that possibly be a worse race of resources than, oh, I had a gangbang last night and got knocked up with this?
How's that not just as much of a waste of resources as Jick who's like, well, I'm just going to go and have sex in order to get pregnant to go have an abortion for fun.
Like, how is one more of a drain on resources than the other?
Because one of them is crazy.
I don't know.
This is a they're both fucking crazy.
They're both fucking crazy.
Have you ever heard of women intentionally getting pregnant to have an abortion?
Because I don't know if you know, but that's not the point of the question.
Yeah, but the point of the question isn't to determine if there's.
Like breaking your leg to go to the doctor.
That's weird.
Yeah.
That's an insane thing.
That's great, but the point of the question is like, you said that they're just inherently good.
And it's like, if that's the case, then if a woman just got pregnant to go have one, she's doing something good.
No, that's not what I mean.
Then they're not inherently good.
What they provide for women.
No, you just.
In the sense that it provides our You just mean the outcomes are good.
Yes, the outcomes are positive, sure.
Yeah, but the outcome is.
But which ones?
Which positive?
Because if I can give you more positive outcomes for what you want, which is less kids who are being born that parents don't want, it seems like I provide that society better than you do with abortion.
So like what outcomes here?
What outcomes are better from your view that you're providing that I'm not?
Well, again, when I talked about the abortion statistics, you know, abortions did go up in surrounding states.
So that's because they were illegal there.
Come on.
Well, yes, but what I mean is that the people who were having abortions in those states left to, you know, rather than get them in the state where it's illegal.
No, they didn't.
They got more abortions.
So only some did, and they still ended up going down, right?
No, abortion rates went up, I believe.
Where?
Only temporarily and then dropped.
No, birth rates went up temporarily and then dropped.
Yes, birth rates, yes.
Yeah.
So unwanted births.
But in the surrounding states.
Yeah.
Yeah, they go up.
Abortions did go up.
Yeah, but they don't go up by the same amount as the predictive abortions in the state would have been.
So like, let's say the state had 50 abortions a day.
You don't see the state next to it now increase by that same 50.
You might see it increase by like 20 or 15 a day.
You know what I mean?
That's more realistic to what it is.
So it does reduce abortion and it reduces unwanted pregnancy.
And the whole idea of abortion, from your view, is getting rid of the unwanted pregnancy, I thought.
That's the point.
So if we have a way in which we can have, it sounds like you just basically are like, I just want people to be able to fuck.
That's what it sounds like.
I mean, I think it comes from a place of understanding that people will fuck.
But they don't, though.
They don't seem to.
It seems like if abortion is not available to them and unwanted pregnancy, right, is still not there.
The birth rates are not increasing.
Then how do you account for that?
Do we want a sexless nation?
It's not a sexless nation.
There's still plenty of people who are married and fucking and having children at the right times.
But I kind of do think.
Yes.
Actually, yes.
Do I want a nation in which promiscuous sex is gone?
Yeah, kind of.
Can you tell me what's great about it?
Tons of STIs everywhere.
The STI rate increases, right?
The fact of the matter is, is that you have women who have been screwed by 20 or 30 men and men who have screwed 20 or 30 women.
Yeah, that doesn't seem like it's very good for the moral fabric of your society or for your society at all.
And so it's like, if we can get rid of the thing you want, which is the unwanted pregnancy, and it seems like the unwanted pregnancies decrease when you get rid of abortion anyway, it sounds like it's like a big winner here.
So we have like an entire incel movement that I think has been labeled a domestic terrorist threat in the sense that there are by fucking liberals it has.
I wish that we could label feminists as a domestic terrorist organization.
Would you deny that there have not been mass shooters motivated by do you deny that trans ideology has motivated mass shooters?
Do we label them as being domestic terrorists?
No, I think no, no, we don't.
But that's different.
That's like an identity rather than a problem to be solved.
I think that...
Wait, wait, what?
No, it's a problem to be solved or they else they wouldn't become trans to begin with.
They have a problem and they're trying to solve it.
It's not just a matter of identity.
It's a matter of problem solution.
Medication and surgery and whatnot.
Whereas like involuntary celibates, I just feel like.
Involuntary celibates also, if it's a problem to be solved, they get buff and fuck a chick.
And that's same shit, right?
You have a problem, you're solving it.
Just like the trans are having a problem, they're solving it.
That's, from your view, isn't that the same thing?
Then why are all the men on the internet complaining that they are loveless and can't find women in the world?
So are women.
They just do it at a different age.
See, women in their 20s, they don't complain too much because, you know, if you go right now and you show your picture of your ass on the internet, you're going to have 20,000 guys who go, oh my God, my lady oaths the greatest thing ever.
And that stops when you get older.
Stops when you're 40, 45, 50.
That validation starts going away.
So women in those age brackets have huge loneliness epidemics as well.
It's just, that's the case, right?
So it just happens to them at different times in life.
And then men who get older, less lonely, the older they get.
Why?
Because they have resources and they start fucking young women.
That's how it works.
Well, I think that also, you know, that would depend upon what the woman has done with her life.
My mother had no shortage of suitors who were wealthier than her and typically younger than her up until her 50s.
And all of her friends seem to do pretty well.
Pretty well in their old age.
I mean, but your anecdotal, your anecdote aside.
There is a male, it is true there's a male loneliness epidemic crisis, and we are hyper-focus on that, but the truth is, is that's the case for women too.
If the men are lonely, then and there's as many women as there are for men, right?
Then shouldn't by the power of inference here, we determine that if the men are lonely, the women also would be lonely.
But you just said that young women have far more opportunities.
So we're talking about different age ranges.
Yeah, it was because younger women are basically all fucking the same guy, same few handfuls of men through hypergamy.
What we have is an issue here where young women, you know, have many, many, many choices.
Young men have very few.
Well, they have choices of who to sleep with, not necessarily who to be with.
Yeah.
And what you're talking about with young men is like the young men who just can't get laid at all, which I don't think is a huge amount, by the way.
And by the way, you see a lot of young men moving towards traditional churches, and that's another reason why you see the celibate rate going up.
I have, I personally doubt the sincerity of the movement towards those churches just based on.
I feel that, so I was raised very, very, very religious, but I was raised by a father who was raised atheist, converted after my parents divorced.
And he later told me, yeah, I thought it was all BS.
Like, I was never actually into it.
It was just kind of something I needed at the time.
And I do feel that people who are raised without a strong religious influence growing up, it causes me to doubt the sincerity of their conversion because I often feel like they don't believe it.
What they want is a community or they want some sort of moral high ground, so to speak.
Because that's been my experience with converts.
I've had friends who converted to Christians.
I mean, I don't disagree with Claudia.
But I don't disagree.
Yeah, there's some.
Some.
Yeah.
I'm not.
And if they're not a bunch of people.
I don't think that that's the, I don't think the majority of people are converting over to Christianity, especially rigorous traditional churches, just for the community.
I think that some may be doing that, but it doesn't seem likely that it would be the vast majority of them.
It's just, it's an attitude that I've seen encountered in a lot of younger men where they'll kind of lionize Christianity and traditional churches, but the way that they live is not Christ-like at all.
Maybe it's a good time for super chats, Brian.
I'll have a smoke, and then we can get back to actual feminism here.
Yeah, yeah, no problem.
Yep, yep, no problem.
Yeah.
So I don't know.
I feel like we're getting off into the weeds about shit that doesn't matter.
It has nothing to do with anything.
So kind of back to feminism, is the whole reason you're a feminist so that you can have abortion or is there other reasons?
Well, you know, I actually have a list of ways that feminism, I mean, if we're talking about me personally, well, the 19th Amendment, women, women can vote.
Yeah, what's so great about voting anyway?
I like to have at least a little bit of a voice in a country that I am paying taxes to and intend to spend the rest of my life in.
So it is about power, personal power?
Yes, I would like to have as much say if I'm putting as much into society as someone else, I think.
then I guess it does matter to contradict your earlier point that voting didn't really matter when it came to war.
It appears that you think it does because I said a small amount of power.
Well, a small amount of power collectively.
A small amount of power collectively over a gender can mean a large amount of power.
Vote to send people to war.
We're not given the vote.
The president decides.
You get to vote for the president.
Well, yes.
But, I mean, we can't necessarily trust that everybody says we're not going to send someone to war.
It's not the president, it's Congress who gets to authorize war.
But the president himself, yes, he has a lot of power to mobilize troops for police actions and things like that.
But that aside, what's the next issue?
Birth control and Roe v. Wade, obviously we talked about that.
I want the freedom to, you know, I suppose like someone who has glasses, I want the freedom to have my the things about my body that potentially inhibit my ability to participate in society.
I want to be able to mitigate those things with medicine and technology.
And then Equal Pay Act, I want to be paid the same as someone who's doing the same work.
I think that that's a positive.
Do you think that well, first of all, how much do you think the difference is?
The difference is between, even if we were really charitable to the idea of a wage gap, what do you think the difference really is between wages?
Well, I mean, there's a law against that.
A law that was passed, so that's what I'm referring to.
However, the wage gap isn't based on like, it's not like you work at a company and I don't know, you're employee one, I'm employee two.
We both started working at the same time.
They're not like, oh, because you're a lady, you make 71 cents on his dollar.
I do believe that the wage gap refers to the difference in like the average salary.
Yeah, so we're not talking about a wage gap.
We're talking about you want legislation which equalizes wages.
Yeah, it equalizes wages if you're doing the same job with the same amount of experience.
You know, it's equality.
So doesn't that limit the freedom and authority of the owner of the business?
To screw people over?
Yeah.
Again, I think that...
No, wait.
How can you be screwing someone over if you make an agreement with me for the amount that I'm willing to pay you for a job?
How are you being screwed over?
I mean, I think if you're making that decision on the basis of someone's immutable qualities such as sex or race, I think that that's pretty, is that not unjust?
No.
Why is that unjust?
Yeah, so what?
Why can't business owners have preferences about what they want?
So like, for instance, let's say you had a business owner who's like, yeah, I don't want to hire you just because you're a woman.
Like, why isn't that their business?
Because I don't think that people should have the freedom to screw over other people.
You're not screwing them over.
They're asking you for your resources.
You're not asking them for theirs.
You're trying to screw them over.
The guy who do you think that, you know, people who a company is just its head?
I mean, workplaces aren't run only by a manager.
Its staff is what keeps the workplace going.
Well, it depends on how big the business is for one.
And the second thing is, is that even if it is a large business, it should be up to the propriety of the owner.
He has access to all the capital, and all of those managers and employees are asking him for his capital.
He's not asking for them.
Employees are the ones that are making that capital for him with his guidance.
They are producing that capital.
No, they didn't risk any capital.
They risked no capital, and so they don't get what he gets.
That's the big problem you socialists always have.
If you don't risk capital, you don't get to gain.
Like, you don't get to be like, I happen to be working here when that guy risked all of his fucking money and he made a bunch of it.
And so now I get a portion of it.
That's not how the world works.
I mean, you're talking about small businesses.
Small business is the same thing.
And big business is the same exact thing.
You're still risking money that ain't yours.
So you don't get to benefit from that.
That's how that works.
You have to risk your own money for that.
And so the thing is, is like, yeah, it seems like you have people who are asking for economic opportunities for somebody else and they're getting mad when they won't give it to them.
And it's like, how's that not their business, though?
It seems like it's totally the business of the owner.
You could do that.
You could look down on your employees and consider them to be people that you're doing a favor for rather than skilled workers that you're hiring.
I'm not even sure it's a favor.
I think that that's the wrong wording.
Like, it's not a favor.
If someone can open a business, but if they don't have anyone to work in it, like, what is the business then?
Yes, they risk the money.
Well, people have small businesses all the time and just they run it.
It's only them.
Yeah, it's, yeah.
And then most often when they hire an employee, that employee doesn't have anywhere near the responsibility or risk that the owner has.
No, of course, I'm not saying they make the same amount, but you know, a fair wage for the same amount of work.
But that should be determined by the employer, what that fair wage is, not by the state.
The state, by the way, the state can't even do it anyway.
They don't have any understanding of markets at all.
So the thing is, is like just saying, like, I'm trying to figure this out.
A woman comes in, or even better, right?
A Christian comes in and a Muslim, and I say, okay, well, I'll hire you because you're a Christian and not you because you're a Muslim.
What's actually the immoral proposition here?
Why is that actually wrong to do?
I've never understood that argument.
It's always seemed to me like it's fine.
They're both asking me, the person, for something.
Why can't I tell them to go fuck themselves?
And I only want you because I prefer you and don't prefer you.
And it is based on an immutable characteristic.
And who cares?
Fuck you.
Fuck your immutable character.
I don't like it.
So get it out of here.
Well, I would like to work towards a world in which our immutable characteristics don't determine how much we value someone.
But I mean, but that's just pie-in-the-sky bullshit, isn't it?
Like, if you have a higher-if you look at where America was when we were founded, I mean, there was black Americans were enslaved, and now we are, you know, legally equal.
That is certainly a lot better.
That is certainly a lot of progress made.
Yeah, but we're talking about two different things.
I'm not talking about the proposition of slavery.
Maybe the proposition of being able to hire who you want and allocate your resources to people with whom you want to?
Like, for instance, you're not going to hire a humpback, a hunchback, or a person who has like super bad arthritis to like, you know, solder things.
Probably not going to hire them.
You're probably going to stay away from those people.
Because there's physical requirements for jobs.
Right.
But the thing is, is like that's still, when you break it down, you start getting into these micro-preferences, right?
Like, if it's the case that you just don't like a person because they just offend your delicate sensibilities in some way.
Well, technically, you don't have to hire them.
You just can't be like, hey, I didn't hire Andrew because he's a white guy.
Like, you just have to.
So just lie about it.
So you just lie about it?
That's what they do.
Yeah.
That's what they do.
So then doesn't it just sound like it's just an unenforceable virtue signal?
Just unenforceable nonsense?
So like I could be like, look, I only have a male staff because those are the most qualified people.
I think that if you can prove that you are being discriminated against on an immutable quality, this is for workers to be able to, you know, bring this to court, which I think that if you can prove that, you should be able to bring it.
Yeah, but what's, but why?
Like, what's what's the actual, like, what's the actual proposition here?
You own a business, you have all of those resources, they all belong to you.
All of them belong to you.
And somebody comes in and wants them and you just don't like their fucking face.
And it doesn't matter why.
You don't like them because they're black, they're white, they're Muslim, they're women, they're men, whatever the fucking reason is.
All right.
Why isn't that completely and totally up to the business owner?
Why shouldn't that be completely left up to them who they want to hire and who they don't want to hire?
Well, I think that many businesses take out loans from the state, correct?
Like PPE loans.
No, most of it's private equity.
All right.
Well, I think if you're going to take out loans, as in a lot of the time, use other people's money, I think a lot of people would be upset if the money that they loaned you was not, you know.
They don't give a shit.
Lenders just want their money back in the interest.
They don't care about your practice.
But like, I think you need to adhere to the law if you're borrowing money.
Otherwise, then it's what if your business is.
I'm saying that I want to repeal the law.
I think it's an immoral proposition to tell people what they can do with their money.
I think that that's immoral.
So I'm giving you the proposition, right?
My worldview, it's completely immoral to tell business owners that they have to serve people that they don't want to serve and that they're not allowed to have the hiring practices that they want.
Like it's totally their business.
This isn't even about hiring practices.
This is about wages.
This is paying.
That would all be hiring practices, right?
Right.
Because don't you get a salary on being hired?
I mean, it depends.
You could have minimum wage or a salary.
Like, I don't know.
That would still be your salary would then be minimum wage.
But at being hired, your hiring practice would be the salary negotiation, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So the thing is, is like I have never, again, I claim, I make the counterclaim.
From the fact that like, you know, employers would pay women less to do the same amount of work.
But I'm fine with that.
Okay.
And I'm fine with it being the opposite.
I actually see that as the more moral proposition.
If it's the case that it's yours, you get to do what the fuck you want with it because it's yours.
And it doesn't matter if that makes a person feel badsy and they're like, well, wait, that's unfair.
Fairness isn't an idea of a doctrine when you want something from somebody else.
It's not how that works, right?
I'm trying to, this is hard because I don't know if I could ever make a comparison.
But you are a Christian.
Yeah.
Does it not make you feel Some type of way whenever people discount you or disregard you or exclude you on the basis of your religion.
Oh, sure.
Yeah.
Right.
Like it doesn't, it feels bad.
Or they call me a bad Christian or they call me this.
Yeah, it feels bad.
Sure.
It feels bad.
And you're like, that's just my beliefs in my religion.
It's not harming anyone.
I'm just a Christian.
Like, how could that, how could, like, it's the same feeling for race and gender.
It's like, I'm a competent worker.
Why am I not being paid the same amount?
The difference is this, is that it doesn't matter if it hurts my feelings that a Muslim says he won't hire me because I'm a Christian, right?
Because it's me who wants the thing from him.
Right.
Now, you could say there's mutual, he wants something from me too.
But if he really wanted something from me, then he would hire me, right?
And he's not.
Well, he's hiring you for less.
Well, they just, or he's just, or he's just not hiring me at all.
Yeah.
Right.
But whatever it is, he wants less for me than I obviously want from him, or else we would never be able to come to an agreement on wage.
So the thing is, is like it seems, it seems like a more much more immoral proposition to me that you get to determine that if a person has their own private equity and resources and don't want to pay you less just because you're a woman, that seems like it's their business.
I mean, I don't think so.
I think that, you know, creates a society where, you know, where you maximize freedom.
Devaluing others on the basis of their immutable qualities.
Yeah, but you're allowed to devalue others based on their immutable qualities.
You're allowed to do that.
Isn't that freedom?
But you get in trouble for it.
Yeah, but isn't that, well then, how is this really, this idea of feminism is about expanding personal freedom?
It's like every time I talk to you about a topic, it's just limiting a freedom.
Every time I talk to you about any proposition that you consider liberating, it's actually just punishing.
It's like, this isn't really about being fair to men and women.
It's about punishing people and telling them what they have to do with their own money.
No, let me explain to you what I mean about freedom of choice.
Yeah, do that.
But let me have a smoke first while you take some super trips.
Really quick, Andrew, as you're getting up here behind you, just as because of your black ex-wife and as a seat warmer, can you grab the baby doll and just put it as a placeholder there to it?
Long story?
It's a long story, but so Andrew will be right back.
He's just going to have a quick smoke.
Junior.
There you go.
So welcome.
What's your baby's name, by the way, Andrew?
Tyrone Wilson.
Tyrone Wilson.
Welcome, Tyrone.
So a couple quick things here, guys, while Andrew takes a little smoke break.
If you guys want to get in a Q ⁇ A, TTS, it's $99 via streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Go ahead and pull that up.
And also pull it up here, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
It's going to be a $99, $99 plus.
If you want to send in a Q ⁇ A, you have a question for Charlie, you have a question for Andrew.
We'll do that segment in a bit.
Also, guys, if you are enjoying the stream, go to Twitch.
Actually, before that, if you want to support the stream without any of these platforms taking their cut, you can via Venmo Cash App.
That's whatever pod on both.
There's Venmo and then there's Cash App.
Rock and roll.
And then also, we're live on Twitch, twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a follow and a Prime sub if you're enjoying the stream.
Pull up the Twitch.
Twitch.tv.
It's what?
It's being weird.
All right.
Well, it's twitch.tv slash whatever.
If you have Amazon Prime, you can link into your Twitch.
Quick free, easy way to support the show every single month.
Let me adjust here.
I just realized my computer's not centered my Ocd's on fire.
Um, we also have merch shop dial, whatever dot com, go ahead, pull that up please.
All right, we got t-shirts.
Uh, scroll down a little bit.
We're selling uh oh, refresh this.
Hit hit uh f5 Hit, F5 on that.
I need to show you what our merch offering here.
What was that shirt?
Which one?
Big labio matter.
Oh, that's that's my I have a nonprofit organization hashtag BLM.
I'll know.
Are you a supporter?
Are you hashtag BLM?
I'm pro.
I'm pro BLM.
Good.
Pull it back up, please.
That's my organization, nonprofit.
10,000 labia plasties a year in the United States.
Absolute tragedy.
Really?
I agree.
Yeah.
You know, the government shut down.
What else is there?
There's wars and stuff, but the BLM thing is the most pressing issue of our time.
Pull it back up, though.
We're selling Madison's Picklehaba.
We have like two or three of them that we're selling.
So there's that.
Then there's some other merch there, too.
Also, guys, if you're enjoying the stream, if you're enjoying the stream, you want to see more debates, maybe we'll get Charlie back on.
You want to see more stuff with Andrew Wilson.
Like the video, guys.
Like the video.
Andrew's going to be back here in just one minute.
He is finishing up his cigarette.
So stay tuned.
Don't go anywhere.
Also, I figure, why not?
We got a course, Debate University, if you want to learn how to become a master debater like Andrew Wilson and also Charlie here.
Both of them are master debaters.
Really the best.
I'm flattered because I surely you don't mean that.
I don't even want to know what the sound is.
What sound it is.
You guys are good.
So be sure to check it out, debateuniversity.com.
And also, guys, discord.gg slash whatever, pull that up.
We post a bunch of behind the scenes stuff.
Andrew will be here for our dating talk tomorrow, Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific.
I post a bunch of behind the scenes stuff.
We had a lot of flakes.
Keep it there, Mary.
No, keep it there.
We have a lot of flakes.
So, you know, if they're, the flake is ridiculous, I'm going to post it.
In this case, she flaked.
This could be our biggest show of the year, by the way, biggest dating talk of the year.
She's on her period, so she can't make it.
Maybe, you know, you guys were talking about the wage gap.
Maybe that's a reason why that might exist.
So, yeah.
Discord.gg slash whatever.
Be sure to join.
Be sure to join.
We post our stream schedule, by the way.
Andrew, you need alcohol?
I do.
What do you want?
You want a seltzer?
No.
No?
Anything else?
Reach up there.
There's some like, I think there's, what is it, whiskey or something?
Yeah, I'll take it.
Yeah, just let him chug from it.
We have Andrew returning to the table.
So final reminder, guys, Q ⁇ A.
I came back this time, Junior.
I came back this time.
The one below it.
Yeah, there you go.
Rock and roll.
All right.
We have Andrew returning.
So let me see if there were any chats that came through while we did that, or we might just actually hold them for a break a little bit later.
All right, if you guys want to just jump right back into it, Charlie, do you need any refreshments or anything?
Would you like we have energy drinks?
How's your energy?
It's good.
Energy is good, but I could always use a re-up.
You want like an energy drink?
Sure, would you like to do it?
We have Zoa.
They're national.
And we have just energy shots, too.
Zoe is final.
I don't think so.
Poured into one of our cups, by the way.
All right.
We're going to get that set for you guys here.
Well, we're going to.
Sorry, we're finally getting into the meat of the debate here, guys.
Yeah, and so no chats at the moment, no QA questions.
So if you guys want to just jump right back in, go for it.
Okay.
Okay.
So you were saying about...
Oh, freedom to go to school.
I'm...
I'm super personally, very personally.
Thank you very much.
Very into education.
I very much enjoyed my education.
I know it's a useless degree, largely.
I mean, fantasy literature.
However, my younger sister is pre-med at Duke, and I think that that is something very worthy.
I think it's very important that she is able to pursue that.
So again, freedom.
Freedom to do so.
Freedom to go into, you know, as long as you have the skills to be able to go into any career field.
And that goes for men and women.
I think that, you know, we should have more men working in education and, you know, like child care, elderly care.
I think that we should have more women in trade.
I think it's a lot of people assume women can't do trade, but my ex-girlfriend, who was 90 pounds 5'1, became a welder.
So I think ladies can manage most of the trades.
They can't.
Well, they can weld.
Yeah, well, weld well.
What kind of welding did she do?
Into the mic, by the way.
Oh, I don't remember.
We broke up ages ago, but she was starting her apprenticeship.
She was starting her apprenticeship?
According to my mom, who kept up with her, she finished it.
But I never.
Does she work as a welder?
I don't know.
I haven't talked to her in years.
Yeah, I think that that's a bit of pie in the sky.
I guess my counter argument to all of these is that basically every proposition you give me for what you think is expansion of freedom, which according to your definition is what feminism is for.
Can we read the definition again that we agreed on real quick?
I think it was feminism equal egalitarian equity in the removal of patriarchy.
That's just what I wrote down.
And you think that the point of feminism, though, from your view also, is to expand freedom for people.
That was what...
Yes.
Yeah.
Not to have the freedom to do the things you don't like.
No, to take other people's freedom.
Well, you're not taking anybody's freedom by not hiring them.
I think that you are creating an environment in which people's immutable qualities impact how much money they can actually make.
Yeah, but that's freedom.
You know, for who?
It's freedom for both parties.
Freedom for employers, but not for workers.
They're free too.
Well, how are they not free?
What are they not free to do?
To tell you what you have to do with your money?
To tell you what you have to do with your resources?
They're just as free.
Like, what is the impact here on freedom exactly?
Like, if you wanted real freedom, if you wanted a society that was truly free, you would not go in and legislate how employers could go about the rigorism of who they wanted to hire, who they didn't want to hire, and why.
No, I'm not a libertarian at all.
That sounds a bit libertarian.
No, no, no, no.
It's following Christian ethics.
The idea here is like you don't get to make a determination, an unjustified determination at that.
You just have this kind of like bizarre thing that you start with.
People shouldn't be discriminated against based on immutable characteristics.
And it's like, why the fuck not?
If it's the case that they want resources from you that are yours and you don't want to give them to them, why the fuck not?
Why can't you discriminate?
What about that is justified from your view?
Did Jesus discriminate against anyone on the basis of their immutable characteristics?
Well, based on immutable characteristics?
I'm not sure.
Like, I'm not sure that he did, no.
All right.
Well, isn't to be a spirit.
That's been a long time.
I don't think that spirit.
I don't think that spiritually we should do that.
Spiritually, we.
I mean, shouldn't we aspire to be Christ-like?
Yeah, spiritually.
Giving loving, you know, yeah, sure.
So let's go to the money changers and whip them and let's go tell prostitutes to stop being hookers.
Can we do that?
Yeah, but we do so with love and empathy.
Okay, love and empathy.
But so are you okay with Christians stopping prostitution?
No.
No.
So I think, okay, let me be clear.
I think that most women who are doing full service sex work, a lot of them, that isn't necessarily what they wanted to do with their lives growing up.
Yeah, but you still support their freedom to do it if they want, right?
I think that they deserve protections.
I don't want to see those women harmed at all.
Do you think it should be illegal to do or not?
I think it should be decriminalized.
So not illegal?
Not illegal, but decriminalized?
So that's the thing, right?
Is like you can't pick and choose which Christian ethics you would prefer that I apply and which I don't.
And the thing is, is like here, I'm being remarkably consistent and just bit a bullet for you.
I just said, no, I do agree, right?
Based on immutable characteristics, Jesus Christ didn't discriminate from helping anybody with their spiritual health or anything else.
I totally agree that that's true.
I think that's something with loving arms.
Yeah, but when it comes to how we engage in the world and people's preferences, there's nothing biblical about creating refusals to, or that you have to hire people that you don't want to hire based on whatever it is you don't want to hire them for or pay them whatever wage they demand you pay them.
Were Christians not, you know, oppressed by the Romans?
Were the Jews not driven out of like everywhere they ever tried to live?
Yeah, was that portrayed positively or was that, do you think like and Christians, when you talk about Christian reforms, the demands were not ever that, oh, wait a second, now we get to make a determination on what you do with your resources towards us.
Where did Christians take over and then say, you have to treat us, you have to treat us to the same exact wage as you do, you know, this people group over here?
That just never happened.
It wasn't a factual case.
And so it's like.
It's because Rome was deeply unequal.
Well, no, just life is deeply unequal.
The question just becomes like, where are we getting this grounded ethic that it's okay to tell people what they can do with their stuff?
It's theirs.
I mean, no one is saying it's just an equal opportunity and trying to not make judgments on someone on the basis of.
But I think it's fine for people to make judgments.
Of course.
You know, like if I am walking down the street at night and I see a large group of rowdy 20-something men, I'm going to be like a little bit like anxious.
You know, I'm going to be like, well, they're rowdy young men.
That could be potentially dangerous.
Is it bad if I do that with black people?
I think that highly depends upon the context.
In the same context.
I just see a group of rowdy young men.
Yeah.
Or just, you know, rowdy black people.
And I cross the street.
Is that racist?
I think it's just because they're black on the basis that you think they're going to jump you.
Yeah.
Do you think that happens often?
Do you think that if it was just a bunch of men and you cross the street and you call that sexist or not sexist, then how would that be racist the other way?
Well, because I think we have to consider which one is coming on the basis of like personal experience versus like, I mean, how often have you been like harassed at night by rowdy black people?
Like a crowd of black people.
If you go around rowdy black people, yeah, they're probably going to harass you if you're white.
I used to walk through the tenderloin at night by myself.
This is when I was very butch.
So mind you, I at a glance.
Do you want to walk through South Central by yourself?
I don't know where South Central is.
The point is, though, is that San Francisco, the Tenderloin is really.
You're informing your judgment that the rowdy group of young men may do bad thing to you.
Historically, they do bump you.
And this would be the same information that a young white man or a young white woman would have if they're talking about.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Let me make the point and then you can respond.
Is it not the case that young white men also have the exact same justification that you would have?
That historically now, at least in their lifetimes, it does seem like whites are disproportionately attacked by black men.
That white men are disproportionately attacked.
The stats on the bottom.
And we can pull them up.
But again, let's just look at interracial dynamics of violence, black on white versus white on black.
I think depending on where you are, sure.
If you're in an area.
No, it's not where you are.
It's everywhere.
It's everywhere.
Okay, well, I'm just saying.
It's everywhere.
I used to walk through the Tenderloin in San Francisco at night by myself.
That is a heavily black area.
And I was, the worst thing that ever happened was a guy tried to sell me weed.
That was the worst thing that happened.
And it was, it was okay.
And I looked again, like, but if you're informing, if a, if a young woman is walking down the street and she's never been assaulted by young men before ever, and she's walking by a group of young, rowdy looking men, right.
And she just knows from hearing stories and from her observations and, you know, statistics and things like this, that she could be in some trouble there.
and she crosses the street, would you say that that's sexist?
I would say technically, yes, that is sexism, but I think that it is.
So she does need to keep, in order to not be a sexist, she needs to keep walking through that crowd?
You would advise her to do that?
I think that you can make some assumptions.
Oh.
Would it technically be sexist?
So would you recommend that?
So would you recommend she was sexist in that instance then?
If you were going to give her advice, would you be like...
Would I say be sexist?
Yeah, in that instance.
Don't get hurt.
But if she crosses the street based on her preconceived notions, even though these things haven't actually happened to her, and you were the advice giver, would you go ahead and advise her to cross the street?
Yeah, if it was my little sister, absolutely.
Of course.
And so you would advise her to be sexist.
So then why wouldn't that apply to race?
I don't know how to say this other than I think you only get harangued by black people as a white person if you're being real weird.
Like, I think you have to be like.
What?
Like, like, what do you, like, what reason would a group of rowdy black people have to bother a young white guy?
They kick the fuck out of him and take their money.
What are you talking about?
Okay, like, jumped?
You're worried about getting jumped?
Yeah, of course.
Same thing you would be worried about.
Sure, then avoid them.
But you should probably avoid groups of white guys too because you could get jumped also.
But if it's racist, then no, well, wait a second now.
That's the basis of where you are.
If all of the things that are that you're yeah, if all the things you're informed on Telling you exactly the opposite, and you would advise your little sister to be sexist.
Why shouldn't I advise my little brother to be racist in that situation?
I think it depends upon where you are.
Again, if you are seeing a group of young men, regardless of race, who just seem like they're dudes out having a fun time, or if it looks like it could be gang activity related or something like that, I think like you just have to make judgment calls there.
And that can be regardless of race.
Is it racist to do?
Is it racist to cross the street because you see a group of young black men?
If you saw a group of young black men in suits with briefcases, would you be afraid of them?
Well, wouldn't you be afraid of it?
Do you think that is?
No, I wouldn't be afraid of a group of men in suits walking with briefcases.
So you're just saying that rowdy young men.
Well, that's funny because then I guess if you were going to give advice to SAers, you would just advise them to have a suit and briefcase, right?
No, that's not what I would advise them.
But what I'm saying.
Well, I mean, but hang on.
Hang on.
It is, right?
Wouldn't that be an entailment that you would advise them to just have a suit and a briefcase?
Because if that's the case, Charlie's going to be fair game for you because she's not going to avoid you.
I would assume that there would be less danger if it's a group of sober businessmen.
Yes, I would assume that they are less likely to assault me than a group of young men who are drunk and rowdy.
Don't you think that the people who have the most resources to like kind of beat the rap might actually be the most likely to do that?
Of course, but again, if we're talking about street harassment, it's probably not going to be from business.
They're like molesting their secretaries or whatever.
It's not.
Yes, I don't know.
It seems like we're saying the same thing.
You would advise if it was a young group of men, your sister to cross the street, and if somebody advised that is it black men and advised a little brother across the street based on all of the experience data that they have, I don't really understand.
I still don't really understand the distinction.
Because one is based on the fact that women get sexually harassed fairly frequently.
I don't know.
And the other one is based on the fact that there's interracial violence fairly frequently.
Okay.
13% of the American population is black.
And regardless of how far we've advanced, most populations are not mixed.
Most areas are still fairly segregated.
Like, what are the chances of white guys experiencing being assaulted by black men to the same degree as women being assaulted by men?
Why would it need to be the same degree?
Because I think if it's a low chance, something that's probably not going to happen, that's different from something.
Well, how low of a chance?
How low of a chance before I'm not racist when I cross the street?
Does it need to be?
Like, how low of a chance does it need to be before I'm not racist for crossing the street?
Like 1%.
But even then, I don't think like that'd be one in 100 times you would be.
Your chances of getting your chances of getting SA'd by a group of men is way less than 1%.
Or sexually harassed.
Way less than 1%.
Way less.
I'm going to respectfully disagree.
I had an experience.
It wasn't me.
It was.
Disagree with what?
You want to see the stats?
Like, just an SAs.
We just go off of just- Well, I'm also just talking about sexual harassment.
What does that mean?
They catcall you?
Bother you, yeah.
They just catcall you?
Yeah, it's annoying.
No, I mean, what's your name?
So what would you like less if you were a young man to get your ass kicked by a group of young black guys or get catcalled by a group of white dudes?
I mean, the likelihood of a group of black guys beating you up, again, at most they might say mean things to you.
That's probably maybe.
The most there might say mean things to you, that other group of men that you're avoiding, but you would still recommend the kids or your kid sister to cross the street to engage in the sexism.
And yet, for some reason, when somebody uses the same argument from the racial lens, you're like, no, And it's like, that's a very inconsistent position.
It's not based on reality.
It is based on reality.
What reality is it not based on?
I do not hear of like interracial beatups.
Like, do you have any, sorry, do you have any statistics on the likelihood of white people being beaten up by black people?
In comparison to the other way around, strap yourself in.
I was trying to find something earlier, but it wasn't coming up.
But so basically, you guys just want me to look for white on black crime versus black on white crime.
Yeah.
Okay.
Or at least assaults.
Give me a few moments to find it.
And look at the SA stats, interracial SA stats, and then you tell me.
Why interracialists?
Well, because then I would think that in order to be consistent, you would bite the bullet that you would tell your little sister if it was a group of young black men to cross the street over if it was a group of young white men just based purely on the statistics of which one's more likely to assault you, right?
Well, women are most likely to be victimized by men of their own race.
Which is why we're looking at what data point here?
Interracial.
Okay, well, why are we looking at interracialists?
Because if one is much more likely to assault you than the other.
It's a race, a woman of any race and a group of men of any race versus you talking about a white person of black people.
Can you tell me what per capita means, Charlie?
No.
No, okay.
I didn't think so.
But anyway, let's move back to this.
So it's pretty simple.
Okay.
Do you want to tell me?
Yeah, per capita is just when you isolate for a segment in order to adjust for the percentage against the whole.
So it would be something akin to this, right?
Okay.
Let's say you had two let's say you had two black men and you had eight white dudes for a total of 10, right?
10 represents 100% of all of these people in this people group.
Okay.
And you have three, I'm sorry, four.
You have four of the white guys who commit crimes, right?
Like SA.
And then you have both of the black men who commit SA.
If you're trying to determine which out of the people group committed more SA, would you then adjust for the two black men?
Because that's now 100% of black men who are committing SA, or for the four white guys, because now that's only 50% of white men who commit SA.
So it'd be like relative to population size.
That's what you're saying.
Per capita.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
So it's super important to understand this, right?
Because even if it's the case that most SA crimes happen within your own race, that could very well be true.
What you'd really be looking at, though, is the per capita percentage.
Sure.
Yeah, let's get that then.
Yeah.
Still working on it.
I'm not finding any.
But if it were the case, I just want to know, if it were the case that interracially they attacked white women far more than white men attacked black women, then wouldn't you give the advice to your little sister to cross the street?
Yeah, if that was a thing that was happening where, sure, like black men are just out there hunting white women like animals, I guess I would.
You know, you see, you see, hang on, did you see how you just characterized that with a terrible straw man?
Did I say anything about black men hunting down white people like animals?
Essaying.
Did I say anything about them hunting?
Did I say anything about them doing that?
No, but they just made, no, there's no implication of that either.
Just an implication.
Implication is that men are sexual predators.
No, the implication is only violent.
What, what?
Okay, how is that implied?
If it's the case that more black people do commit more our crimes than white people do, how is that anything other than a fact?
It's not a fact.
It is a fact.
It's not.
Are you sure we also have to test for we have to consider convicted?
For oh, it's even worse, like I said earlier.
It's even worse, like I said earlier.
So much worse Charlie, than you think.
It's so much worse, Charlie.
It's worse than you could ever imagine.
What do you mean you're about to find out when Brian pulls out the stats?
It's worse than you could ever imagine okay well, will you concede that uh, not all convicted sex criminals are guilty of what they have done?
Of course okay, but will you concede that we have a justice system?
Hang on, but will you concede that most of the people who are convicted of the crimes that they commit committed those crimes?
Because, well then, what's the point of things like judicial review and what's the point of things like?
What's the point of things like that?
What are the?
What is the point of uh, of doing all of these audits?
What is the point of all the studies and things like this, if crime itself was not mostly being placed in its proper categories and people being convicted for the correct crimes.
People experience more outrage when um, a member of the out group assaults a member of the in-group versus when a member of the in-group assaults a fellow member of the in-group.
The out group right like, like.
I think that people in general are going to be far more upset about a black man essaying a white woman than they would be about uh, a black man essaying a black woman.
Okay right, let's just grant it.
Sure, we're looking at convictions.
There's also a history of uh, false accusations um, you know, against black men, black men by white women.
That that is, that is a fact, that is, that has happened, you know.
So I would also consider that as well.
Um yeah, I mean throughout the entire historic standard sure, but like just the last 10 years no, there's not much of that.
All right, not much in the way of false accusations going on there.
Things like DNA, we have Dna testing, that's the, that's the big one, you know the DNA, but a lot of rape kits don't happen.
A lot of cases uh, don't have rape kits in, so don't trust women or should we believe all women?
I think that you can uh, believe victims, but I think that you can also account for um uh, you know, like a uh pattern of of racism.
So don't believe in the justice system.
So don't believe all women.
That's not what i'm saying.
Well, I don't.
I think that you should.
I believe all women or not?
You know what.
I'm gonna be real with you here.
No yeah, I think I think that you should actively when someone makes accusations.
Yeah, you should be careful, but you should also investigate, because I have seen false accusations fly.
Yeah, I don't mean that you should be like you dumb b-word.
You deserved it, you nasty, but you should wait until you have have more confirmation.
Okay, I did find it.
Finally, I apologize for the delay.
I think Google might have been suppressing it.
I had to go to X to find the actual infographic.
Pull it up, please.
Um, all right.
So you're Mary.
You're gonna have to make us smaller, okay.
So uh, make us right.
Uh, write small And then hide right this one.
Okay.
Interracial violent incidents per capita of offending race.
And this is from a Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey from 2018.
So white on black there, 30, Hispanic on Black, 76.
Well, I'll just do, okay, so white and black, 30, black on white, 1,288 versus 30 for white on black.
Well, gee, Chuck, it seems like based on what you just said earlier, if I could demonstrate this to you, you said that you would advise your little sister to cross the street.
Do you hold to that?
By the way, this is incidents per 100,000 offender population.
Do you hold to it, Chuck?
Do you hold to it?
Are you going to advise your sister to cross the street now?
No, because I think it's white boys that are getting beat up.
Can you pull up the interracial essay statistics, please?
Sure.
Give me a moment to find it.
It's just going to get worse as we go here, Charlie.
I'm telling you, it's just going to get worse.
Half the population is male.
Half the population is female.
The encounters between, and then 13.3% of the population is black.
Yeah, and even less of that is male.
It's only about 6% that's male.
Yeah.
And so, but again, the justice system.
Remember that word we were looking for per capita?
Yeah.
The justice system also does punish black people more.
Black people are convicted more for the same crimes than white people.
Did it ever occur to you it's because they commit more crimes?
Well, if you look at comparisons to actual crimes committed versus conviction rates, it's committing crimes at about the same rate, but black people are more likely to be sentenced.
Because they're on their third time doing a crime.
That's why.
And that's never adjusted for in the data.
Do you have proof?
Yes, we can pull it up.
Name whatever study you want right now, and I'll pull up the methodology.
And I can guarantee you that if we look on the offenses by offense list, is it, oh, this white dude, he, you know, he went in and he stole a car and he got one year.
Okay.
And this black guy got 10 years.
That's not fair.
And you know what's often left out?
That that's his 15th crime.
And that's why he got the higher sentence.
That's what I've noticed when I look at that data.
But I'm like, I'm willing to look at whatever data you got.
I'm happy to parse it out.
I didn't prepare for this.
I know, I understand because I prepared for debate on feminism.
That is, but this is part of that debate because it's showing a worldview inconsistency that you have, which is that men are mean, bad, evil patriarchy.
You would advise your sister to cross the street, right, in order to avoid them.
Men are evil, mean people.
Okay, okay.
You're right.
That was a straw man, so let me be more charitable.
Okay.
You would tell your sister to cross the street when it came to a group of rowdy young men, right?
And you say that you would advise her to do that even if she personally didn't have any bad experiences with rowdy young men, just based on experiences you've had and data and various things you've observed.
And yet, if somebody does that and says to their little sister, hey, stay away from young black men, right, based on the same exact criteria, that's somehow fucking racist.
That's what's crazy to me is like, just can we get some consistency?
We didn't pull up the essay rates.
And again, I would think that violent offenses were not.
When you see this, Charlie, when you see this.
But again, we also discussed that the justice system is more likely to convict the people.
It's not as saying white women are to convict.
You know what?
I'm even willing to give it like, I'm even willing to give it some absurdly high number, like they're wrong about 5%.
Okay.
And it wouldn't even come close to compensating for the distinction.
Not even close.
All right.
I mean, do you personally experience a fear of black people?
It's not a fear of black people.
It's an understanding.
And by the way, do you know who taught me this?
Black men.
They were the ones who taught me this.
Because you know who doesn't, who's the least likely to walk around a group of young black men they don't know?
Black men.
That's the wildest shit, but it's true.
It's depending on the area, yeah.
Yeah.
I think it highly depends on the area.
Again, like if you are walking through an area that has like a lot of sadness still looking for it.
Someone will send it to you on X.
But yeah, it's bad, Charlie.
It's bad.
So like the interracial distinction is not even in the same universe, and neither is the violent crime assault rates.
And if we go down by women, it's even worse.
It's just every time you go to the next criteria, it just will get worse for your argument, I promise.
I would just bite the bullet.
I'm controlling for gang violence.
Yeah, even if we control for gang violence, even if we control for gang violence, even if we have the same socioeconomic systems, even if we have the same amount of money being made, right?
It always seems to be the case that this is the case.
That they're convicted more.
Yes.
Okay.
Well, I would want to do my own research into this because, again, conviction rates don't indicate that someone is doing more of the crime necessarily or is more guilty of it.
I think they do indicate that, in fact, that conviction rates do indicate that.
I think that you have a point where you can say, hey, we should look into these conviction rates and see if it's the case that, you know, A, B, and C is correct.
That's fine, right?
But it would have to be a lot of convictions, I'm telling you.
It's pretty bad and lopsided.
But anyway, back to this.
I guess I do have the data.
Okay.
It says per capita.
Oh, let's see here.
Hold on.
Per capita, black arrest rates for rape slash sexual assault are estimated at two to three times higher than white rates, 2.6x overall.
Yeah, I fully believe that black men are arrested for rape more.
100%.
At three times the rate?
Yes.
Yes, but I don't think they commit it more than white men.
Based on what?
Just like your gut feeling.
Sexual assault rates are pretty consistent across races.
No, they're not.
No, they're not.
Except for indigenous women.
No, no, just not at all.
They're not consistent.
Like, for instance, Asians, they commit the least amount of it, like the least amount in the United States of sexual assaults.
Right?
Now, that's true that they consistently commit the least amount.
I'm willing to agree with that.
But that would obviously have a logical entailment that black men commit the most amount, right?
That would be the entailment there.
So like if we're saying that the rates are consistent, so Asians are consistently low, then wouldn't that put black men at consistently high?
I would be curious about that because if we look at like Korea and Japan, where SA is kind of like so severe to the point that like women in Japan have their own like train carts.
I would be curious if that has to do again with people feeling pressure to conceal these sorts of things being less loyalty to because those cultures are fucking perverted as shit because they're godless.
And that's one thing that people forget about is like, it's, you know, like how Japan has all the laws where they have the fucking young girls walking around in the mini skirts at all of the schools and the principals, you know, they're always for it, right?
They sell women's underwear out of vending machines.
They have massive porn shops where you start on the bottom floor and as you continue to ascend, it goes from to worse and more hardcore porn.
It's a very perverted society.
Well, I lived in Nevada for six years, so this feels a little bit different.
Nevada's not as perverted as Japan.
Reno, there was porn shops everywhere.
It's been cleaned up now.
I lived in Reno too, and no, there wasn't.
It's been cleaned up now.
There wasn't.
I was there 20 years ago.
There was not.
20.
Okay, well, what part of Reno did you?
Well, I mean, you don't.
What do you mean?
Reno's not big enough for us to be quibbling about parts.
Okay.
Well, at least when I was a kid, there was a whole lot of naked ladies everywhere.
Yeah, there was strip clubs.
There's still strip clubs.
There was prostitution houses that you had to go to way outside of Reno.
Yeah, and then.
They do weird things there.
Okay, well, I don't care, and that's gross.
But anyway, the point is, is that inside of Reno proper, no, it looks like a pretty normal city.
There's a couple of extra strip clubs in the downtown area.
But no, it was never like an overly gross city.
If we googled youth pastor crime, I feel I've done this before.
It's all sex crimes.
So I feel like if we are saying that Japan and Korea are perverse because they are godless, I think that we should look at the rate of essays committed in churches.
As long as we can look at the amount of essays committed in public schools, Charlie.
Sure, yeah.
By teachers.
We can absolutely do that.
And so the thing is, wouldn't it stand to reason that predators go where the prey is?
Yeah, absolutely.
Well, then why wouldn't they move into being youth pastors to get access to children just like they go to public schools to get access to children?
Of course.
But those are people that we assume believe in God.
And we assume that the secular ethics held by teachers, same ethics that you hold, right?
Or that they're not going to diddle kids, but they fucking do.
Well, I mean, what percentage of teachers are atheist?
To be fair, I grew up in a very religious area.
Highly secular.
Public schools are highly secularized.
Well, first of all, the school system itself is secular, period.
Yeah, of course.
It's removed from religion.
Yeah.
How many identify as being Christian in the school system who are women?
Most of them are college educated.
And as you know, the rates of not believing in God among the college educated are pretty high.
Yeah, I'd say so.
But I also think it does highly depend on which area that you are using.
Well, yeah, everything depends on.
Yeah, they depend on areas, but that would be the same thing for the youth pastor.
You know, that's going to depend on area too.
But the point is going to depend on area for youth pastors?
Of course, just like it would for public schools.
Of course.
No, I think the essay rates would remain the same.
What I mean is religion.
I don't think they do remain the same.
Depending on demographic, it's not going to remain the same.
Like, for instance, I would say that in minority schools, the chances of molestations probably increase.
Yeah.
So then, yeah, this is a no.
Well, because who's going to listen to those kids?
Yeah, so it doesn't stay the same then.
That's my point.
We have some chats coming through, so we'll take a break for those.
A message from the government of Canada.
Pass Chi George donated $200.04.
If feminism is a net positive for Western society, including other first world countries, then why are many feminist countries suffering the effects of birth rates and worker shortage crisis?
That is because when women are given the choice to not have kids, a lot of the time they choose not to have kids until they're ready for it.
And while this problem is currently being mitigated through immigration.
I do.
Okay, hold on.
Listen to me.
I need you to hear me out.
All right, I'm going to hear you.
Just pause and hear me out.
People are resources, and to keep the world running on this grand global industrialized scale that we have it running on.
We have to have resources.
I think even if you don't believe in climate change, resources are finite.
We will reach a point in which the rate at which we produce, and we already produce too much, like things, we already make too much stuff that we don't use.
We will run out of resources.
I think that we are going to have to account for a world in which we will make less and have less resources.
Less people is good for that.
I think that this just signals the beginning of what will become a trend across the world, which is women having less children.
And I think we have to figure out the problem or the answer to that problem sooner rather than later.
Yeah, so everything you just said is total bullshit, and I'll demonstrate it all.
The book which predicted this is called The Population Bomb.
It predicted the same exact thing that you did, that as the population increases, resources are going to become more finite.
Oh, no, it's not population increase.
It's how much we produce.
We make too much.
Because we are making too much.
For who?
To sell crap.
To who?
To the consumers.
So then that would require.
Would that require more or less people to sell more?
No, but we make more.
John, Charlie, would it make, yeah, okay, right.
But the more people you have, the more shit you make, right?
Yes, and we also build it to break.
Yeah, but we're no longer.
Yeah, I get it.
I get it.
But just hang on.
Hang on.
Just stay with me.
If you make more stuff for more people, then that infers you need more people.
And what you're saying is we need to, as the birth rates decrease, we're going to stop making more stuff for more people because there's less people.
Well, I think that we're going to run out of resources to do so.
I think it will become more dangerous, more taxing on the environment.
And more than to continue rapid industrialization.
Like, again, making the amount of crap that we do.
Yeah, but we only make the amount of crap we do because we have a lot of people, right?
We make more than we actually need, though.
I mean, you see great resources throw away all the food that they're doing.
But do you understand how that doesn't answer the question?
Like, my question is: if we had five people, are we going to make less for them than nine people, even if we make more than what nine people need?
Sure, but that's not actually how capitalism functions.
We, like, the rate of production always goes up.
Even when needs are met, it always, always, always goes up forever.
Like, never-ending growth is the point, like a cancer.
And again, we always make things to break.
We make things to break so that we can keep selling people the same things.
If we produced as much as we needed and we made things to not break, then.
But, Charlie, the population bomb predicted that, and just let me finish, that society was going to increase in size.
And what was going to happen is because of the massive amount of resources that would then be necessary, there was going to be a collapse.
It was going to bomb.
The opposite happened.
The population exploded, and now we had all of the manpower on deck in order to take care of everybody.
Food distribution, like under your crazy system, we have enough food to feed everyone.
Correct.
Yeah, but that's only because we have the people resource.
That's the only reason.
Like, do you know the logistical nightmare it is to get bananas all over the world?
They grow in like three places.
That's crazy.
But what I'm saying is that's how do you do that without people?
That's not sustainable, though.
Why isn't that fucking sustainable?
Yeah, it is.
I mean, we're going to run out of natural resources eventually.
What natural resources do you think we're going to run out of?
You put the seed in the ground and it grows, and then it makes more seeds.
That's how it works.
It's been going like that for thousands of years.
Forest is one oil as well.
I mean, so much of the Amazon has been mowed down to grow soy to feed to cows.
And then they have like, what is it, the cheese cave in Wisconsin?
where they store all the cheese that they're not selling.
And we also have to supplement farmers when they don't sell the stuff that they're making, which sucks.
So again, like this rate of production is not sustainable.
Yeah, but that's not, that's not, look, if it was the case that you wanted to actually do something about that, then wouldn't you move towards a more capitalist society?
Because under a more capitalist society, we wouldn't be subsidizing fucking anybody for anything, right?
The whole point.
Yeah, I mean, with farmers specifically, yes, that would change, but also there wouldn't be the same pressure to create more, significantly more than we actually need.
And also when it comes to, you know, well, they're not making more than we need.
If you're storing cheese, you're storing it to sell it later, right?
Oh, it's because it's overproduction.
I mean, do you know how much food grocery stores throw out?
Oh, yeah, tons because it expires.
Yes, we're making more than we need.
Yeah, but you have to do that because you have what's called a market predictor.
If you don't have a market predictor, you know how much worse it would be?
Like just trying to guess how many tomatoes people wanted to eat?
That would be really difficult to do.
So you have a market predictor and you do an overage of that because you're like, well, we could sell that much or we may make a little bit more than we actually are going to sell.
But we want to have more because...
A bit more than a little bit more.
In which...
In which field?
I mean in like...
Because it's scalable, right?
Like you're trying to make for every single market enough ground beef, but you're never going to be able to hit that on the nose.
So wouldn't you rather come in over than under?
Like that's the whole point, isn't it?
Sure, I guess.
But again, we are at a, like, in a place where it's not just, you know, trying to have enough to ensure that you have a little bit of a surplus.
It's making as much as possible.
To meet the demand.
Not the demand.
I think with speaking on farmers.
I don't want to speak on farmers because I don't.
Well, they're subsidized.
Yeah, they're subsidized.
Again.
But most people only bring to market what they think they're going to be able to sell.
Do you think that farmers, do farmers make more?
Do they get more subsidies when they make more?
Final thought on this one.
Yeah.
If you guys can't.
Okay.
I'll bring it back to feminism.
And we do have some more Q ⁇ As coming through.
Okay.
Okay.
We'll just moving on then.
We have Jones here with the message.
Jones donated $100.
By Andrew's logic, does he want to roll back the civil rights movement protections against discrimination?
Plus discrimination is against Christian ethics.
There are verses in scripture that condemn it.
Yeah, so that's great.
Are we supposed to legislate that into law, though?
Are we supposed to legislate it into law or is the whole point of following Christian ethics that you're doing it of your own volition?
So I don't see any problem.
Like people discriminate against each other all the time for all sorts of reasons that make a lot of sense.
Like a lot of times discrimination makes a lot of sense and people always pretend that it doesn't, but it does.
For instance, organizations that don't want to hire women, I completely fucking understand why they don't want to.
I totally get it.
Women cause all sorts of problems in a workplace.
They have to now deal with coworkers potentially having sex or all sorts of allegations that wouldn't normally happen and intersexual dynamics that now are being brought into the workplace.
I totally understand why men wouldn't want to hire women.
It seems fine to me.
When you're talking about the Civil Rights Act itself, I don't think that there's any problem with saying that, look, you have to provide medical care if there's a black man dying in front of your building.
Okay.
Maybe we can make some compromises there.
But when it comes to the fact that you can tell a black man that he can't serve a white person, or he has to serve a white person because they're white.
Yeah, I'm not really sure that that's, I'm not really sure that that should be codified into law.
I think that that has nothing to do with actual freedom and that that's all bullshit cope.
Like, how's that maximize freedom for anybody?
It doesn't.
It doesn't.
And you have a business and it should be up to you to be able to hire and fire who you want for any reason, anytime, because it's yours.
So as Americans, I feel that our country is naturally, you know, diverse.
And inevitably, you have to encounter and blame the, I mean, we could talk about, you know, colonizers and slavery and, you know, economic crises around the world, some of which we've manufactured.
It's like you have to learn how to live with people who are different from you.
No, you don't.
Yes, you do.
No.
If you want to live in America, you do.
You kind of have, I don't have to.
But see how that's not natural?
Like how you contradict your position when you say, oh, it's a natural.
It's natural.
It's like it's not natural.
The truth is, is that people naturally don't gravitate to people who are much like, they usually gravitate to people who are like them, not unlike them.
Right?
Yeah.
We also, again, we live in a very diverse nation.
Yeah, but that was for that's due to being aware of us.
It's wildly unpopular everywhere.
Every Western nation that exists, mass migration is wildly unpopular.
People hate.
Why do you think Trump got in?
He got in because people were sick of mass migration.
They hate it.
It's like, that's not natural.
That's totally fucking unnatural.
That's completely the opposite of natural.
What happened is a bunch of fucking corporate fucks wanted to exploit cheap labor.
Yes.
Okay.
Yeah, exactly.
Correct.
And so the thing is, is like, I don't want that to happen anymore.
That's akin to me to slavery.
One.
And two, the people here don't like it.
And three, right?
This is our nation.
We don't have to share it with anyone.
Your ancestors were immigrants and my ancestors were immigrants.
No.
And they had to, they had to.
They weren't immigrants.
No.
First of all.
Okay, my ancestors were immigrants.
That's great.
They were immigrants.
But let's take it all the way back to the beginning.
To the colonizers?
Yeah, no, they weren't colonizers.
Yes, they made colonies.
They made colonies for European countries.
What do you call them?
So did the Native Americans who came here from Asia.
They made colonies.
They were colonizers.
So a colony, a colony has to have like a base.
It has to have like a base country.
Yeah, it has to be.
So indigenous people packing up all their crap in Asia and moving, and that's their permanent settlement.
That's different than having a colony.
I'm sorry.
I'm confused.
Most of the colonizers were not living there forever.
People went back and forth.
Yeah, are you aware?
There were colonies that were under the jurisdiction of Europe.
Do you consider all Asians to be the same people group?
No.
So multiple people.
So multiple people groups came here over the span of thousands of years?
Yes.
Okay, great.
So then guess what that means?
That if you have people who come all the way over here and they make themselves a nice home base, right?
It's now their land.
And then more Asians come across that land bridge, right, to wherever they're at and they make themselves a little base, they're doing what, Charlie?
They're colonizing.
That's not what a colony is.
What is it?
What is the definition of a colony?
Pull up a colony.
A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one and occupied by settlers from that country.
Another definition, a group of people of one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country.
So it would be under definition two.
Hang on, Angus.
Control of another foreign nation from a farm.
You're lying.
He just read it alone.
Read part two.
Again, definitions have two.
This has two different definitions, and you're selectively only picking yours out of convenience.
Read definition two for colonies.
No, it goes against your stupid feminist bullshit.
Read section two.
Chinese colonies are a church.
They were colonies too.
Those were colonies also.
And also what I gave you examples of are also colonies.
I was even going to grant that absurdity.
Like, then what were the definition two?
Charlie, stop spurging, Charlie.
Stop spurging, Charlie.
Stop spurging.
Charlie, Charlie, just let him read the second definition.
A group of people of one nationality or ethnic group living in a foreign city or country.
What's your objection, Charlie?
What's your objection now?
Okay, so tell us.
What's the objection now, Chuck?
What is it?
Normal people with brains understand that when we say colonizer and colony, they're called colonies because it is under the control of European nations.
Are you going to doubt that?
What was the foreign nation that controlled the indigenous nations?
Can you read definition one, Brian?
Yes.
A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one and occupied by settlers from that country.
So Charlie, what you're talking about right now, you're right.
Those are colonizers.
And what I'm talking about right now are also colonizers.
What city did they settle in?
What nation did they settle in?
Well, if you want to look up the Aztec nations, we can.
If you want to look up the Mayans.
And then other people came after and settled in those areas and built colonies.
And they were not within foreign nations or foreign colonies.
They don't.
Yes, they were foreign to them.
Yes.
Of course.
Those were not settled areas.
They were settled areas.
So this land bridge existed between Asia.
There were various, but they were not colonizing foreign nations.
Well, according to the definition that we just read, unless you can tell me why that definition is wrong, they were.
Unless you can tell me what freaking vassal state they were sub originally.
That's not read the definition again.
Read the definition again, Brian.
One or two.
Two.
A group of people of one nationality or ethnic group.
In a foreign city or country.
Ethnic group.
You think that indigenous people living in the U.S. have they are colonizers?
If I were to even grant that, which is ridiculous, in the same capacity that European settlers were colonized.
Okay, do you understand that what you're doing right now is fallacious?
It's called equivocation.
I literally separated out the two concepts.
Both are colonizers.
Both.
You say only one is.
Yet I gave you the definition, right?
A legitimate definition for colonizer, which includes you just have to be part of that ethnic group and go to a foreign land that already has people in it, and now you are a colonizer.
And so the thing is, Charlie, is like, I'm sorry that we colonized the colonizers, but it's definitionally true that we did.
They were colonizers first.
Sorry.
Sorry, Native Americans.
They colonized first.
Those were not settled lands.
I do not accept this.
Oh, they weren't?
They weren't settled lands, so you didn't.
So over how many thousands of people?
Yes, did indigenous peoples fight over land?
Yes.
Yes, correct.
But were they colonizing the areas settled in?
They were migrating, one ethnic group, migrating to another land which was already occupied.
They were colonizing it.
Natives did it all the fucking time, constantly.
They moved all over.
The Plains Indians did it all the time.
The Pueblo nations did it all the time.
The South American, very far South American tribes did it all the time.
They were constantly fighting.
Do you think that that is the kind of language that the average person would use to describe what the Native Americans did?
Yeah, I think if it was explained to them, they would, yes.
They would say that what's happened is a bunch of you bullshit artists gave us the myth of the noble savage.
Is that from the Greasy Strangler?
It's the myth of the noble savage.
The idea.
I know what the noble savage is.
Yeah, and it's a myth.
I am incredibly well aware that there were many indigenous tribes that were very violent.
It's not just that.
No, That doesn't capture.
That they took land from each other.
It doesn't even begin to capture.
No, no, no.
They weren't just very violent.
Don't you tell the truth?
They were raping kids.
Why don't you tell the truth that they were taking people on top of pyramids and cutting their fucking hearts out and sacrificing it to raw?
Like, it wasn't just like, they were a little different than us.
They were a little more violent.
No.
No, no, no.
They weren't the same.
It was a completely different people group.
Do you think you're fucking colonizers?
Yeah, the whole different brand.
Do you know what?
Whole different brand.
If I came across a people group that was sacrificing human beings and also essaying little kids, I'd fucking take them out too.
Well, pagan nations or pagans allegedly have done things like that.
And the Christians converted them from their heathenistic barbarians' ways, didn't they?
Do you think that the Spanish Inquisition was civil?
No.
The Spanish Inquisition was Catholics in a single region.
It was a single region when Catholicism owned the whole world.
What they did to each other, was that civilized?
No, of course not.
It was crazy.
Yeah, I agree.
It was awful.
But you're also talking about an organization which spanned the entire world and controlled it.
And one region of it had issues like that.
It's like the United States.
Christian is doing bad things.
It's not that.
Christians do do bad things.
But again, if I were to come across a society that did that, that was doing that type of shit, I completely understand why they got fucking wiped out.
I get it.
Well, you know, the Aztecs, yes.
You know, there were indigenous people.
And the Mayans and the Incas.
And I mean, but the list goes on and on.
They were not as violence.
The Aztecs were not.
Yes, the Mayans were very violent.
They pretty much take the cake, I feel like, for the most part.
Well, whatever the point is, is like, look, indigenous tribes.
They were colonizers is my point.
And feminists have been lying to people for years, and so have progressive leftists and pretending that Europeans came here and colonized these poor people's lands and took them over.
They were already colonizers.
So who do they get?
Who would you have recommended they give the land back to?
Like, who should they have given it back to?
That would have to be determined by them.
Yeah, because we stole their stolen land.
Did we steal their stolen land?
It's ludicrous to consider the American colonies to be the same as that at all.
Like, do you, do you, like, when we say colony and colonizer, you understand that people think of the American colonies, the 13 colonies, right?
That were under jurisdiction.
Do you understand how you're equivocating again?
Like, when you say...
Like, this is integral to American history.
When you say there were colonies that rebelled.
Well, when you say colonizer, you mean a colony, right?
Yes, foreign people that live in a colony established by a foreign state that they are under the jurisdiction of.
That exists primarily for trade purposes.
Or an ethnic group which goes to an already settled area, right?
Begins to settle it against the will of the people in the settled area.
There's a suggestion of trade and of a foreign nation being in control of that area.
It doesn't have to be.
That's not definitionally true.
I mean, I guess very technically, but that's not how people would use it.
It's not how you leftists use it because you want to pretend.
You want to pretend that the natives weren't colonizers themselves when they were.
Because they were.
I think it's referring to a very specific historical context.
No, I think that it's just trying to say white people are bad because they came and took the Indians' land.
It's like meanie heads.
On the basis of how those colonies functioned.
They were under the jurisdiction of foreign nations and they rebelled against them and established the United States of America.
And they were no longer colonies.
Like, this is, it's not me being an annoying leftist.
Yes, I agree with basic American history.
I don't understand your point, though.
When you call us colonizers, is that meant to be nice to us?
Or is that meant?
Is it meant to be disparaging?
It's a fact.
Is it meant to be disparaging?
Yes, it's clearly meant to be disparaging.
Not in every context.
Are you really going to try to sit here and fucking gaslight me that when you call us gas, that when you call us colonizers, that's not meant to be just fucking gaslight me, Charlie?
Go ahead.
I'm listening.
Gaslight me.
If I call my ancestors colonizers, that's what they were.
Some of them were, some of them weren't.
Yeah, and it's not, is that meant to be disparaging, though?
Isn't it?
It's a fact.
Is it meant to be.
I'm not asking you what's factual.
I'm asking you if it's meant to be.
Is it negative or positive?
If I go over to an ugly fat chick and I say, hey, you ugly fat bitch, right?
That's factual, right?
I mean, do you think?
Hang on.
Charlie, is that factual?
Well, we don't know if she's a bitch.
Okay, well, is it factual that she's ugly?
If I just say, hey, ugly fat lady, is that factual?
Oh, beauty is subjective.
No.
Fat, baby.
Fat could be factual.
Is that meant to be nice?
No, it's mean.
Say, so it's disparaging.
So again, now that we know that you know what that fucking word means, and I'm not asking you for the truth of the matter.
I'm not asking you if it's factual.
When you say colonizer, is it meant to be disparaging or not?
I'm not saying it's disparaging.
I'm not saying it in a disparaging way.
I could use it in a disparaging way.
I have, of course, historically used it in a disparaging way.
Because there is a negative connotation.
Yeah, because you mean it.
You fuckers all mean it in a disparaging way to say white people are bad.
And you're just literally right now, this is the worst example of gaslighting I've ever seen in my life.
People are bad.
Huh?
Do you think I think white people are bad?
I think when you call them colonizers, you're doing it in a disparaging way.
And how am I a colonizer, by the way?
Well, that wasn't all white people.
I didn't call you a colonizer.
Who is the colonizer then?
Any of the ancestors that immigrated to the colonies.
I see.
So, like, if my ancestors immigrated to the colonies, am I a colonizer?
No, your ancestors were.
Oh, okay.
So not me.
No.
So I have nothing to do with that then.
I mean, I think that those like historical circumstances are still reflected in the market.
However, I'm the beneficiary of the evil white colonizer.
Yes, when your ancestors have the opportunity to make a lot of money, yes, you do benefit.
Then don't gaslight me next time, Charlie, and just be fucking honest and say, Andrew, when I say colonizer, I mean bad white people because that's what you mean when you say it.
Isn't that the case?
Instead of gaslighting and bullshitting me, why don't you just be like, I mean bad white people?
Sure.
I don't think all the colonizers were evil people.
I know, but when you say it in a disparaging way, you're saying bad white people.
If we're talking about America specifically.
Yeah.
Yes.
Yeah.
But anyone can be.
So like just next time, don't fucking gaslight.
And so the thing is so funny is like, this is why I have to tell you what a colonizer actually is.
No one uses it in that context.
I don't, no, you people don't use it in that context because you want to disparage white people, like you just admitted.
That's why you refuse to give people the second definition of what a colonizer is because you want to disparage white people.
You want to pretend that the Indians who were here weren't colonizers when they fucking were.
And you just want to disparage.
And so that's why it triggered you when I said, hey, the Indians who were here were colonizers.
And you were like, no, they weren't.
That's ridiculous.
They were too, Charlie.
They were.
I'm triggered by it not out of race reasons.
I'm triggered by it because it's just wildly inaccurate.
Even the most right.
It is wildly accurate.
Refer to the 13 colonies as colonies.
They are colonies.
I'm not disputing that.
They're colonies and would not use that word.
Do you know what both and means?
Both and?
Yes, it's true.
13 colonies were colonies, but it's also true that Native Americans were colonizers.
Both are true.
That's not the word that people would use.
No, it's not the word you people use because you want to disparage white people.
That's the truth.
It's because there's a very, very, very heavy implication that there is a foreign nationality.
That white people are bad.
No, that a foreign nation has control of those colonies, that it is under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.
Puerto Rico is an American colony.
That's correct.
I agree.
Yes, it is a colony under the jurisdiction of the United States.
We are a foreign nation.
But I also agree that there can be colonies that have no central home nation, that it's ethnic groups who could be migrating who can create colonies like the Huns did.
Do you agree that when Huns began to roam or when the other big one?
Not the Huns, the other big Asian, the Mongols, right?
When they began to roam, if they decided that they were going to start building on other people's lands, even though they didn't have a central land they were reporting to, weren't they colonizing that land?
I mean, if it was all under the jurisdiction of their leader, yeah, I would say so.
Then the same thing happened with the natives.
That's the same thing.
They had leadership inside their tribes.
They traversed these massive land bridges over the span of hundreds and thousands of years.
So they were consistently colonizing the same lands, Charlie.
Same shit.
I just don't think it.
You don't think it because then people can call Native Americans colonizers and it'll piss them off.
That's why.
If you said that, it wouldn't even be in the same context of white people.
Yeah, because there's a moral equivalency to be gained there, yes.
It's like, why is it okay that they can do it as long as there's no like other nation they report to, as long as they just do it because their tribe tells them to.
It's the same shit.
I mean, are they busting in and taking land from people?
Yes.
Slaughtering them?
Yes, they were.
Yes.
They were busting in and taking land and killing fucking people.
Yes.
And by the way, the natives did that.
Yes, I'm well aware.
Yeah, constantly.
What do you mean?
Yeah, they did it.
But was it in service of that foreign state that would have control over?
It doesn't need to be.
That's where you're definitionally just lying because you want white people to be bad.
I don't want white people to be bad.
Then why did you admit that you're just trying to, when you say the colonizer, you're using it as a disparaging insult towards white people?
That that's how you use it.
I didn't say it.
I said in this, it is typically in a negative context when that word is towards who?
White people.
Usually white people.
Yeah, usually white people.
Usually white people.
Yeah, so that's.
But it's also a fact, man.
I don't know what to say.
It's also a fact that Indians did it, Charlie.
And you're fucking this right.
I am well aware of this hate of violence and slavery.
This is why I hate feminist revisionism.
I'm not a disparious people.
I am very well aware that Indigenous peoples participated in rape, torture, slavery, and violence.
I'm super aware of it.
You don't need to tell me that.
Got it.
We have five chats.
It looked like, did you want to?
I was going to have a smoke, but I can do the chats first unless you want me to have, I'll take the smoke first, actually.
That's it.
Take the smoke first.
I got a pee.
Unless someone wants to ask me about that question.
Or there's one for me, I guess.
Okay, sure.
James.
All right, well, it's below the threshold.
You know.
Okay, why not?
You're lucky, James.
You're lucky.
Below the threshold.
Enjoy.
Charlie, why aren't Mexicans called colonizers?
They're descended from southern Europeans.
You won the lottery here, James.
Took land from the indigenous people, just like northern Europeans.
They are.
They are called colonizers.
Indigenous peoples in Mexico are still oppressed, even by people who share their blood.
Do you know how many white Americans, even settlers, people considered legally white, also had Native American ancestry?
It is what it is.
In California, white settlers and Mexican settlers would be paid to hunt down Indigenous Californians.
So, yes, like, yes, that is a.
Guys, Andrew's on his smoke break.
We're going to, as soon as he comes back, we have some Q ⁇ A coming up.
I know they came in a while ago.
Q ⁇ A, $100 plus, $99 plus, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Also, guys, you can support without any of these plat YouTube, Streamlabs taking their cut Vemo, Cash App.
That is whatever pod.
Just a quick shout.
And I'll give you guys a shout out to Christian.
Think for the 13 on, I believe it was either one of the two.
Guys, if you're watching on Twitch, twitch.tv slash whatever, drop us a follow, drops the prime sub.
Get some merch, shot.whatever.com.
We have Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
If you're enjoying the stream, guys, if we get this video to 7,000 likes, there's 10,000 people watching right now.
It might have dipped a little bit there while Andrew went to take a smoke break.
If we get to 7,000 likes, we'll try to squeeze in an extra debate this week.
Our schedule, while we have the debate today, obviously, we have dating talk tomorrow, 5 p.m. Pacific.
And then Andrew has round two with Naima, Neyma, Naima, on Monday, 3 p.m. Pacific here on the whatever podcast.
But if we get this video to 7,000 likes, we'll try to squeeze in a special third debate.
Also, guys, if you want to learn how to debate, debateuniversity.com.
If you want to become a master debater, and then once again, as soon as Andrew comes back, we'll get right into a Q ⁇ A session.
$99 plus Q ⁇ A. If you have a question or if you just have a statement, that's streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Pull that up, Mary, really quick so we can show the people.
Yeah, pull up the Streamlabs tab.
Streamlabs.com slash whatever.
There it is.
You can then put a name there at the top.
You can put your contribution tip amount and then you can put a message in, which we will have pulled up during the Q ⁇ A session.
All right.
Good to go?
Good to go.
I did it quick.
All right, rock and roll.
I will have...
Sorry for deigning to answer James.
I didn't realize it was a message from the government.
We need to be considerate of the other patrons.
In Canada, aka Turtle Island, many indigenous tribes, history keepers, and legends state that when their ancestors came to North America, it was empty with no other people living there.
That's nice.
I'm glad that they have legends of that.
But archaeological evidence shows that there's a land bridge.
At least this is the current archaeological history.
That there was a land ridge which existed for thousands of years that they were crossing into, and they settled land, and other people came right behind them to settle that same land they settled on, and they would fight over it because they created colonies and already staked out land.
And I don't know what else you want to say about it, but if you live in a land according to the definition, according to definition two of colonizer, and somebody comes with a different ethnic group and settles the same land you're settled on, that's a colonizer.
They're colonizing.
That's what they're doing.
And so the whole idea here is, you see the equivocation, how it's always a bait and switch.
It's like, no, no, no, you have to have a foreign government that's funding this.
Otherwise, it's not really colonized.
It's like, that's bullshit.
It's morally the same equivalency.
It's morally equivalent.
What's the difference?
Do you think settler is disparaging towards white people?
Settler?
Yeah, settler.
I don't think that you guys use settler as disparaging.
I think you use colonizer as disparaging.
Oh, I've heard settler disparaging.
I was going to say.
I will grant that settler that, yes, if they were, they settled lands.
Yeah, so the thing is, is like, sometimes with no one there, sometimes they're not.
Yeah, but if you settle lands, right, that usually means not conflict.
Otherwise, it's conquering lands, right?
Well, you can conquer and settle, can't you?
Yeah, after you conquer them, you can then settle, sure.
But when you say settlers, like, do you, do you consider the people coming out of Israel to Palestine to be settlers?
People coming out of Israel to Palestine to be settlers?
Yeah, when they come when they're making their settlements, that's not colonization?
It's both, but I would consider them settlers as well.
Okay, right.
So they're colonizer settlers is what you're really saying.
Yes.
Okay, so then you're actually saying that these people were colonizer settlers.
When you say settler, you're just pointing back to colonizer in this context.
Kind of.
I do feel like, again, to me, the context of there being a foreign nation that they are under the is important, I feel to the definition of colonization.
I feel like it's a morally equivalent statement that you're just calling, that you just call us colonizers because it's disparaging to white people.
And the reason you don't call Native Americans colonizers, even if they colonized, is because you know that they would consider that disparaging to them.
And even though these are morally equivalent acts, and it's like, it's so obvious to the onlooker, like you realize that, right?
Like from my side, it's so obvious to us when your side calls us colonizers and shit like that, that it's anti-white rhetoric.
And it's always been anti-white rhetoric.
Think about it.
Isn't it?
I mean, you have the shit eating grin because you know it's true, though, right?
Like, you're just gaslighting.
Isn't the whole thing designed as anti-white rhetoric?
I feel like you are taking me calling making a distinction between the 13 colonies which were under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation farther than it's meant to go.
Yeah, I don't think so because when I see you, you crazy ass leftists all over TikTok and all over these places talking about colonizer.
The last last time I saw this in depth, we were watching on the crucible.
I don't know how many was with us maybe at the time, like 9,000 live viewers with me at the time as we were watching people in front of Portland who were trying to resist our nation's laws.
And one of the Hispanics who was there was going person to person and calling us colonizers.
You're calling white people colonizers.
You need to get the fuck.
Stop ICE right now, you colonizer.
You came here and colonized.
We have the right to be here.
We have the right to be here because you're colonizers.
And so the thing is, is like, yeah, you know, I do think that he meant it.
And he literally said, it's because you're white.
You're the beneficiary of colonization.
Yeah, but that's also kind of hilarious because when you're talking about Portland, you're talking about people with white guilt to the most extreme.
This was a Hispanic guy.
Yeah, yeah, I know, but he was talking to the white people.
No, he was talking to white conservatives.
Oh, the white conservatives?
Okay, never mind.
I was calling them colonizers.
I thought he was doing that to white liberals and leftists.
Yeah, and you fucking progressives do this constantly.
You call them colonizers, and then at the same time, say there's no anti-white rhetoric.
There's no anti-white.
I'm not all of those people.
Okay, I get it.
I get it.
It's a generalization.
I understand, even though you yourself said that you use it disparagingly towards white people.
But I'm not sure.
The context in most of the ways that I've seen you use it in your videos, it was not polite towards white society.
That's for sure.
I don't know which videos you're referring to, but that's okay.
Eclipse or whatever?
Yeah, like every time I, yeah, every time I hear you talk about the colonizers, okay, it's not used in like a charitable light.
And the beneficiaries of colonizers, it's not used in a charitable light.
And when I see that, I know for sure everybody knows who's watching it, right?
We can intuit it out in seconds.
And when we put you to the question, we figured out even faster that it's anti-white rhetoric masked as being historically accurate.
And it's like, it's really not either of those things.
It really is just a way for progressives to utilize anti-white rhetoric and pretend that they're not being a bunch of fucking racist assholes.
That's what I think.
That's what I think is going on.
But those things happened.
Yeah, you know, but when I tell you about things that happened with Native Americans, you're very quick to make excuses for it.
And yet, here, when it comes to colonization, the idea that you had a clash of cultures, and anytime two cultures clash, this is what happens.
Anytime.
When you have a disparage between technology, it's always the case.
I believe it.
Again, my point on the colony just has to do with the foreign state, jurisdiction of a foreign state.
Yeah, that's one definition of colonizing.
I agree that these were colonies.
Okay.
I agree that they were beholden to a state, and then they fought for freedom and formed a new state.
So then they were no longer colonizers.
They were born on this land.
They were settlers.
Well, no, at that point, they weren't even settlers.
It was their land.
Right?
It was theirs.
They fought for it.
They got it.
I guess by, yes, European standards, they had claimed the land, correct?
By all standards.
Who has a standard that if you fight and take the land, it's not yours?
What culture has that standard?
All of them.
I'm thinking more about boundaries.
I mean, it could be fought back.
They could say, this is our land, we'll take it back, you know?
Like, but it's probably about seven or eight.
They're going to be out of order.
When debating with Andrew, it's best to know your history and not just cherry-pick what you like or feel is right.
Otherwise, Andrew completely destroys your arguments and world views with facts.
LA Mefeo.
Just for context, this did come in a little bit earlier when you guys were debating, I believe, the race victimization stuff.
We have another one from Pacey George.
Andrew, I'm agreeing with you that indigenous people were colonizing the land in North America from the Bering Straits, but you missed the point that it was initially empty with no other people.
Yeah, but don't you understand the distinction there?
Like, you're saying the same thing that I am.
Even if they went to lands that didn't have people, the people who came after them, who then settled in those lands, remember, most of those original groups, right, they were replaced by other groups.
Most of them were replaced by other groups.
And so it's like, if that's the case, then it's just what was left was probably mostly the remnants of early colonization between the land bridge tribes that took over other land bridge tribes.
So it's like, it's all colonization.
That's the thing that gets me is it's like, but they don't want you to use that argument because it's always used as anti-white rhetoric.
It's always used as anti-white rhetoric.
Thank you, Pasty.
We have Benton Vil Sandy.
Thank you for the Benton Vil Sandy donated $200.
Don't let Elomie Charlie nipolate you like she did to Gunsquat since 2023.
So this is a this is a man with schizophrenia.
I don't know.
I know who that is.
He has schizophrenia.
He doesn't have schizophrenia.
Yes, he does.
Oh.
Okay.
All right.
We have a message from Rachel coming up here.
Andrew's wife.
Rachel Wilson donated $100.
You have a degree, but don't know what per capita means.
You stream about politics, but don't know basic crime statistics.
You debate, but don't make a single argument.
Get back in the kitchen.
I have a master's in literature.
But you have a BA, too.
I have a BA in English literature.
Yeah, but requisites for those class for history, right?
You had.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah.
Yes.
Yeah.
Sorry.
I'm sorry I'm not intimately familiar with interracial crime statistics.
But I mean, do you see her point, though, when she's saying, like, if you make political commentary in the United States right now, we live in a very racially charged environment, and there's no way around that.
Yeah.
And the fact of the matter is, is that having honest conversations about interracial and racial issues has been very difficult for 15 years because progressives just de-fucking platform anybody who talked about it for years.
They just de-platformed them.
And so now there is a way in which people can conduct and have these conversations.
And you find out that many of the political commentators who are leftists don't even fucking know that this is the case.
And so we think to ourselves, like, how many fucking people have been horn swoggled by these people?
Don't even, they don't even know, they don't even know how the intersectionality of people groups has created these massive problems.
And they don't even acknowledge it, look at it, nothing.
And from my view, it's like, that's fucking terrible.
And it's horrible that socially we have these societal issues and we can't do anything about them because we can't even fucking talk about them.
I would say I think that you can understand that poverty increases crime rates.
I agree with that.
Absolutely.
But I do believe, again, that it is more likely for a black person to be convicted of a crime versus a white person for the same crime.
So I'm going to have to stick with that.
Okay.
All right.
We have another QA coming through.
Flavi Assassinist is donated $100.
Can Charlie answer the question directly, or does her collage education not allow for that?
Would you like to respond to that?
I don't.
I didn't study collage in college, nor did I go to art school.
Okay, that was a good retort.
I must say that.
You got them there.
Yeah, you got to get them there.
We have Peacecraft.
Question for Charlie coming in here in just a moment.
Flett Flavius, thank you.
Peacecraft donated $100.
Charlie, would you find it ethical to conquer the Simbari and Itara people of papilla New Guinea due to their cultural practices?
Also, Andy, the Mongols had a capital, Kharkoum.
Okay, that's fair.
Wait, is that the CUM warriors?
Yeah.
Apparently, they did stop doing that after they got in touch with Christians from the outside world.
No, Christians.
I don't know if, was it Christians or was it people from the outside world?
As Christian, I've argued this with Peacecraft before, as Christian missionaries.
And by the way, I brought the Mongols up.
I was just trying to give quick examples of like, if it is the case that you in any way, shape, or form settle in this area according to definition two, do you become a colonizer?
It appears that you do.
But even under that definition, they would have been colonizers, right?
Peacecraft.
But anyway, yeah, that's his point.
Is like, if you pull a question back up, Brian, I think.
I think what he's getting at there is like, what would you do with them?
What would you do with them?
But if you couldn't change their practices, no, the Papua New Guinea tribes.
Oh, from the weird, well, I guess we'll never know the answer to that question because they changed their practices.
They haven't changed them completely.
I think it's only one tribe that converted over because of Christians, and the other ones still keep that practice in place.
Gross.
Well, I would encourage that tribe to spread the practices because I think that there could be resistance to, you know, outsiders attempting to change them versus people from their own in-group, which is, I think, how you can kind of get it.
But if you just sailed across the cum warriors of Papua New Guinea as they were engaged in that practice and just like dropped a bomb and they were just gone, how does that make the world a worse place?
It's dropping a bomb on a bunch of people that were raised into harmful traditions that they perpetuate the cycle.
I mean, each man that is, you know, I believe you.
Like, again, I think that you can't.
I totally believe you.
Listen, I.
I totally believe you.
I know.
You're right.
It's all based around cultural brainwashing and tradition that they're going to continue the practice of sticking their penis in those places with those adolescents.
Yes, it's bad.
So if we went right and we just dropped the bomb right there and they were gone, how does that make the world a worse place, Charlie?
I think that killing a bunch of people is wrong.
Yep, that's not my question.
Would it make the world a worse place?
I mean, yeah, probably.
How?
I think that when you murder a bunch of people, the world is a worse place.
I think that bad acts make the world a worse place.
Yeah, but I mean, that's just question begging.
You're just saying it's bad.
It would make it worse because it would make it worse.
People to bomb, to make it okay to bomb other countries on the basis of their practices.
I mean, don't we do that all the time?
Don't we do that all the time?
Wouldn't you agree that there are many countries out there or cultures that view American culture as like an abomination and would want to do something about us, right?
Yeah.
Like, would they not be just as and I really would like to stop importing people from those countries?
Okay, well, we don't really import too many of them.
Ah, yeah, we do.
The Middle East.
Yeah, we import a lot of them.
And we import people who have savage cultural practices from Africa as well, and savage cultural practices from South America.
We import tons of those too, come from death cult cities and all sorts of things.
Quiet senioras?
No, it's not quiet sineras.
Do you know how corrupt these governments in South America are due to the fact that they're well aware, but people can be from corrupt, you know, nations with corrupt governments.
Yeah, how many of the cum warriors do you want in your country?
I think that you could, you know, very much help people like that.
Oh, you're going to help them.
This is also a very unique circumstance in which it is ingrained in their culture to diddle kids.
I don't know.
It seems to me like the people group who are here that you're making them unnecessarily suffer by importing people groups they don't want here.
Well, we're not importing them.
You were importing them.
From Papua New Guinea?
No, Other people groups that are probably.
Right, well, no one has practices as awful as that.
Yeah, no.
And if they do, they're not allowed to do it.
Yeah, they do.
And they, well, how would you even know?
They come up illegally.
You won't even enforce the damn border.
People won't even enforce the border.
They come up illegally.
You don't even know who the fuck's coming through the border.
You have no clue.
You people don't enforce the border.
Yeah, the progressives, they did everything possible not to enforce border.
They didn't charge the border.
You voted for the people who were.
Did you vote for Biden?
Yeah.
Yeah.
You've said open border policies crossed.
He deported a lot of people.
Because he let a bunch in.
Still deported them.
Holy shit.
Did you, I don't know if we got the full answer, though, from Peacecraft.
Would you find it ethical to conquer that tribe from PNG due to their cultural practices?
So not dropping bombs necessarily, but would it be ethical to conquer them to prevent the practice?
What?
No, to conquer?
Yeah.
No, I think that you can, I don't think that that is how you actually enact change.
I think that you would.
Okay, go ahead.
I'm sorry.
That's wild to me.
Go ahead.
Okay.
I need one of those seltzers.
Successful missionaries generally don't go in.
Booze.
Okay.
Successful missionaries, do you think that successful missionaries generally go in and massacre a culture and say, we're in charge of you now?
Or do they carefully change things from the inside?
Because again, this is incredibly delicate.
Sometimes these people have no conception that this could be wrong.
And so I think you have to be careful.
And sometimes missionaries get their brains bashed in and they get their heads put on.
Well, that's the kind of thing you have to worry about.
Yeah, I know.
But if we just send in the United States Marines, we'll just send in the Marines and the Marines come in and they're like, you know, we're going to take this whole area over, okay?
And all you like Chomos over here, if you do any Chomo stuff, we're going to take you out.
And the kids now, we're going to give them a proper education and baths and food and stuff.
I think that the people would resent the rule and be less likely to change their practices.
I think that there would be violent rebellion.
How would they be less?
How are they going to violently?
How are the primitive Stone Age warriors of Papua New Guinea going to violently rebel against the United States Marines?
Maybe not at that point, but one day.
You think that they're going to be really resentful that they weren't allowed to molest kids anymore?
Like, what?
They're not going to look at it from the traditional viewpoint, but what they're going to see is, you know, foreigners invading their nation and killing them.
That's what they're going to see.
Like, again, it's just not, if you want to, you know, affect real change, I think that you would have to make an effort again to influence and educate.
So what you're saying.
I just want to make sure that you understand the entailment of your position is that right now, if it is the case that in Papua New Guinea, kids are getting SA'd, young boys are getting SA'd by adults who are making them eat their ejaculate every day for weeks on end,
that you, that would be a preferable condition to you than to send in a fully armed force which can separate those kids from those people.
How could that possibly be better?
How could that, how could not colonizing that possibly be better?
They don't end up killing a bunch of people.
They just cross-generationally SA little boys.
Yes, I know.
It's a cycle of abuse.
It's horrible.
But they can recover.
I mean, like, I don't know.
I'm assume, oops.
I assume you're opposed to women doing OnlyFans.
Yeah.
Okay, what if we got every woman doing OnlyFans on an island and bombed it?
Would the world be a better place?
Did I say bomb it?
Right now.
Yeah, but right now we're not talking about that.
Right now we're talking about go in and kill them if they don't.
We're not saying go in and kill them.
We're saying go in and colonize them.
That wouldn't necessarily require a killing of any kind.
It would require us to completely destroy their cultural practices and integrate them into our social hierarchy.
If a foreign nation came to our country and said, do as we say or we'll kill you, do you think the American people would lie down and take it?
No.
I don't think we would rebel.
That's what happens.
But if you have an overwhelming force, right, who comes in and you have primitive technology and you're doing what the Papua New Guinea come warriors are doing, how could it possibly be justified not to do that if you have that overwhelming force?
If you could just go in there, save all those kids, right?
Recolonize so that it never happens again.
How is that not preferable?
I think it is literally, again, more effective rather than through force, like build a resentment, fear, and rage in these people versus like help them.
So if these people, let's say hypothetically, they never want to take visitors again and they wall themselves off and they refuse, right?
But you can still see in there.
You have like your little recon plane and shit.
You can see that they're still doing these practices.
Is there an island that's like that where no one's allowed to go?
They killed a missionary.
Yeah, I know.
They threw a screen.
Yeah, yeah, I'm aware of that, but they're not doing the same things that these people are doing.
As far as we know.
Well, no, we can, I think we can see in, but I'm not sure.
But anyway, but we could, we could see in there, right?
And note that they're still doing it.
Would you let them do that in perpetuity rather than colonize them?
I mean, okay.
Granted, you know, sending people to aid and educate and getting people who are a part of the tour on your side.
They don't want anything to do with those people.
My goodness, I don't know what I would do if I was in charge of that because I don't think that there's a situation where that happens.
Do you just didn't?
Wait a second.
I just want to make sure I got this right.
This situation is happening right now in Papua New Guinea.
I believe that there's still one tribe of the come warriors there and they're not taking visitors.
So do we just perpetually let them do this to kids?
I think that if you have encouraged the surrounding tribes to view that as disgusting and vile, I think that they'll take care of it themselves.
By colonizing them?
Most likely, yeah, sure.
But I don't think that we need to go in foreign outsiders.
Completely different from them.
So as long as the neighboring tribes colonize them, that's okay.
We colonize them, not okay.
I mean, do you see the difference in how the resentment would build and what the long-term care?
I mean, maybe, but you're just making the case that colonization here is actually okay, either way.
In this extreme, absurd, ridiculous situation.
Well, it's not extreme, absurd, hypothetical.
Like, it is going on, right?
Like, it is happening.
So it's not like I'm talking about something that's not going on.
Sure, yeah.
But again, I think that you can just let people figure it out themselves.
Should we colonize North Korea?
No.
No?
No.
Should South Korea colonize North Korea?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't want to help them if they try.
Well, I mean, it'll be our money.
I just want to let you know.
There are hundreds of thousands of women daily who are SA'd in North Korea in order to keep their birth rates artificially up.
They draft them right in the military and they give sex squads to the dear leader.
Should the South Koreans colonize them?
Western democracy.
That's a Western.
Yeah, it's a Western-style democracy.
I said I'll leave that to the South Koreans.
But South Korea also has its grave issues with women.
So, I mean, I don't know, dude.
Not the same way that the North does.
Not even the same universe.
I mean, the sex pest stuff is crazy.
Do you realize and recognize the difference between you have sex pests in a country, right, who are problematic and gropey and gross and even a little bit rapey?
And then on the other side of that, you have girls as young as 15, you know, actually younger, 12, pulled right off the street, drafted in the military so that they can be part of pleasure squads.
Are you sure that that's a real thing that's happening?
Because that does sound like, like, I'm not saying North Korea is good.
North Korea is an awful dictatorship.
It's an awful dictatorship.
Can you pull up North Korean pleasure squads?
But would you not agree that it says about the North Korean pleasure squads?
Hold on.
And the pleasure girls.
It's absolutely horrific what they do to them.
I have something from Wikipedia, which is a bit biased, but it's an unconfirmed collection of groups of approximately 2,000 women and girls reportedly maintained by the leader of North Korea for the purpose of providing entertainment, including that of a sexual nature, for high-ranking workers, workers, party of Korea officials and their families, as well as occasionally distinguished guests.
And we have thousands of North Korean defectors, maybe not as high as thousands, but at least hundreds of North Korean defectors, including high-ranking military officials who've defected, who have explained in great detail what's going on with the situation.
That like, you know, it's funny.
I gave a hypothetical one time about an SA cage, right?
These people have actual SA cages.
And do you think that they wouldn't benefit from the colonization?
Like you don't think so?
You don't think that would be a benefit to that culture?
Generally, I think people can sort themselves out.
Okay.
I don't, I am concerned with changes in my nation, changes that I can affect.
Yeah, look, we can find an automatic.
I don't know.
I don't really, I don't know if I want to fund South Korea's war against North Korea.
I totally agree.
I'm really uninterested in it.
I also don't want to fund the invasion of Papua New Guinea.
Look, I totally agree with you that it is the case, that I don't think we should get involved in foreign affairs.
My point wasn't to say that we should.
My point rather was to point out that saying that colonization itself is somehow bad in and of itself is absurd and silly and makes no sense.
And it's very clear that colonization has been extraordinarily helpful to many places of the world as far as their social order goes.
And that's like, I don't even know why that would be questioned at this point.
What places do you think about?
Like the Ivory Coast.
The Ivory Coast definitely has done way better under colonization in comparison to the rest of the region.
Okay.
But the rest of the region was, you know, Africa was colonized and now they're doing pretty, pretty bad.
Which parts?
Well, the greatest example I can think of is the Congo and what happened there with, was it the king of the Netherlands or Belgium?
Leopold.
What?
What happened there in the Congo?
Like the enslavements and the murders and shit.
Yeah, okay.
Wait a second.
Like, and now the Congo is like, like, do you think that those people were doing better?
I'm not familiar with the particular situation you're talking about in the Congo.
Like, African history is not all that interesting to me.
But I do know that the Ivory Coast, which was heavily colonized, has done extremely well due to colonization.
That's for sure.
And I also can point out that I can actually give you a ton.
I think that the Americas were made better through colonization.
Native Americans have a higher quality of life now than they did pre-colonization, that's for sure.
I think everyone around the world does in most, most, most places.
If you have access to modern technology, you typically have a better chance.
Yeah, but all that modern technology, a lot of that modern technology came from North America.
And because we colonized and had access to massive amounts of resources, we were able to reshape the entire world and the technology in it.
So it's like, it seems like the world has benefited from colonization.
That it could only have happened through colonization?
No, of course not.
There's other ways that it could have potentially happened, but not likely.
We have to move on to the next question.
Joe M0861 donated $200.
Thank you, Joe.
Brian, please ask both to answer and then look up the answers on Google.
How many people died in the Spanish Inquisition and how long did it last?
I want to say when I looked this up last time, it was like 14 to 1700 people total.
It wasn't a huge amount.
Oh, I was going to say 500.
I think it was 140 to 1700 from the entirety of it, but I don't remember.
And I think it lasted like a decade, I want to say.
It wasn't long.
It wasn't a long time period.
According to Google AI, the Spanish Inquisition lasted for over 350 years, 1478 to 1834 with its final abolition.
And there seems to be records indicate around 826 executions in person, 778 in effigy.
But another estimate says executions between 1,480 and 1,530.
Yeah.
Okay.
So between 1,400 and 1,700.
I was pretty close.
All right.
We have Pasty George here coming in.
A message from the government of Canada.
Pasty George donated $200.47.
Yeah, right.
Andrew, I think I understand what you are trying to say.
In the end, it was humans colonizing other humans.
In Canada, many indigenous tribes fought one another for territories and hunting grounds.
Yeah, I'm just saying, exactly.
So I'm just saying that the very idea, I think that the idea is being utilized specifically by leftist progressives, especially ones who are college educated.
They use the term colonizer specifically as a disparagement on modern white men.
That's what I think.
And I've seen it now so many times.
And so is the Crucible audience.
It's almost, it almost seems impossible for me to see it any other way.
And so my point is just to point out, like, everybody colonized fucking everybody, including the Native Americans, by the very definition of what colonization is, as I demonstrated multiple times.
Even if we go back to the beginning where there's a land bridge, they definitely colonized each other constantly.
So it's like you colonized the colonizer, you stole from the thief, you murdered the murderers.
It's like, at what point do we have a moral equivalency here?
It makes you feel any better.
I took a course in my undergrad taught by an Indigenous professor who made us read books specifically on the Creek tribe, which included their long history of slavery.
So.
All right, we have a chat here from Pat.
Pat's donated $99.
Thank you, Pat.
Great debate.
Charlie words can have multiple definitions and migrate over time.
You are brainwashed into selectively only accepting one definition to push an ideological message that benefits some.
See, that's what I think.
I think Pat's right.
Like, that's what that's what I think we've been able to infer from this.
That's what I inferred from it.
It's like, nope, that ideological message, it's really that only that one definition that matters because that's the definition that reinforces the worldview.
Would you like to respond to Andrew or the question?
Don't think Pat or Andrew is going to believe me when I say I just feel strongly that a colony requires a uh in its common usage, is going to require a foreign government to have jurisdiction over it.
That is just again in common usage.
That is, that is how the word is used.
But it's just such a.
It's just such an appeal to emotion, especially when you say, like you feel that that is the case when we had a definition for it any other way.
Okay well, let me just ask you this, would you reject definition two that we gave you for colony?
Would you reject it like you can?
You can just not accept the definition as being true um, I wouldn't uh reject it um completely, but I would say that I think that it is uh.
There are certainly much better words to describe that phenomenon, which is like settling settler, like again, because colony just has a very strong implication of foreign government in charge of that.
Like again.
I just feel like they are fundamentally uh different, especially when we're talking about the 13 colonies.
But you see, that's like the whole point of the War of Independence is that we would have our own freedom and no longer be colonies, but be but I mean there was colonies that had nothing to do with the 13 colonies?
Obviously yeah, of course yeah, so like you.
Just, you continuously bring it back to that because it seems to reinforce your worldview that uh, you want you need this definition to be true so that your prism of history is true.
Well, i'm an American, informed by American history, I guess, is all I can say yeah well, I mean that American history was British history too right yeah yes yes, because yeah, it was British history and French and so.
But anyway, the point is is like yeah, it just seems like there's a bias operation there.
That's all i'm saying.
I won't deny that yes many many, many people on the left use colonizer in a negative way, including you.
I have used it before in a negative way when i'm referring to negative things and I will say that yes, it is.
It has been used in in ways that I think are disingenuous.
Bees donated 100.
How else could the vast natural and human potential of the Americas have been organized into globally influential, technologically advanced societies without the disruptive but ultimately transformat?
It couldn't have, like I?
I, I can concede that it could be logically possible, that it could have.
I mean, I think that it's not likely.
I mean, it's not like Europe itself all technological innovations sprung just from Europe, like we very much borrowed from, like the Middle East and China.
When it came to like gunpowder and stuff like I no no no, I think without the um no, first of all, like if you talk about the origin of a chemical or a chemical compound or, in this case, a powder compound of gunpowder probably fuck, I don't know, I don't even want to hazard a guess.
I would guess that 99 of all technology based around gunpowder is has been European.
Sure yeah, probably 99, or I mean maybe like 99.9, but I mean the innovations around gunpowder from Europeans fucking it's, it's insane, it's incredible.
I mean, i'd want to read up on that.
But I also think it's like unfortunately, we did bring disease to the Americas which I think would have really heavily impacted our ability to trade properly.
But um, because of animal husbandry yes yeah um, I think that it is possible.
Well, and also we had uh, Europeans had immunities built up that Native Americans didn't, because of animal husbandry.
Because of animal husbandry um, We could have traded.
We could have, you know, passed the technology on.
We did trade with many tribes for many years.
And they became very upset with us over various different things, including, well, I mean, that's a long, complex history.
But the point is, is that it is not the case that we call we, I mean, it is the case that we colonize colonizers.
That is the case.
And that's why, that's why I guess that's what frustrates me is I know, again, I guess we're circling, but I know that it's an anti- I know it's anti-white rhetoric.
I've seen it now so many times that I just know it is.
I think I can easily demonstrate it is by putting the person who calls me the colonizer to the question.
And we see very quickly that it's designed.
It's like, who have I colonized?
Nobody.
But you're the beneficiary of colonizers, so for your calling.
Who are you to tell me that we can't immigrate to this country, colonizer?
That's how it's used.
Isn't it?
It's used as who are you to tell me who can immigrate into your nation?
You're a colonizer.
You just decided you're the conqueror.
So if you get conquered, you fucking deserve it.
Isn't that how it's being used?
The Hispanic guy was using it in that way.
How does anybody use it on the left except that way?
Who are you, colonizer, to tell people that they can't immigrate to this nation?
Like, that's what it's mostly used for when you're calling someone a colonizer, that they have no justification to say who can come in and out of their nation because they're colonizers.
I think it's just trying to remind people that they were once immigrants too.
Because I do think that, again, it's not like all white people showed up at once and we all decided, yes, we're the same.
We're culturally the exact same.
It was a long, difficult process of assimilation.
Look, I agree that there have been many waves of migration to various nations, okay?
But I also think that the peoples of these nations eventually are going to be able to determine what they want their demographics to look like, which Japan has done, for instance.
They decided they were pumping in immigrants in order to offset the fact that their birth rate was massively declining.
And most recently, their president came out and said, we're not going to do that anymore.
And if the birth rate declines, so be it.
I don't care.
And they get to like the people themselves get to control the demographics.
They can do that.
And then their elderly will rot and die alone in their homes when the, you know, the population has more old people than they do young people.
Or they'll create a renaissance for incentives to create young people.
Well, they'd have to change their work culture to do that.
And that's not likely.
Well, it's likely if you start running out of people.
Yeah, I guess.
Hassan Piker is not Zeus donated $100.
Charlie, heard a rumor you and Hassan had a little tryst.
Is it true?
If not, would you date the shit lib?
What do you think about the whole dog shock thing?
I've never spoken to Hassan in my life, and I'm not a fan of his.
I've never spoken to Hassan in my life, and I'm not a fan of his.
No.
Dog shock thing?
What do you think about the whole?
The dog collar shock thing?
That thing, yeah.
I don't want to say anything because I do not want this to be clipped by weird people and spread around.
That is a discourse I am just wholly uninterested in.
I don't, Destiny, Hassan, and Ethan Klein could do the most evil things in the world, and I wouldn't comment on it because I have no interest in being brought into that insanity.
Wait, you'll talk about the come warriors of Papa New York?
Yes.
What do you want to talk about?
Well, the come warriors don't, the come warriors don't have an online mob.
They don't have an online mob of people to attack me.
Those three do.
I'm just, I'm not going to comment.
I don't want to, I don't want to be involved.
Okay.
I don't know.
The crucible's tingled with all of them.
We do pretty well.
Well, their audience, I mean.
Were to follow a progressive evolutionary or anthropological history of humans, wouldn't that mean everyone is just a colonizer, which implies that you just use it as a slur?
That's a great point okay yes, human beings have uh moved around um historically.
All through all through history, human beings have moved around, moved into new places.
Human beings have been violent and awful and evil to each other.
We have committed uh atrocities um unknown, but I do believe that the colonization of the Americas was the most extensive uh and advanced colonization due to um, the technology that we had available at the time.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that, that it was uh very effective in a way because of technology that I think most of the world had not yet seen before.
Would that agree, disagree?
Okay, we have Elusive Enigma, not true?
Elusive Enigma donated 100, with all of the talk about colonizing.
What are your guys thoughts about voluntary segregation like the Rttl project?
Would it be okay if whites get together and focus solely on themselves and people?
I mean, what are white concerns and who are we counting as white people?
So I think that the project that he's talking about, if I remember correctly, they're focusing on Uh people who have specifically western, your European, blood and it excludes Uh people who they don't consider to be white.
This includes Jewish people and it includes some eastern Slavic better include Italians.
I'm not sure if they included Italians as being white or non-white, but whatever.
However, they chopped up the criteria.
The point of the question is asking if you believe that people have self-determination, autonomy and can make uh exclusive groups and live only among those exclusive groups, excluding other people or not.
I think you can do that if you want, but I probably wouldn't want to hang around those people.
You can.
If you want to have a little commune, do it.
I've, i've seen it done.
Well, it wouldn't be a commune or like a little area where it's only you guys like I guess you could do it.
What if it be?
What if it was a large area like, I don't know, half of a state?
I think it would be difficult to get that many people together.
If they could, do you have any objection to it?
If they could, I can't articulate any opposition to it right now, but I don't like it.
I don't even think people of like black people, Hispanic people, Asian people.
I don't even think that they should do that.
I think that that's, that's weird.
So, like false forced integration should be the order of the day.
I mean, I guess if people are just really really, really interested in only living around their race, um sure they could all get together with a bunch of people and say hey, we're all gonna buy houses here and buy land here, and hopefully they could do it, but they don't want to just do that, they want to do that and then exclude other people from coming in.
I think you'd have to be very careful about how you did it, because there are housing laws I think, housing discrimination laws um, but places do that all the time.
There's plenty of neighborhoods that will uh, intentionally.
I would find those people to be morally reprehensible.
Based on what?
What are they doing?
That's morally reprehensible.
I think that uh, isolating yourself is um, morally reprehensible.
Yeah, I think it's backwards.
It's morally reprehensible to isolate yourself.
I had for a time So the Papua New Guinea people, they're just morally reprehensible because they isolate themselves.
I think if you've lived in a very diverse society that is integrated and then you decide you want to isolate yourself.
Listen, I visited women's land once and I thought that those people were deranged.
I thought it was deranged to, you know, be like, hey, only lesbians here, only forever, because I just thought it was weird.
I thought it was weird.
I don't think it's, I feel like it's hiding from reality.
So that's how I feel about it.
Yeah, but that's a different statement saying it's weird and it's morally representative.
I found that morally.
I did.
I found it morally reprehensible.
Well, I find lesbians morally reprehensible, but I don't understand how...
Well, I didn't think they were morally reprehensible.
Right.
Right, I know.
I know.
That's why I'm saying, like, I don't understand, though, where you get from people make their own social orders and their own hierarchies, and they decide that they only want to live among one people group.
What about that is actually morally reprehensible?
Because it would necessitate that they have hateful views about other people.
Even if it's people of color doing it, they probably dislike and distrust other races and other people.
What do you think hate means?
To strongly dislike, to have intense prejudice towards.
Okay, so strongly dislike.
Yes, I don't know how you would define hate.
I think strongly dislike seems reasonable to me.
So strongly dislike means hate.
So couldn't you want to do this because you just strongly like those people but don't strongly dislike any other people?
White people aren't all the same.
Black people aren't all the same.
I'm not saying that they are.
I mean, but again, if you are talking about such a large, broad group, like what do I, I'm from Northern California.
If you had a preference to live among a single people group, which I assume you have preferences to live among people groups, your family, extended family, adult, whatever it is, you have preferences for that.
If somebody had a preference that they wanted to live in a whites-only or blacks-only community, that was their preference.
Why does that entail that there's hatred?
I don't even understand that.
I think that it I would describe it as biological and race essentialism in the sense that because someone is of a certain race, they act the same way.
I feel that I have more in common.
Wait a second.
That you have more.
There's no biological essentialism there.
The idea is not you're only going to act this way because you're white, right?
But you could make a determination on a group of people that on average you act a different way than another group of people.
You could at least do that, right?
Without giving the caveat of the monolith that all of them operate this way.
I guess, but if you just really didn't like that.
So I am also from, California is a very diverse state.
And while I'm from a very red part of California originally, I still feel that the Hispanic kids I grew up with, I have a lot more in common culturally with than like a white person from the South.
I'm not disputing that.
Like those are people more like me, even if it's a little bit different.
I totally get it.
But that really doesn't answer to the question of strongly dislike.
Why can't you strongly like one group and not strongly dislike another?
Like if I strongly like white people, I have some preference for it.
Why would that entail that I strongly dislike anybody else just because I strongly like?
Do you like, do you strongly like white people?
Yeah, sure.
What about white people?
Yeah.
But like, what about white people?
Oh, I don't know.
It's just a preference I have.
Sure.
But like, if you had to think about like what you really like about white people.
Like, okay, I have a strong like for LGBT people.
And if you were to ask me why I like them, I would say.
Isn't it because you're one of them?
Yes, but also more fun.
Hang on, hang on.
But also because you're one of them.
Yes, they understand me more.
But also, they're more fun.
So one of them.
That's my best friend is a straight friend.
And they understand you more, and that's why you like them.
It's part of the preference of why you like them.
Why wouldn't you understand that with other people's preferences?
Because I also have plenty of straight friends who understand me.
And believing that other LGBT people strongly like LGBTQ people because they're like you and understand you.
Got it.
Why would that not be the case for people with racial preferences?
He's a heterosexual man.
So?
And he understands me just fine.
Yeah.
So if white people, they have friends who are black too.
Does it mean?
Of course.
Yeah.
What does that have to do with if they strongly like white people?
Like, why?
Why?
Because the same reason you gave for strongly liking LGBTQ people.
No, you didn't just say fun.
Don't gaslight me again, Charlie.
You said because they understand me.
You said, because they understand me and they're like me.
No, okay, listen.
Hang on.
Charlie, can you admit that you said, because they understand me and they're like me?
Yes, but I can sacrifice understand me as long as they're fun.
For the first time in my life, about a year ago, I- What?
Hold on.
Listen, I had a primarily heterosexual friend group who did not understand me.
And the reason I was like, wow, actually, this sucks, is not because they didn't understand me, but because they were boring.
And that's why I did it.
Because again, I can sacrifice not being understood as long as someone's a good time.
Okay, so help me out here.
Let's pretend that you have a black child who's raised by white parents.
Okay.
Okay.
And he gets to where he's about 14, okay?
And he finds his biological parents, okay, and they were like lost at sea or some shit.
And he goes to his parents, his white parents, and he says, look, I want to go live with my parents and other black people because I have a preference for them.
I feel far more comfortable around them than I do around white people.
Is he doing something morally reprehensible?
I would be curious about his actual comfort.
He just feels better around them.
He feels like they understand him more and like him and he likes them more.
He just likes them.
I can imagine someone wanting to, for a time, go live around a lot of people like that and get to know them.
But I can't imagine that this person would decide to then spurn all of his, you know, where was that ever in there?
He didn't spurn them.
He just said he'd prefer to live over here.
It doesn't mean he's not going to see them or talk to them or anything like that.
He just would prefer to live over here.
But we build communities with the people we live by.
Yeah, no, but can you engage with this for a second?
Sure.
Okay, so what is he doing that's morally reprehensible here?
Well, we're also talking about a young adopted child who has probably been living with like the weirdness of being raised culturally white while being treated as black.
Absolutely.
So I think that that changes things a little bit versus someone who is, you know, white, raised white, and has no interest in being around other races.
I would be, I would find that person to be weird.
So do you see how you keep smuggling a little sneaky shit in there?
Like you said, they want to be among whites, but not among any other races ever.
Or something like this.
It's like that, none of that was said.
It's the preference of who you want to live near and who you want to live among, does not?
You still haven't actually answered this and you seem to be very evasive about it when I continuously ask you about it.
What actually makes the same thing that you would say?
That black kid is not?
Um, he doesn't strongly hate his white parents.
He doesn't strongly hate white people.
He doesn't have strongly dislike them.
Why would his strong like for being around black people entail that he had a strong dislike for white people?
Because I think that diversity is strength.
I think it's good.
I think diversity is good.
Diversity, i'm just gonna grant it.
Diversity is.
Diversity is our strength yay.
Build community with the people that you live around yeah, but do you understand how you're not answering the question again, like what would be wrong with it?
No no, that's not my question.
Okay, so i'm gonna ask the question again.
I know you believe you just want to live around white people.
No, that's not my question, that's not my question.
Okay, go ahead.
So you, you keep saying that if you like them, you like this group.
That means you strongly dislike this one.
How do we get to this strong dis?
How does me liking this group mean that I strongly dislike this group.
How does that work?
Because you would have assumptions about them that make you not want to live with them.
That doesn't mean you dislike them, essentializing them into all one type of of person and behavior.
You know, I have a basis of their race which I don't think is.
I have a sister and she's really annoying.
Okay, she really well, she's not, she's kind of she can be fucking annoying and I wouldn't want to live with her, that's.
Does that mean I strongly dislike her?
Would you never live with anyone who's ever been a sister in their entire life?
Does your wife have siblings?
Yeah, I wouldn't live with them either.
Okay yeah, but she is a sister.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with anything?
Because the the point is it's not just your sister is kind of annoying sometimes.
Right, it's because of who she is.
So I have a preference to not live around her.
Right, it's because of who she is as a person, not the uh, immutable quality of being your sister.
Yeah, but even if it was the case, even if I just grant this, how would that infer that I disliked anybody, anybody else because I had a preference to live with this group.
How could?
How do we get from that to that means you dislike this group or have a strong dislike for them.
You could like them just fine, just not want to live with them, right?
I think that isn't that.
The not in my backyard kind of dealio is like the uh, the hypocrisy of being like yeah, i'll tolerate them, but I don't want them in my backyard, I don't want them near me.
You know like, I just don't think that.
I think that that's, I think it's racist, I don't like it.
Um, but to be honest, I would prefer people like that do go off and live in their own communities, because I don't want to be around them, because you dislike them.
Yes okay see, that's on the basis.
Now here's the weirdness about race.
Now, here we've gotten to it.
I do believe this, that you strongly dislike those people who want to go live with like an all-white or all black community or whatever.
I agree that you dislike them.
The problem is is like you have not made an argument that would be convincing to anybody on planet earth that they dislike you.
I agree that you dislike them.
That I agree with that.
They dislike me.
Yeah, i'm white.
Why would they hate me exactly why would they hate you?
I'm white, they're also white.
They want to live around the white people.
They don't hate you, okay wait.
Why wouldn't people who you hate hate you what?
Why wouldn't people who you hate hate you?
Wouldn't people you hate hate you?
Oh, but I mean, if I said I hate you, but like look, you just said that you have strong dislikes for them, but I don't think that any of those people that you claim that you would have a strong dislike for would say that they had any feelings about you one way or the other.
Yeah, I don't think that they would either, because i'm Caucasian.
I think that they would if they saw me walking down there, all white were Hispanic right now.
Why would that?
Why would?
What would change here?
What would change if they were?
Like, I don't have any opinions about her one way or the other.
I wish her a great life.
It's because, if I, they wouldn't allow me to live next door to them if I was Hispanic.
Well, that's true, I guess.
Yeah, it's like not wanting to be around people.
It's not wanting people in your proximity.
It's the same.
That doesn't mean that they hate you, though.
That's where.
That's where I can't get to.
Maybe they don't like in their heart just feel a lot of rage and anger towards me, but it means that they're not really about who I am.
They're not really, they are uncomfortable being around me.
They're uncomfortable with me being next to them.
Okay.
Let me let me yeah, let me just finish this off with this because maybe maybe we can tie it off finally.
I feel like we're going around circles.
Yeah.
So let's try not to go around circles and finish it.
So do you believe that when we talk about attraction, we're not just talking about sexual attraction, that we have attractions to people.
Sure, yes.
Okay.
And do you think that people should be allowed to have preferences in what they're attracted to?
They're not attracted to black people.
They're not attracted to white people.
They're not attracted to Hispanic people.
Sure.
Okay, that's the end of that argument.
All right.
Smoke break?
I'm going to have a smoke break.
Who's going to have a smoke break?
All right, guys, here, really quick.
If you guys are watching, there's 10,000 people.
Is that okay?
Yeah, go for it.
Charlie's going to use the restroom.
Andrew's going to take a smoke break.
We'll resume the debate in two to three minutes.
While I guys, while I have you guys here with me, guys, one of the easiest ways to support the show to enable us to do more of these debates is just through your patronage.
But I mean, just watching the video.
If you guys can pull up Twitch, please.
Guys, just pull up, refresh it if you need to.
Guys, go to twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Drop us a follow in a Prime sub.
If there's a follow in a Prime sub.
Wow, scuffed already.
what's wrong with it yeah you've gone to the wrong tab Here, there's a, at the very top, next to the Twitch, it's SN, Stream Manager.
Tell me if that's it.
Okay, so go.
I'm sorry, guys, about this.
Okay, go at the very top.
You see where it says layout.
Go to activity feed.
Change it to activity feed.
Is that it?
Okay.
All right, guys, if you're watching, we're also live on Twitch right now.
I know most of you are on YouTube.
There's about 10,000 on YouTube.
What's that?
Your mic isn't working.
Oh my God, I am retarded.
Thank you for the thank you.
My mic was turned around.
I'm sorry, guys.
Fucking scuffed here.
Oh, sorry, guys.
Holy shit.
Okay, guys, pull it back up, please.
All right, guys, twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a follow.
And then if you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show.
Mary, in the window tab, make it bigger, please.
Quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
So I'm going to give you guys some shout-outs here.
Yo, Bobby, thing for the Prime.
Soul, thing for the Tier 1.
Anar thing for the Tier 1.
Beacon, thing for the Prime.
Tasco, thing for the Prime.
Ben, thing for the Prime.
So, guys, if you have, I know most of you are watching on YouTube.
It's a super quick, easy way to support our show.
If you want to see more debates, help us out.
Drop us a follow over there on Twitch.
And like I said, if you have an Amazon Prime, you just link it to your Twitch account.
It takes two or three minutes.
And then every single month, you can do a Prime sub for, well, you have to have the Amazon Prime, but you can do a Twitch Prime sub free.
So it's just basically a quick, free, easy way to support the show, free in the sense that if you already have Prime, you can support us.
And I really appreciate it.
Let's see here.
Is Charlie?
Zamboone, thing for the Prime Cravality, Thing for the Prime.
What's that?
Is Charlie kind of chunky?
Where do you see that?
There.
I'm wearing a baggy shirt.
I don't know if you know how clothing works.
Good times.
That's from the Pasty George comment there.
She saw it there.
Pasty, thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
And guys, if you want, get a final Q ⁇ A question and statement in, streamlabs.com slash whatever.
Also, can I take a moment to shamelessly shill a couple of things?
Shall we wait till the end?
I would like to do it here, too, when there's a large viewership.
First of all, I wanted to thank all of the wonderful people, whatever, for hosting me again.
It's very kind of you.
And the Crucible Crew also appreciates that.
And even you fucking haters, you know you missed me.
You know you missed me.
Just go ahead and admit it that you missed having me on the show, even the haters.
I did want to shamelessly shill debate cons coming up the 15th and 16th.
You can still get tickets.
There's only a few left.
I strongly suggest you go and get them.
It's damn near sold out.
Going to be a huge event.
I'm having a massive party that Saturday.
And if you buy tickets, you're going to be able to come.
So I hope to see all of you there.
Rock and roll.
We have a Q ⁇ A question here.
A message from the state.
Just a statement, rather.
Thank you, Pasty Prime.
Pasty, George donated $200.04.
In Canada, I remember when the word colonizer was used by many natives to make white people feel bad or to shut down arguments or meaningful dialogues, mainly out of spite, prejudice, or acesm.
Thank you, George.
Appreciate it, man.
Thanks for tuning in.
Good to see you.
All right.
Looks like I'll let some more Q ⁇ A's come through if they'd like.
We did get a little bit off topic, but I thought it was interesting convo.
You know, we talked about disparities between perpetrators as it relates to race.
We talked about the colonizer topic.
Yeah, just so you know, we've been debating for hours now, man.
Yes.
I did actually have one question.
Yeah, sure.
If you were to try to convert me, a staunch feminist that has loved going to school, loved the freedom to choose my career path, loved the freedom to do as I please with my body.
How would you convert me to being not into feminism, to not to no longer being a feminist?
To sell you on my worldview.
Yes, like how would you sell me?
I will answer to this.
Okay.
Even though what you're asking me is the hardest thing in the world to do, I'll still try.
But I want the concession and promise from you that after I'm done making my attempt, you're going to make yours.
And how would you convert me to your worldview?
Is that a deal?
Absolutely.
Got to go right in the mic.
Otherwise, I can't hear you.
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay.
So here would be my pitch.
My pitch would be that the society that you have created for us is fucked and people hate it.
They fucking hate it.
And that's why you got Donald Trump.
You got Donald Trump because people hate the fucking society that you feminists have made for them.
And here's why they hate it.
Because all the things that you consider to be freedom aren't freedoms at all.
They're just taking away people's freedoms under the guise of freedom.
For instance, if I asked you about gun control, I'm guessing that you would want gun control, right?
Strict, stricter gun control.
Mildly stricter in the sense that I think people with like significant mental health issues documented should probably not be allowed to upgrade.
Curtailing gun control, okay, curtailing freedom on the Second Amendment.
On the First Amendment during C-19, did you think that the government, it was appropriate for them to go in and remove what they considered misinformation for the good of the public?
Yeah.
I don't have a solid opinion on that one.
Well, earlier you did, and it seemed like you're...
You said removing misinformation, like going through and like...
Yeah, they worked with tech companies to remove what they considered misinformation.
Well, that's not what we talked about earlier.
That's what they did.
It's different.
I know, it's not different.
It's different than we were talking about shutdowns, were we not?
Yeah, but the part of the lockdowns was that they were depersoning people because of what they considered to be misinformation.
And the government was working with the technocracy in order to do that for the good of all people.
And it's like, I guarantee you at the time, if I go back and look at whatever content you were making, if you were making content at that time, I don't know.
But I can promise that whatever social media you had, you were probably very much in the we need to get rid of misinformation camp.
You know, because all of you guys were.
And so it's like, under the First Amendment, it seems like, you know, the feminist and the progressive movement, which is basically a part of the feminist movement, does what it can do to curtail freedom there too.
And it doesn't seem like you really want there to be much personal freedom.
Even if people say, look, you know, I just want to live among a people group that I'm familiar with and I have a preference for and an attraction to.
You're like, no, that's unacceptable.
And you're a bad person for even wanting to do that.
And there should be legislation that stops that.
And there should be legislation which stops you from having your preferences for who you hire and fire and things like that.
It's just, I guess my biggest pitch to you would just be this.
Like, it's really funny for me that the Christian nationalists get this rep that we're like fascist dictatorial crazies who want to take away freedoms.
And yet every single time I talk to one of you feminists or I talk to one of you progressives, and it's basically synonymous at this point.
I mean, there's no progressives really who aren't feminists, and there's no feminists really who aren't progressive.
It just seems to me like the totalitarian nature of everything that I've seen has come from you guys.
Like the C-19 lockdowns, the COVID passports, the where are your papers, that was you guys.
The remove all of the information because the government doesn't like it from private websites and put pressure on them to do it.
That was you guys.
The whole idea of you need to wear your state-sponsored piece of clothing, the mask, you know, that came from you guys.
It's like all of the fascist dystopian things that I can imagine that Orwell was warning about and things like that, that doesn't come from us.
That always seems to come from your, you guys, the people who are the fascist hunters seem to be the very worst at real freedom.
Well, hang on, hang on.
Let me finish my pitch before you ask me questions about it, right?
So if you wanted me to give you the most convincing, the most convincing argument that I possibly can, it would just be this.
That everything we talk about is actually you curtailing freedom, not me.
And everything that we end up ultimately discussing seems to come down to the fact that you just want to kind of engage in degenerate behaviors.
And that's the only freedom you seem to care about.
The freedom to promiscuously have sex and then have an abortion to take care of that if you need to.
Even if it's the case that by removing that, there would be less unwanted babies born.
You still think that we need to have that because people just need to be able to fuck if they want and be promiscuous if they want and have STDs if they want.
It's like, it always seems like the freedom that you guys advocate for is only a freedom towards degeneracy and never actually about freedoms that are really intrinsic to the human experience.
And kind of even more than that, I would just point this last thing out, which is, you know, if you had, if you had a society where it was really full of more people like me, right?
It was full of people who did take their religious seriously, religion seriously, and they took their family dynamics seriously, and they took the things that they were doing seriously in regards to morality and ethics and how to treat people and not sacrificing the whole for the small percentage of fucking, you know, LGBTQ people and this and that.
How would the world really be a worse place?
Objectively, how would the world that you live in really be worse?
And I just don't think that I've ever heard a compelling argument for how it would.
And so I think that I would try to make for you, instead of logical appeals, I would just make a purely emotional appeal that like the world for you would actually be a much better place if there was more Christian nationalists like me and less Charlie's with your worldview.
Well, I wouldn't be able to go to school if that was, you know, people with a lot of people.
Women are listening.
Because again, it was indeed feminism that, you know.
Yeah, I've heard this argument a lot, but can I just point something out?
Sure.
That with this idea that women could be educated, right?
And by the way, they basically always were able to.
They flew around with elites all over the place, especially early feminists.
And they went abroad to study and things like this.
But what that became was women should get educated.
And what that became was a lot of student debt and a massive fucking racket.
And college is not about rewarding the best and the brightest or not everybody could go.
Okay.
It's really right now, the degree that you have, an eighth grader 50 years ago knows more than you fucking know, okay, about history, about math, about social sciences.
An eighth grader 60 years ago knows more than you do right now.
Do you want to say what you think?
Yeah.
Not only do I think it, I think that if I gave you a test that an eighth grader would have 60 years ago, you would fail it with your college degree.
And the reason for that is because you didn't get any fucking education at school.
You got a lot of student debt at school.
That's what you ended up with because it's become a giant racket.
And if it was really about the best and the brightest, then not everybody could go.
And maybe everyone shouldn't go because it's really, really for most of it, the stuff that you learn in high school, right?
Why is it that every high school person, high school educated person I come across seemingly is just as intelligent as every college person I come across?
That's an interesting perspective.
I haven't had a similar experience in my lifetime.
Yeah, well, you have a bias preference, and I don't.
Like you're biased towards elites, right?
Elitism?
I do.
You know, I grew up in an educated household, but I was also primarily raised by a very conservative father who was also a doctor.
So was my grandfather.
And was your conservative father a dummy?
No.
Then why was he conservative?
Because it benefits him personally to me.
So he was just immoral.
For pursuing his own ends, I don't know if I would say that.
You're not sure if your own father was immoral or not?
You're not quite sure?
No, I mean, unlike all of us here, my dad is responsible for saving thousands of lives.
He has put out a lot of good in this world.
And would your father agree?
I'm going to leave this earth with a clear conscience, no matter what his beliefs.
Sorry.
Let me, can I ask you this?
Would your father, who saved all these thousands of people, agree more with my worldview or yours?
No.
I think he would find your worldview strange.
That's not what I asked.
I didn't ask if he would find it strange.
I asked if he would agree with it more than yours.
I don't know enough about your worldview, I think, to agree or disagree, but I think that he'd be.
How about his political alignment?
Would his political alignment line up more with mine or yours?
What is your alignment politically?
Like, what do you want the government to do?
Far-right-wing, yeah, far-right-wing conservative, you could say my political alignment would be something more akin to limiting suffrage, to people who getting it back towards what our founders had.
Some other things would be like fiscal conservatism.
I have a belief in that.
I have a very strong dislike for socialism.
I have a very strong dislike for communism.
I have a very strong dislike for eliminating people's access to capital, which I know brings more people out of poverty than any other single system on planet Earth.
Like, would he agree more with that type of stuff?
I have a strong preference against mass migration, and I think the government should be doing more about it.
I think that we should lock up our southern border.
I think that we should do a lot more when it comes to deregulating gun control.
I think like stuff like that.
Would he be more aligned with that?
I think that my dad is rather, he skews libertarian more than anything.
And I think.
Well, libertarians are definitely going to like that more than your view.
I think your proposal to limit suffrage, I think, would libertarians love that idea generally.
Limiting access to voting, limiting people's individual freedoms.
Oh, wait a second.
That's not limiting their freedom.
What it's doing is stopping.
No, it's stopping you fuckers from collectivizing becoming tyrants.
And that's what you've done with the vote.
You've collectivized and become fucking tyrants, a tyrant of the majority, a tyranny of the majority, a slight majority, and you become fucking tyrants, just like you were during COVID-19.
That's not, you didn't free anybody.
Who are you freeing with your fucking policies?
Like, how are you making our lives better?
I mean, like, the executive branch is the strongest it's been in ages.
Like, what, what do you think?
No, it's not.
It has less power than it did under Jackson, significantly less power than it did under Jackson.
And by the way, can I just point this out, right?
When you're talking about Donald Trump, he has the same exact powers that the president Joe Biden had before him, the same ones.
He doesn't have a single additional power.
Not a single one.
What about the bullshit that the Supreme Court ruled that he cannot be held responsible for specific illegal acts that he committed?
Yeah, well, look, this was an early understanding of case law with the president: you're not going to be able to allow states to prosecute the president of the United States or else a state who was just upset.
No, it's not the opposite.
A state that's upset at the president could bring him in for bullshit, trumped-up charges, and he's the federal executive.
That would create a constitutional crisis.
Literally overnight, it would create a constitutional crisis.
We have diplomatic immunity for diplomats.
They come in and commit a crime.
We can't put them in jail.
Even though they committed a crime, we can't put them in jail.
They have diplomatic immunity.
Our own president doesn't have immunity from state prosecution.
Yeah, he kind of has to.
Otherwise, California, Governor Newsom, right now, Newscomb, would bring him up on charges of treason if he could and would try him in California under the state code if he could.
He would do that.
W. Love that.
I hope he does.
Okay, well, then guess what?
If that's the case, then why shouldn't the president have the ability to do that to Gavin Newsom?
He could.
If he wanted to, you know, I don't know, start a case against Gavin Newsom.
No, I'm saying, why does the federal authority not give him the perfe to do that?
For the same reason.
To charge him on a state level.
To charge him at a federal level for he can't just be like, oh, he committed treason and go charge him.
You can't have the state charging the executive branch.
You can't have them doing that.
I think you can.
No, I think that's not.
Well, not only can you not, the Supreme Court even ruled you can't.
I think you should be able to.
I think that's ridiculous.
I think you need to be able to hold our leaders accountable and have too much power in their hands because I am against authoritarianism.
Okay, so let's say California does that.
They say, hey, we're going to go ahead and bring up Donald Trump and he needs to appear in court.
How does California enforce that?
In this day and age, I don't know.
That gets tricky.
I wouldn't trust Donald Trump too.
Are they going to send California agents to arrest the president of the United States?
Do you think we could send the National Guard and start a civil war?
Our National Guard, the California National Guard.
But that would be treason.
So let me, I'm going to, I'll try to rephrase this.
I'm going to reframe.
And I'm just going to be totally honest with you.
I will never be able to convince you of my worldview.
You won't.
I know.
But the reason is not because I'm not a great orator or I don't make good points or I haven't said things which should be compelling to a person.
But Charlie, I just think honestly, you're too fucking stupid to understand them.
So, Andrew, can I sell you on my worldview?
Yes.
Your wife has three baby daddies and has been married twice before.
And you under Elix Sniz.
Under your religion.
Uh-huh.
You lick snizz.
What is that?
You're a fucking dyke.
Don't talk shit about my wife, you stupid bitch.
Shut your fucking mouth.
Shut your stupid bitch mouth.
Your wife with the three babies.
What did I just say, dyke?
Sorry, dollar.
I'm sorry, Dyke.
Is she morally inconsequential in comparison to your ditch licking?
Do the men that you try to assume that they shouldn't have to be able to do that.
You know, Charlie, did I bring you together?
Charlie, did I bring your family?
Did I bring any of your family into anything?
Stupid.
Did I say anything about your family being stupid, Charlie?
It's because I'm better than you, Charlie.
No, it's because you're embarrassed.
And you know that the traditional values that you try to sell people on are bullshit because you are not a traditional man.
Chuck, let's go through it.
You are not a traditional man.
Let's go through it, Chuck.
Tell me what I'm doing, which is immoral.
What you're doing, which is immoral?
I think that you have been complicit in convincing young men.
No, no, no, my family dynamic.
What am I doing being married to my wife?
It's immoral.
Under my worldview.
So all you did.
So wait, so wait, Chuck, all you're doing is saying, so, Chuck, should I be, shouldn't you actually be saying that, Andrew, you're doing a good thing?
Hang on, hang on.
Charlie, I just want to make sure I got this right.
Am I doing a good thing?
Am I doing a good thing?
Do you think your wife is a charity?
By taking care of children who weren't mine, was I doing a good thing whose fathers abandoned them?
Was I doing a good thing?
Yeah, you're doing a good thing.
Oh, okay.
Well, then, Chuck, why did you use that as a form of personal attack on me?
Even though you think I'm a good person doing a good thing?
I'm convincing you of my worldview.
You're very convincing, Chuck.
Under my worldview, I'm a good person.
You can marry your wife and no one would judge you.
And you can raise the children that aren't yours and no one would judge you.
No, they would still judge me, Chuck.
Under your worldview, that would not be so.
Christian nationalists?
Yeah, what about that?
That's not even acceptable.
Do you understand what Christianity is?
Do you think that's Christian?
Were you?
Yeah, I was Protestant.
Yes, I was.
Of course.
See, this is.
You don't, you don't.
I'm sorry.
The Protestant spirit is still in you.
Oh, it is.
It hasn't left, man.
Is the Catholic spirit still in you?
I wasn't raised Catholic.
Then what are you talking about?
I was raised Protestant.
Okay, you were raised Protestant?
Yeah.
So why would you fucking criticize me for that?
It's the thing that Protestants do when they convert to like Orthodox or Catholic is they get really into the idea of like they get really into the idea of rules in China.
Chuck, have you ever had an abortion?
No.
Never?
Would you?
Yeah.
So you'd kill your own kids?
Why am I going to take moral advice from you?
You don't have to.
I'm not going to.
You don't take moral advice from me.
So all you're trying to do.
I think that you're your worldview.
Okay, which part that you're doing.
Which part am I lying about?
I think that you pretend to be a traditional Christian man.
You never said once that I'm a traditionalist.
What I see you doing as someone who claims to be a Christian is spreading hate.
Okay.
I think that you.
All right, Chuck, fine.
You got me.
You got me.
I'm a stepfather, Chuck.
What did I do wrong?
What did I even do wrong from my Christian worldview, Chuck, by being a stepfather and a good father to kids who needed one, Chuck?
Can you tell me?
That's not what I was referring to.
No, no, it was what you were referring to.
You were trying to do something, but Christian nationalists are not Christ-like.
You are not a man.
Chuck, what am I saying?
What am I doing?
What am I doing except taking care of people?
What are you doing is you are espousing to be a good Christian man, but what you do with your life is you don't help others.
You sit around smoking cigarettes.
I thought I did.
I thought you just commended me for helping others.
Didn't I help children who weren't even mine, Chuck?
That's not what you do with your life.
Yes, it was what I did with my whole young life, my entire youth.
Your job is debating women who aren't formal debaters and literally mocking young women in the world.
Chuck, do I only debate women or do I debate the best debaters in the world?
You sometimes do.
Yeah, so shut up.
If they let you.
And what have you done?
And what have you done?
What have you done?
I have a master's.
Yeah, you haven't done shit.
You don't have a family.
You've never taken care of another human being besides yourself.
And on top of that, let's just point this out.
You have not debated with those people because they think you're too fucking stupid to do so.
Well, yeah, I'm not someone that does debate for you.
No, it's not because of your debate skills, Chuck.
It's because of your IQ skills.
They do it for fucking fun.
Well, the only thing that you could come up with this entire time after this nice, pleasant debate, it's true.
I did say I think you're too stupid to understand my point.
Yeah, that's rude.
So I would never have attempted to attack one of your family members.
You could do it.
I know, but I wouldn't, Chuck, because I'm a better person than you.
Well, you wouldn't be able to because all of my family members are better people than you.
Well, I mean, but I'm a better person than you.
What I meant when I said that my dad has spent his life helping people.
You spent your life to the masses and propping yourself up as a fucking leader.
Essentially saying are you saying I'm not?
You are inconsequential.
Okay.
And Chuck, what does that make you?
Inconsequential.
Okay.
But I'm not ashamed of it.
I'm not ashamed of it either.
I don't aspire to be consequential.
Chuck.
You do.
You was.
You have all these rules now.
Go ahead.
Supposedly.
But at the end of the day, what you want to do is you want to be the leader.
You want to be in charge.
You do not have humility.
Oh.
And what does it mean?
Your own church hates people like you.
They hate the orthodox people.
Why is it that they won't excommunicate me if they hate me so much?
Why do instead I get clergy members who send me, I mean, I've got hundreds of DMs I can show you from clergy who thank me for all the catechumens which are coming into their churches, Chuck.
I mean, I've debated with those, what are the catechumens?
What did you say?
I've debated with them and they are the best.
The men that you've convinced to convert to Orthodox Christianity?
Yeah.
You've debated with them.
Chuck, you're calling someone else an idiot?
Yes.
Okay.
And there were your idiots that bought your course and I stomped them.
And even people who were saying like, I disagree with you, but you stomp them.
So your course is also.
What were their names, Chuck?
Who were they?
I could describe them to you.
Describe them.
White guy wearing a hat with an orange mustache and blue eyes.
The other guy was also a white guy in a hat, but with slightly darker skin and a large nose.
Well, that really narrows it down, Chuck.
I mean, I could go through my messages with Sarah.
But again, these are people that have.
So the entirety, the entirety of your assault is that I'm not doing anything wrong.
What you were trying.
You are doing something.
Hang on, hang on.
But in my family dynamic, I'm not.
But you only brought up my family dynamic, which you don't think I'm doing anything wrong in.
In order to what?
You wanted to disparage me in front of other people?
Isn't that what you were trying to do?
You thought that once you...
Did you want to reveal to everybody the great secret that's not a secret, Chuck?
I wanted to prove to you that my worldview allows you to live the life that you are living.
So does mine.
No, the fuck, it doesn't.
Tell me how it's a Christian.
Tell me why it doesn't.
Christian nationalists, the average Christian, hates divorce.
They would say to your wife, stay with that abusive, horrible man.
You married him.
That's your husband.
You're totally wrong.
And I debate the issue all the time.
Constantly.
All right.
Well, good luck with that.
So there's Christian narrative.
Even under Catholicism, and by the way, Christian nationalism advocates for this as well.
If there's abuse in the home or abandonment or things like this, of course that's grounds for divorce.
They're against things like not getting rid of show cause, right?
Like you have to show a cause for a divorce.
You have to create justification.
They're against things like no fault.
That's the things they're against.
Nobody's like, oh, there are some people, I agree.
There are some people who have been like, well, even if you're getting beaten up in a relationship, you should stay.
But you know what happens when you actually hone down on what they're saying?
They're actually saying, wait a second.
What I'm saying is that that's something which can be worked through.
That's not a thing which instantly nullifies the marriage.
And that as Christians, you should try to work through that first before you end the marriage, especially if you have kids.
That makes a lot of fucking sense to me.
Did your wife had a no-fault divorce?
Was it no-fault?
I'm not going to get into my personal life with you, Chuck.
All right.
But if you're saying that Christian nationalists are, you know, they're pro-show cause, but against at-fault divorce, then it's the same.
Okay, Chuck.
Well, what happened is her ex-husband went in the room and beat her half to death and ripped her.
Shut up, Chuck.
That's horrible.
Shut up, Chuck.
But you want me to relive it, and you want me to tell you about it, so I will.
I'm asking if it was.
No, shut up, Chuck.
It's my turn to tell you.
All right.
And ripped out half of her tongue.
Ripped it out of her fucking head.
And so the thing is funny, Chuck.
I just want to point this out.
Thanks, by the way, for reminding me of that.
Yeah, you're welcome.
Can you just help me out with this?
Which Christian nationalist would say that divorce under those circumstances was not appropriate?
Who's the dude that was berating his pregnancy?
You tell me, Chuck.
Steven Crowder?
Yeah.
You think Stephen Crowder, who's one of Rachel's best friends, would tell her that that was her best friend?
I didn't say it was her best friend.
That's one of her best friends?
Yes.
And one of mine.
Jesus Christ.
I mean, that's what I mean, man, is you especially.
No, no, no, man.
What I mean, man, is you just said that Stephen Crowder.
It is pro-Steven Crowder.
It is pro-you're saying that Stephen Crowder.
You were telling your wife's like horror.
You are talking about her horrific trauma, and then you're saying like that, like freaking Steven Crowder.
Steven Crowder didn't lay a finger on his wife.
You are hanging out with abusers of women that want to trap.
Stephen Crowder never laid a finger on his wife, you lying bitch.
As far as we fucking know.
No, as far as she claimed publicly, you fucking idiot.
You don't even know anything about the case, you stupid broad.
Can you tell me, can you tell me that Hillary Crowder has said that Stephen Crowder ever touched her?
Ever.
Then why are you making this allegations?
He's abuser of women.
How?
It was because he got into an argument.
Chuck, you support that you supported her.
Chuck, you've been in worse arguments in relationships than that.
I guarantee it.
I haven't.
Oh, my God.
You people are the worst liars.
You're the worst liars, the most uncharitable fucking people.
The worst lying sex.
You just made an accusation that Steven Crowder abused his wife, total lies, said that he beat her up, total fucking lies, said that he would hate Rachel Wilson, who's one of his best friends, right?
You're a fucking idiot.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I've watched it this whole night, and you literally don't know what you're talking about.
You literally, Chuck, just stop.
You're an embarrassment, Chuck.
No, it's not.
I watched your debates.
Well, Chuck, I'm surprised you didn't learn from any of them.
Because, good lord, it was a terrible showing for you the whole night, and you really ended it with a flourish, let me tell you.
I didn't come here to win.
Yeah, well, I'm glad because that wasn't going to happen.
Not with your fucking audience.
This audience, it's all fucking incels.
It's all incels.
Yes.
Well, your audience is all a bunch of ditch-licking whores.
What do you want me to say?
I like them better than you.
Yeah, you should.
I do.
Enjoy them, Chuck.
Got you real red in the face.
My hands were on my face just now, Chuck.
And before because my hands were on my face, Chuck, it was perfect.
It's performative, Chuck.
I don't know.
You looked pretty angry just a second ago, Chuck.
You were pretty upset.
That's what my face looks like normally.
I told you this even before the debate began, that I have heavy-set eyebrows.
I look angry naturally.
You got it, Chuck.
I have a big scarecrow.
I know.
I know, Chuck.
I know.
I get it.
I get it.
Thank you for making all those baseless accusations about people, though.
That was very kind of you.
I mean, thank you for promoting a worldview that is misogynistic, homophobic, and transferred.
I guess that that justifies spreading hate.
Thank you for contributing to ruining a generation of young men.
Yeah, so I guess that justifies any evil thing you want to do, huh, Chuck?
Radicalizing them out of approaching.
These are the same exact reasons that they shot Charlie Kirk, Chuck.
Same reason that your trans friend shot Charlie Kirk is because you think it's a transgender person.
You think it's okay, your trans friends.
This is why you think it's okay.
This is the transgender man that shot Charlie Kirk.
Oh, give me, who's fucking a trans.
Give me a break.
And by the way, let's point this out, Chuck.
I just want to point this out.
That it's the justification that you can do any evil thing you want to me because you think I espouse a bad worldview.
That's exactly what got Charlie Kirk killed.
You were the one arguing that we should go in and violently colonize or blow up people because they do things differently.
And I was the one who's not.
Because they're molesting children, Chuck?
With love and kindness.
Because they're molesting children?
Love and kindness.
That's what I do.
Tell the audience what the cum warriors do, Chuck.
They already know.
Do they?
Yeah, and you said fucking blow them up.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, I'm sorry that I would blow up pedophiles, Chuck.
That's terrible of me.
I'm a real bad guy.
Smokey man.
Chuck, Smokey Man Bad, Chuck.
I'm certain that the person who shot Charlie Kirk thought the same thing.
Yeah, Smokey Man Bad.
Even though I do nothing in your worldview, me being a stepfather is not problematic.
You commend me.
You commend me, of course, for doing that.
You say it's a good thing that I do that, but you bring it up anyway because you want to attack me.
Neutral.
I mean, do you make those children feel like they are like a charity case that you have just done such great things?
Oh, so I'm sorry.
So I shouldn't do it.
Because if I do, what?
No, but you should be normal about it.
What does that mean?
You brought it up.
Don't treat it like it's like, oh, I'm such a good man for doing this thing and taking in this broken, abused women.
Like, it's like, I don't like the way you're talking about it, dude.
Oh, how should I talk about it, Chuck?
Like a normal person.
What does that mean, Chuck?
It should just be a fact.
It should just be neutral.
Okay, it was a fact.
And you brought it up because you wanted to use it as something disparaging, but you can't figure out how it's disparaging.
It's disparaging because it goes against the worldview that you assume.
What part of me marrying a woman who was divorced goes against my worldview?
You say gnarly things about promiscuous women and that they're disgusting.
That's not promiscuity.
Three baby daddies?
Yes, that's promiscuous.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
Help me out here.
How many times have you had sex?
I couldn't count.
How many different partners have you had?
Oh, it depends on what you would consider sex.
Men.
Men?
Yeah.
How many men of you fuck Chuck?
Certainly under 10.
Yeah, and she has three.
Three long-term relationships, and I'm one of them.
Okay, Chuck.
Can you tell me which one of you are promiscuous?
Through having had children with them, forever tied to her.
That's a much stronger bond than a hookup.
Okay, so, but help me out.
You fucked way more women than my wife, and she's the promiscuous one.
You wouldn't consider what I do sex, would you?
You fuck men.
You said you fucked 10 men, Chuck.
I said under 10.
You wouldn't consider, you would not consider the sex that I've had with women to be sex.
Is that what you said?
No, I'm talking about men.
Then why'd you bring up women?
I didn't try to.
I was talking about men.
Okay.
So yeah, Chuck, you fucked way more.
A lot of them got me pregnant.
Yeah, well, who cares if they did?
He would just abort the kid.
I mean, yeah, but.
Yeah, because you're just a sick fuck.
I'm not a sick fuck.
You're a sick fuck.
I think it's cruel.
I think it is crueler to have children when you are unprepared and bring them into an unsafe household.
I think that's what I'm saying.
Yeah, okay.
Well, I'll make sure to let my stepkids know that they shouldn't have been brought in the world because Chuck wishes that her mom killed him.
Because then she couldn't say he had three baby daddies, could she?
Go ahead and tell them.
Yeah, I'll go ahead and tell them, Chuck.
Tell them, tell them.
I'll let them know, Chuck.
But it's every time you talk about how older women are undesirable, women with past are undesirable.
Is that what I said?
You are dating a woman.
You are married to a woman.
You are a woman.
Chuck, can you tell me what my position is?
I've seen your tweets.
What's my position?
I've seen the way that you speak to sex workers.
Can you tell me what my, was my wife a sex worker?
No.
No.
She has three baby daddies.
Okay, so not a sex.
So not a sex worker?
Not a sex worker?
No, not a sex worker.
Okay, great.
Chuck.
But the way you talk to promiscuous women.
So she had three long-term relationships and did what she was supposed to do in them when she's married, which is have children.
Yeah, and how did that turn out for her?
It turned out great.
She ended up with me.
She had her tongue ripped out.
That's what I'm doing.
Yeah, but she's been with me for almost, what, fucking 18 years?
What's your longest-term relationship, Chuck?
Three years, but I'm in my 20s.
Three years.
Three years and 10 guys.
Well, you got a way to go, Chuck.
I said under 10, but I'm also in my 20s.
And you're in your 50s.
I married her when I was in my 20s.
With her.
What do you mean?
She was in her 30s when you married her then.
Was she?
I don't.
She's five years older than her.
No, she's not five years.
She's three years older, you idiot.
Oh, my bad.
My information was wrong then.
Yeah, because you got it from a dumb whore, didn't you?
Which dumb whore?
Tree of Logic.
You got it from a stupid whore, and that's why your information's bad.
What else?
Is Tree of Logic the name of the work?
Yeah, what else do you think?
What else do you think, Chuck?
Do I have an illegitimate black child, too?
No.
That wasn't part of your information?
No.
Oh.
What else was part of your information?
How much older is my wife than me?
Five years.
Oh, okay.
Well, how old is she then?
She's 43, if you said it was three years.
Wait, how old am I, Chuck?
40.
I'm 41.
Okay.
Well, she still has three baby daddies, which you can find.
So you were wrong about that, right?
You're wrong about that?
Does she not have three baby daddies?
Yeah, no, she didn't have three baby daddies.
Men you're married to aren't baby daddies.
A baby daddy is a man that can be a little bit more than a moment.
No, no.
Your disparagement there, as fun as it is, right?
Remember, she's not here to defend herself either because she'd knock you the fuck out probably.
She would hit me?
Yeah, oh, yeah.
If you personally attacked her, I'm sure she would.
Well, I wouldn't have personally attacked her.
I might have gently suggested that she would have to submit to their husbands and blah, is kind of.
That created great outcomes for her, Chuck.
Is this a great outcome?
It sure seems to be for her.
Because, I mean, being with you and I think dedicating your life to being a content creator that just like debates and that's the extent of your Christian goodness, I wouldn't consider that the high living.
Chuck, is that the extent of my Christian goodness?
Probably.
Tell me what I do.
This is what you do with it.
Tell me what I do with all that money I make, Chuck.
I don't know.
But I thought you just told me what the extent of my Christian goodness was.
The impact that you leave on the world, whether you donate to charity.
So it justifies.
I strongly doubt that you do.
Do you strongly doubt that?
What you do with your worldview is you use it to feed your ego.
What you do with your career.
My ego.
Yes, your ego.
My ego.
Your ego.
So tell me, Chuck, can you help me out here?
And I know that this is a thing about pride, too, because the first time we debated, you said to me, you just humiliated yourself in front of all of these people.
And I said, I've been on bigger platforms.
You said, no, you haven't.
What bigger platform were you on?
Well, I was interviewed by CNN once.
No.
So you weren't on a bigger platform, Chuck.
So I was right.
Shush.
So I was right, Chuck.
I was right.
Qpot in 2024 had a viewer average of about 10,000.
And I went on her show with Morg Pie, and I was subject to a lot more people and greater, scarier things.
Oh.
So I guess now technically, Brian's platform is the largest platform I've been on.
Oh.
Yeah.
Gotcha.
Yeah.
Okay.
But before that, it was mine.
That's awesome.
No, it was Qpot.
Oh, it's Qpot.
Yeah.
And how many people were watching QPot at that time?
If we go pull that stream, we'll find the numbers.
When we were debating, I'm not referring to her numbers at that time.
I was referring to her viewer average in 2024.
When I went on her dating show with Morg Pie, there were 10k viewers concurrent.
Gotcha.
That is what I'm referring to.
Okay.
And that is far more immortalized than this will be.
So help me out with this, though.
I just want to make sure that I get all this right.
So ultimately, you think that it's okay to try to use these disparaging things against my wife who's not here to defend herself.
Why?
What did she do to you, Chuck?
I'm trying to convince you of my worldview.
Yeah, but what did she do to you, Chuck?
I mean, I think that being married to you is enough to do whatever evil you want to her, isn't it, Chuck?
Was what I said evil or wrong?
Was it inaccurate what I said?
Was it inaccurate what I said?
Was it inaccurate?
Do you remember how earlier?
It was a lie.
Yeah, but was it, what are you trying to use it as disparaging like you do with colonizer?
Hypocrisy.
Where's the hypocrisy?
Because of the worldviews that you espouse.
Tell me what I espouse, which is hypocritical.
You've got a whole time convincing men that older women are undesirable, that women with pasts are undesirable.
You're lying.
I have scrolled through your freaking tweet.
I've seen what you said.
You have built your position, Chuck.
Give me the position I have.
The position you think I have, which is hypocritical.
Older women are undesirable.
An 18-year-old will always be more desirable than a fucking person.
Total fucking lies, Chuck.
So here's my actual position.
This is actually one of the first.
I guarantee you, you'll never find the tweet.
And when we're done here, I'll send you a thousand bucks per tweet that I'm wrong about.
Promise.
So here we go.
You ready?
My actual position.
As women get older, they're generally less desirable than when they were younger.
Uh-huh.
Anything else, Chuck?
Am I wrong?
But do you think putting it on the- Hang on, hang on, Chuck, am I wrong?
Chuck, am I wrong, though, Chuck?
Depends on who you ask.
I'm asking you.
I like older women.
I'm asking you, Chuck, in general.
And my mom and all of her better.
Yeah, Chuck, I know, but in general.
Yeah, but Chuck, in general, is it not the case that in general, as women get older, they become less desirable to men than younger women in general?
Not now.
I don't think so.
I think there's an age cap.
So if I were to show you stats of when men respond and say that they would prefer younger women over older women, they're lying.
Maybe.
Okay, gotcha.
I know you can never trust statistics or where they're from.
Not trust statistics.
Never said that either.
Never said that either.
I said that every study needs to be vetted, but okay.
So anyway, what's the next position that I espouse, which I probably don't?
That makes me a hypocrite.
So I want to say that as an outsider looking in, what your platform looks like is it's teaching young women.
Yeah, I don't care about that.
How am I a hypocrite?
What am I saying that's hypocritical?
I'm a hypocrite because you are married to a woman that the men that you are influencing to feel these things, you are married to someone that they would find completely unacceptable.
I don't think you know my audience.
I know their audience.
I don't have a red pill audience.
You do, dude.
I don't.
I'm not a red pillar.
I'm literally not a red pillar.
I'm not saying this because every time after I debate you, what I have is a bunch of dudes hopping to my comments calling me a stupid whore, a bitch, and a slut.
What does that have to do with me?
That's your audience.
No, my audience, my audience are Christian nationalists.
That's my audience.
Yeah, and they're assholes.
Maybe, but that doesn't make me a hypocrite.
What things do I advocate for that are hypocritical to how I live my personal life?
What?
What, Chuck?
You're dating a promiscuous woman.
How is that promiscuous?
I'm not dating anybody.
I'm married.
And how is it promiscuous?
She had three long-term relationships and was married.
Children with three different men.
How is that promiscuous?
It's not a problem to me.
So if her husband died in war and she got remarried, me as a Christian, that's promiscuous.
It's different.
How?
How's that different than he leaves her?
How's that different than he leaves her?
The great sanctity of a Christian marriage.
But Chuck, I've never advocated that ever.
So how could I be a hypocrite?
When do you fucking advocate for this shit?
I'm going to start pulling out.
I'll tell you what.
I'll start pulling out cash.
I don't want you to.
Pull up the tweet.
Pull up the tweet that shows me a hypocrite to my worldview.
I'll keep pulling out cash until you can.
I'll keep pulling it out.
Okay, how much do you want?
I'm not playing your game.
You're not going because you don't have shit.
No, because I'm not going to sit here and dig through your fucking tweet.
Because there's nothing there that would make me a hypocrite to my view.
Do you think?
Dude, your platform is literally to normal people reads as insane, dude.
That has nothing to do with the claim I'm a hypocrite, Chuck.
Chuck, show me how I'm a hypocrite, Chuck, from my view.
You spend your time shitting on women.
I don't.
That is all you do.
Hardly.
You discourage me.
But even if I did, even if all I did was shit on women, how am I a hypocrite?
Because you are married to a woman with three baby daddies.
And do I ever make a prescription that that's immoral or wrong?
I think you made up rules for yourself that it's okay to fit your worldview.
Bro.
When have I ever advocated?
When have I ever advocated that you can't be a stepdad?
I'm so proud.
I think you would be so proud of your chaste Christian wife.
Are you ever going, are you ever going to show me how I espouse views, which I don't believe ever?
What do I actually say?
I watched the shit that you make.
You can just watch your clips and see the things that you say.
Chuck, tell me my position that makes me a hypocrite.
Please.
I just told you.
I've told you.
What?
What?
I've told you.
What is it?
What?
I just told you.
You didn't?
Do you not have fucking ears, dude?
What did you just tell me?
What?
You are married to a woman that would be considered by the men that you proselytize.
Me, Chuck.
That they are.
Me, Chuck.
What do I, what do I advocate for that makes me a hypocrite, Chuck?
What?
To look for chaste young women.
That's not even my parents.
Women who are not staying all over the world.
Oh, my God.
This hawker room.
Sex workers.
Yeah, they all.
Yes, good.
And if I recall correctly, you have said that there is like a girl who's at an OnlyFans or done sex work is undateable, unlovable, unmarriageable.
No, I've never said any of those things.
I swear to God, I've heard it.
No, Chuck, you hear what you want to hear.
So here's my actual position.
And I'll tell you.
So my actual position on step parenting is the same position that I would have on sex work.
I'm really glad that you stopped being a sex worker.
And welcome to Christianity.
That's not going to guarantee you a great husband, though, because your past walks with you, unfortunately.
And when it comes to step parenting, right?
It is true that generally people get bad outcomes when it comes to dating and marrying single moms, especially kids.
But that doesn't mean all of them are bad.
That's what I've always advocated, Chuck.
How come you didn't know that?
Know that about you?
Yeah.
How come you didn't know that?
That's what I advocate.
It's because you selectively only want to hear what you want to hear, and you only did that to do rage bait because you don't know any of my positions.
You never took the time to listen ever.
Why would I listen?
It's all slop.
Yeah.
How can you be slop?
You don't even know what it is.
I also don't think that these are your positions.
I genuinely don't.
Again, I think that you are creating a lot of people.
Brian, haven't I made those positions a thousand times on the show?
Those same positions?
If I can just really quick, you've said Andrea has said certain things.
Were they whatever podcast appearances?
Yeah, I believe so.
Some of the things that you claim Andrew said, I sit next to him for all these appearances.
I've never heard him argue.
Okay.
So you just lied, Chuck.
Well, I still think you're a shitter, dude.
That's nice, but I don't have the positions you claim I have.
And what happened is you just think that because you disagree with me and I'm a bad person, that it's just okay to do whatever horrible thing you want to me.
And that's what the left does.
I knew that was horrible.
Oh, well, what you were attempting to do there was you were attempting to disparage me for no particularly good reason, even.
Because you called me stupid.
Yeah, but what did my, did my wife call you something?
Your wife has actually said really rude things about me in the super chats before when we...
Yeah, maybe she didn't say anything to you tonight.
But, you know, the thing is...
I don't care.
I'll fucking remember it.
Yeah, I know.
Well, here's the thing.
I'll remember this too, Chuck.
And I'm just going to point this out so that you know.
You're going to hold on to it.
Well, I'm not going to hold on to it.
I'm just pointing this out.
I'll always know you as a hypocrite.
The person who said I was doing the bad thing, and then when I asked her about it, said it wasn't a bad thing.
That sounds like hypocrisy to me.
I said it was hypocritical to your worldview.
And when you could tell me how I'm listening.
Because you do not live as a good Christian.
How would that make me a hypocrite in my marriage?
Because again, what you are saying, even if you have not, you do lead men away.
To where the church?
I lead them away from what?
To church?
I lead them to church.
You lead men towards hatred of women.
You create incels, dude.
This podcast creates incels.
Yeah, I know.
Everyone just like that.
thing creates incels so why are you here participating in it's just the thing about like the then chuck creates a bias Chuck, why are you here creating incels with me?
I'm here for fun.
Oh, so you don't mind creating incels then?
I'm not creating incels.
Isn't by you participating in a show which is creating incels, assisting in the creation of incels, Chuck?
No, this one isn't.
Oh.
This one isn't?
No.
I thought you just said it was five seconds ago.
I think when it's like a...
Oh my God, you're a contradiction machine, Chuck.
Oh, I'm bad.
Contradiction machine.
Rachel seems to indicate she'd like to do a call-in with your permission.
Oh, absolutely.
I'm going to go have a smoke.
I don't want to talk to you.
Oh, no.
You talked a bunch of shit.
Now it's your turn.
I think it would be fair.
You did invoke.
You did invoke Rachel.
I mean, sure.
Sure.
So, Rachel, Andrew gave the green light there.
It'll take us a few minutes to get a go.
Stay tuned.
Rachel Wilson is in the building.
spiritually in spirit not physically not corporeally you you think this podcast look i'm here I'm just here to host and moderate.
I'm not really here to debate you.
Think this podcast is.
Uh, what did you say something about incels?
I worry about the effect that closer to mic.
I worry about the effect that your podcast has on the minds of young men, where I see in your comment sections, when i've looked, is a lot of dudes saying all girls are whores.
Every woman these days has an only fans.
I feel like it pushes men towards distrusting women and I think uh, makes the issue of like the sexless incel worse.
Hold on okay, there's a lot.
There's a lot there.
I believe that it's sowing division between men and women.
You believe the podcast is sowing division between men?
Okay well, hold on, let's start with one thing first.
I can address some of your other things here really quickly, but specifically on the incel thing, just how do you define incel?
Involuntary celibate, involuntarily celibate, and I would say that a hatred of women comes along with it.
Like it, it's inherently struggle with dating.
That also my bad, I didn't mean to actually you know what.
Really quick though, on on that.
I actually think men who are like hyper successful with women have a stronger tendency towards misogyny than men who have struggles with dating like I.
I actually think it's the case that, like mega GIGA player guys are probably more likely to have misogynistic leanings than guys who like struggle a little bit, a little bit or even a lot with dating.
Do you disagree?
I think it's 50-50.
I think that it's like to the same, I think they both end up, I think men on the extremes both end up just being like kind of super shitty towards women.
Okay.
We have some chats here.
By the way, in addition to the Rachel Colin, what do you, Andrew, what do you think about it?
If I send my assistant to go get us some In-N-Out right now, we'll do a mukbang on the whatever, an In-N-Out.
It's like you eat on stream.
I don't know if I have the, it's, you said three to four hours.
Well, you know, listen, you talk some shit about Steven Crowder.
You talk shit about Steven Crowder.
You talk shit about Andrew.
You talk shit about Andrew's wife.
I was trying to wrap the show here.
Andrew, Andrew, you know, I was trying to rap.
I never liked the shows to go long.
I was trying to end the show.
And then you had to talk shit about Crowder, which, by the way, I'm not debating here.
Where's your evidence for the abuse?
The video where he maybe slightly had a tone?
That's it?
That's abuse?
That's abuse.
And by the way, she's never done anything like that.
His whole freak out about no fault divorce.
His whole freakout about no-fault divorce, I think, is pretty indicative of where he stands and how he treats his wife and abuses her.
Have you ever raised your voice slightly?
Just curious.
Depends on who.
You're pregnant.
Why?
You're immensely pregnant wife.
You have thousands of hours of video, and she set it up for there to be 30 seconds of video that she could go take to a divorce attorney.
Okay.
Guy who never hit her once, guy never did anything to her, still takes care of his kids.
And then she tried to fucking negotiate some backdoor fucking money dealings with a big network too on top of it.
Like you fucking fucking people are insane.
You're insane.
You think that you think that women who have children with a man like have a desire to blow up their whole marriage?
Sometimes they do, yeah.
Just like, don't you think that there's some men who have a desire to blow up their marriage after they have kids?
Yeah.
Yeah.
But just not women, though.
They're benevolent fucking angels and never do stuff like that.
Give me a break, Chuck.
All right.
Don't you think there's a higher threshold for abuse?
You know, like maybe his tone was a little bit more.
No, he said she's she didn't say that.
She said he beat her up.
He said he said he beat her up.
That's a fucking story.
I also think he's a fucking loser.
Yeah, I know, because you disagree with him.
I know, because you disagree with him.
I do disagree with him, and I think he's hateful and stupid.
I know.
So that justifies any bad thing you want to do to him, doesn't it?
Just like it did Charlie Kirk.
I think it is ridiculous to claim that I have a desire to assassinate someone.
No, no, you see.
The assassin rather than make a claim that the assassin killed Charlie Kirk because people like you said Charlie Kirk was an evil Nazi.
And so if you tell people that if you tell people that this person's a really bad person over and over again and that they're Adolf Hitler light and stuff like that, they start to not look at them as humans.
What do you think happens when you say that all lesbians are morally reprehensible?
What do you think?
What do you think that spreads?
You think that spreads kindness?
I don't think.
I don't think.
Show me where lesbians are getting shot because of my rhetoric.
Because if you're, I mean, yes, hate crimes do occur because people are mostly with lesbians.
It's between lesbians and they beat each other up.
The statistic is inaccurate because it was just asking about relationships, which do include past heterogeneity.
What about the latest statistics on it, though, for domestic violence and with just straight deep statistics?
Maybe you just have to double check.
I have to double check.
You can check some.
That's not a study.
Those aren't studies.
Those are just straight raw crime statistics.
And when it comes to domestic violence, yeah, lesbians like to beat each other up a lot.
What do you want me to say?
They do.
So it seems like the most amount of hate crimes from lesbians come from lesbians to lesbians.
Women are like mega-sexual predators, too.
Isn't that like a thing?
You said that to me once, that you think women in positions of power tend to be like extremes.
Do you want the actual position, Chuck?
Do you even care?
Like, do you actually care?
Yeah.
I didn't think you did.
I'm going to go home.
You never care.
The truth is, you just hear what you want to hear.
And that's all you hear.
You are not someone that I respect enough to listen to.
You sat here the entire time and listened to me.
Yeah, for fun.
Yeah, for fun.
Because you got paid, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
We're not allowed to talk about that.
Yeah, I know.
I get it.
But it's funny, though, to me, hilarious to me, that you would make these horrible fucking claims about Steven Crowder beating up a woman.
Like, what a horrible thing to say.
What a horrible thing to say about someone.
You've moved on from your wife to Stephen Crowder.
Well, you won't let her call in, remember?
I thought she was saying that.
Oh, okay, good.
She said you were mean to her.
You should talk to her.
Yeah, you should talk to her.
You can ask her to give you the accounting.
Rachel, are you there?
Anyway, yeah, I think that I think it's easy for people to justify doing whatever they want to us because you call us Nazis.
So even while you want the lockdowns and the COVID passports and we're the fascist Nazis.
Fucking crazy.
You people are fucking crazy.
Guys, I'm trying to get it going, but Seriously, Charlotte O of incels?
Seriously?
Seriously, she thinks she thinks she thinks that I'm an incel.
I'm an incel and I'm married.
I don't think you're an incel.
And most of my audience is married and they're incels.
You create incels.
Yeah, but most of my audience is married, so how are they incels?
You know, like you know, you do realize that we can see our demographics.
And I know most of my audience is between the ages of about 32 and 41.
Do you think that those men are, do you think that there are men at that age that aren't incels, aren't sexless?
I think that if most of them are married, if most of them are married, they're not incels by definition.
I'm not demographics because I also have YouTube demographics and check if they're married or not.
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Charlie, there's outside groups that do all sorts of audience polling and things like this.
And yeah, we've checked what our audience is all about many times.
And the thing is, is like it's funny.
We even ask them internally.
Well, it's literally like the worst people possible.
Yeah, the worst married people possible.
Making my country dog shit.
That's you.
That makes the country dog shit for us, Charlie.
All right.
Well, it's just all that freedom to give us no freedom.
Yeah, I think that I. People being disappeared, families torn apart.
And people weren't supposed to be here?
A lot of them are citizens that are being snatched up.
No, there's not a lot of them who are citizens being snapped at.
If they aren't, you know what?
It's mostly not.
You, as a follower of Christ, you should welcome them.
Oh, should I?
But you're not legit.
What should I do?
How should I welcome them?
With love and kindness and open arms.
Okay, should I let them live?
Should I let them live in my house and give them all my money?
No, you don't have to do all that.
Why not?
Why should I?
Well, wait a second.
Why should I just stop?
Why should I just stop?
It's just like, yay, why shouldn't I let them into my house and have all my money, Chuck?
How come?
Wouldn't Christ want me to do that?
No, that's not how that works.
Well, what do you, the atheist, think Christ would want me to do?
I'm agnostic.
Oh, what would you, the agnostic?
What do you think Christ would want me to do?
I think that Christ would want you to give some of what you have to the poor, to immigrants.
Well, GCHO.
That's what Jesus would do.
I give 25% of my money to the poor.
How much do you give?
25%.
Oh, can you verify that?
Yes.
All right.
How much do you give?
Well, I mean, I give it to the church and they dispense it to the poor, so yeah.
So you give it to the church.
Are you saying that my church doesn't dispense to the poor?
I think that you ought to be wary about it.
Wary.
Oh, should I send it to a private charity to pay a CEO a ton of money instead?
Even though we know that direct charitable contributions from the church actually get to the people, and when you send it to a charity, it usually goes to administration fees.
You know that for sure?
For sure.
That's where the church's money is going.
Well, I mean, I know the board of the church.
I'm pretty sure that I know where they're sending my money.
Yeah.
All right.
If you say so.
Yeah, how much do you give?
What I can.
How much is that?
What I can win.
How much is that?
What I can win.
Yeah, how much is that?
Percentage-wise of your income.
Percentage-wise?
Yes.
The truth, Chuck.
Over my lifetime?
No.
Now, in the last four years, what have you given as a total percentage of your income to the poor, Chuck?
I couldn't even, I don't even know how much of my total income is.
Guess.
Guess?
Guess what percentage?
Guess what percentage?
I hand it out to people.
If I see people.
You got cash on hand?
No, not right now.
Oh, geez.
Well, how much as a percentage do you think you've given?
The truth.
How much?
I would say definitely in the 10% range.
Yeah, fucking right.
Give me 10% of your total.
You haven't given 10% of your total cash to Nova.
I was doing that before I was a content creator.
Right.
I was given.
Doubt.
Well, you can doubt it.
I don't think that people with your ego do those sorts of things.
I know.
That's the problem with you is that you don't think that.
You don't think that I do massive charity streams because you don't watch.
You don't even listen.
But I do them all the time.
I've interacted with you enough to know that.
You don't know shit.
I've done massive charity streams.
I do them every year.
What are you talking about?
I fed hundreds of families personally with the crucible.
We've raised thousands of dollars to do it.
What have you done?
You don't have to in a Christ like which things?
Everything you bring up, you're wrong about.
So, which thing am I not leading in a Christ like way?
It's in the service of your ego.
Prove it.
This is about preaching.
This is about winning.
This is about.
Then why do I give so much money when nobody can do it?
I don't think you fucking do.
I don't think you do.
So from the bottom of my head.
What do I get?
Do not believe it.
If I prove it to you, what do I get?
Nothing.
I'm not going to give you shit.
Yeah, exactly.
So fuck off.
You got nothing.
And you can also write those off on taxes.
So not very charitable.
Do you know you can only do that up to a certain amount?
Yes.
Yeah.
Rachel, are you there?
Can you hear us?
Hello?
Rachel?
Can you hear me?
Yes.
I don't know why Discord wasn't working, so we're just going to do it via the phone.
Do you want to say anything?
Okay.
Yeah.
Am I coming through okay?
Yes.
Okay, good.
Well, I guess I'm just going to ask her the same question kind of that Andrew asked her, which is, I mean, she said all this stuff about me that she got completely wrong, but what is it that you think Andrew or I are doing that is wrong or hypocritical?
I do feel that with your guys's platforms, what you do is, Rachel, I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not familiar with your platform.
I'm only familiar with your husband's talking shit about her when she's not here.
Well, hey, man, I was trying to prove my point.
I was trying to prove my point.
Okay, how does what you said about me prove your point?
Like, again, did you, did somebody tell you that Andrew like hates on single moms and like shits on them?
And so you thought that because he's married to me and I had kids before I married him that like he's a bad Christian?
Like, I don't understand where you're coming from with this.
What did he do wrong?
And what did I do wrong?
So the basis of Andrew's platform is essentially to make women look stupid and humiliate them.
And I don't.
You're doing a perfectly good job of that all by yourself.
He doesn't even need to help, but go on.
Erroneous.
Erroneous.
Sorry.
Sorry.
It's okay.
I lost my train of thought.
Tell the whole world why we're bad.
The whole world.
Why am I bad?
You were saying that Andrew's whole purpose is to make women look dumb and stupid.
But that's how his, like, that's how his thing works: he goes on debate shows.
A lot of the time, it's young women, people with no formal debate experience, such as myself, to mock them, make them look stupid, clip farm, and then gain money and notoriety this way.
He doesn't engage in real thoughtful debate.
I've seen people walk off from debating him because we got to do one thing at a time.
One thing at a time.
You can't just shot down 500 things.
So did you not have agency?
Did you not have agency when you accepted this debate with Andrew?
Yeah, I did.
Okay.
How is then what did he do wrong?
Do you want him to treat you like, oh, like, because you're a feminist, so do you want him to only debate men?
Because if he did that, you'd say, well, he's a misogynist.
He won't even debate women because he doesn't take them seriously enough or whatever.
Like, you guys make yourself look stupid.
Andrew can't make you look stupid if you're not.
And I would go on here and I would make you look 10 times stupider because you're really, really uninformed, but really, really confident about everything you say.
You do not sound like a person with a college education.
My homeschooled 13-year-old can explain per capita, okay?
You are not a very smart person.
You're the one who put yourself in this position.
And since you lost and you got humiliated, you thought the thing to do would be attack me.
And okay, so let's go there.
Where did you get the idea that I'm promiscuous?
Well, that you're promiscuous?
Sorry, you just also said a bunch of shit that I was trying to keep track of.
You said that I'm promiscuous.
So what promiscuous means I've slept with a lot of people, right?
I would say that I think that having children with multiple men is I think that that is more significant than okay.
Well, I think it would be if, and I know why people assume this, I do understand why people assume it.
They're just wrong in their assumption.
It would be wrong if I had been sleeping with lots of people, if I had been carelessly getting pregnant with random people.
That's not the case.
I've spent my entire adult life only in three long-term committed relationships, one of which is an almost 20-year relationship with Andrew.
Now we're like 18 years in.
We've been married since 2012.
Prior to that, I was married for four years.
As Andrew had to unfortunately explain, that ended not even because I left, but because he beat the crap out of me and was being pursued by the law and left the state, and so it was like abandonment.
The first one was my high school boyfriend, who I knew my whole life, who I was with for five years.
We had two children.
He had his own personal problems and that did not work out.
So I understand why people make the assumption, but the truth is I'm not promiscuous.
I have an extremely low body count.
I've never had one-night stance.
I've never cheated on anyone.
I've never just carelessly or casually had sex ever.
So I've only ever been with men that I, at least at the time, felt certain I was going to be with forever and have a family with.
Maybe you should have.
I didn't get nursed on the first two.
I didn't get nursed on the first two, I will admit.
But I did wonder, hang on, Rachel.
I did wonder one thing.
If she had slept with three men but had aborted all of the children, would she still be promiscuous?
She would have lived her life.
It would have been better for her.
Yeah, if she had only slept with three men but aborted her children, would she, hang on, would she hang on, Rachel, shop for a second.
It wouldn't be the case.
Was that too abusive?
Shut up, Rachel.
Was that too abusive, Charlie?
So, Charlie, tell me, if she had aborted her children in those three relationships, would she be less promiscuous or not?
I think that, frankly, in my opinion, her life would have been better spent.
Would she be less promiscuous, Charlie?
Yes.
Yeah, she'd be less promiscuous.
These fucking people.
Rachel, you should have killed her.
I'm talking about operations.
Rachel, you should have killed.
You should have killed her kids, Rachel.
Maybe she should have.
I wouldn't have been for wage.
So it's less promiscuous if I kill the children?
I mean, you're not killing children.
You're having an abortion.
Did you just say to me, did you just say to me that my life would be better if I had aborted my children?
I mean, if I were in your shoes, I would have had a better time doing that.
Wow.
Well, I regret to inform you that I love all of my children.
I would never analyze them.
I would never wish that they weren't born, even if there was some mild inconvenience to me along the way, or maybe I had to do a little work to raise them.
I love my children.
I would never wish that they had not been born.
And I'm certain my life would not have been better.
Would you deny that under patriarchy, you are seen as like a, I hate to use this phrase, but as a damaged woman on account of having had children with multiple men.
Would you deny that that is unfortunately the common, the common perspective?
I actually think it's people like you who think that about me.
Andrew is a patriarch.
He is a patriarchate.
As you said, he's the one out here representing the patriarchy.
And he looked at my situation and said, she is worth marrying.
Because if I had been divorced because I was a bitch or because I was not submissive or because I was a cheater or because I was mentally unstable, any of the normal reasons that you do have a woman who's got kids from two guys, the usual reasons.
I happen to be an outlier for the reasons why I was in that situation.
And despite the fact that, and I've said this before, I thought Andrew was way too good for me.
I tried to break up with him multiple times because I thought he's got a great wife with no baggage.
Why would he, you know, he could pick anybody.
He should pick someone else other than me.
That was my opinion.
He was the one who looked at me and said, no, I really think you're a great wife material, great mom material.
I know that based on the fact that you're already a great mom.
Yeah, your situation isn't the best, but all things considered, it's a deal I'm willing to take.
And he thought I was that awesome.
Isn't that cool?
What a good guy.
And he was a great self-jad.
And he loves all the kids.
He never treated the older ones like they were any different.
You know, he never, there was never any drama with him like, you know, talking bad about their dad.
He was a great guy.
He's a great guy.
And it turns out that you're the one who thinks I should have killed my kids.
You would rather party and have fun and get bullshit degrees than produce human beings who are going to go off and create the future.
Yeah, I would.
It turns out, it turns out that you are the hateful, selfish, awful one who's willing to lie about people, say things that aren't true when you don't know what they're true.
You've just defamed multiple people in front of millions.
You're willing to lie about people.
No, not millions.
It turns out, it turns out that it is not really go there.
Andrew is the selfless one.
I've also already had people spread clips around me that got hundreds of thousands of views, and it was fine.
I'm just letting you know that she was saying something accurate that millions of people will likely see this, yes.
And they'll forget tomorrow.
Okay.
But that wasn't the problem.
But again, at the end of the day, do you guys feel that the work that you do makes more women interested in turning towards Christian nationalism than being repulsed and disgusted by it?
Well, it's not all about women, is it?
It's not all about women.
Well, I mean, if we're talking about helping women, we're not just talking about helping women, though.
I think helping men is helping women helping men away from normal, healthy partners.
Normal, healthy partners.
I would love a chance to tell her why I do this.
Yes.
Go ahead.
If I may.
So the reason I do what I do, which you said you don't know what I do, so I'll tell you.
I write history books about the history of women's liberation.
And I regret to inform you that you don't know anything about it.
You don't actually know how the movement happened, why the movement happened.
You were under the impression that women couldn't get educated.
I'm sure you're the average dope who thinks women, you know, were chained to the stove, couldn't leave the house.
They were just used and abused by the evil patriarchy who just, for some reason, wanted to enslave them and make them into sex puppets.
Blah, blah, blah.
The stereotypical bullshit that all you female liberals and everybody else pretty much believe.
Well, I never said I was.
I wrote a best-selling book, Correcting the Historical Record, and that's what I do.
I'm more of a historian, and then I do argue with feminists like you because what you'll do to men like my husband and to Brian is instead of win the arguments, which you cannot, you can't win the debate, you don't know what you're doing, you're an absolute bonehead at this.
So, what you do is attack them personally, like you did Steven Crowder.
You're probably going to go back after this and write a bunch of bullshit or say a bunch of bullshit about Brian and Andrew because that's what all of you do after you leave the show, after you get your ass kicked all over the place.
Well, Brian's been nice to me, so I'm not going to say shit about Brian.
I know, it's just Andrew.
Smokey Man bad.
I'm here to debunk your nonsense and keep families together.
I don't give a shit.
I'm not willing to sacrifice children and children's lives on the altar of women's feelings anymore.
Women like you who think they're expendable, who think they need to be killed in the womb so that you can party, women like you who think that the family can be a bunch of gay dudes having designer babies together.
Women like you who've destroyed society and made this world a nightmare.
I'm here to put your ideas in the grave where they belong, once and for all.
So, I'm here to support the patriarchy and so like because I'm like the secretary that helps the patriarchy, and I just happen to be really fucking good at it.
So, if you ever want to talk more shit, let me know and I'll set up a debate with you, and I'll make you look 10 times stupider than even Andrew has.
Okay, you should put, you're the one, you're the one who should get back in the kitchen because you're useless.
I don't know what you contribute to society, nothing.
Well, I can't make some money.
So, they should probably not put me back in the kitchen because I'd burn the house down.
You can learn.
No, no interest in it.
I'm going to let you guys finish her off because I've said everything that I need to say.
But you're lying.
You shouldn't lie and gossip about people that you don't know.
Rachel.
It's not very Christian.
Rachel, I would be.
Well, I'm not a Christian.
Rachel, I would be interested in talking to you if you ever wanted to debate because I am interested in what you have to say about women's liberation and the history of women's rights.
Why is she going to debate you the second you're out of here?
All you're going to do is talk shit about her husband, like you did Steven Crowder when he wasn't here.
Well, she said it.
Yeah.
Stephen, when am I going to get the chance to talk to Stephen Crowder?
Why would I ever talk to Stephen Crowder?
Why do you think it's okay on a public podcast that has thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people watching right this second to make those disparaging and horrible fucking references to Steven Crowder?
He's look, maybe you can say that I'm a bad man, that smoky man bad, but you can't say that about Steven Crowder.
He's the opposite.
Like, that guy is fucking, he's one of the greatest guys I've ever met in my life.
Well, first off, my misconception about the extent of the abuse of his wife was corrected pretty quickly.
So I think that that's but why was it said?
That's what I thought he did.
Yeah, but the thing is, it's like, if you weren't sure, why even say anything about it at all?
I was sure that that's what had happened.
You were sure?
And normally I look things up, but I can't do it right now.
Man.
All right.
I don't want to jump onto my phone in the middle of it.
Can you, can you, okay.
Maybe.
I'm sorry for saying that thing that I said about Stephen Crowder.
Steven Crowder, I'm sorry.
I still think you're a freak for, not that he's going to watch this, a freak for advocating against no-fault divorce.
I think that's evil and crazy and would hurt someone.
Please, God, no.
I could, but I wouldn't.
I don't want to.
Wait, so you're sorry for saying it, but are you correct?
Just clarifying, are you correcting your statement or are you just...
Yeah, I'm correcting my statement.
Yeah.
I was saying that it was corrected.
Message from the government of Canada.
Pasty George donated $200.04.
Thank you, Pasty.
Marley states that she's against authoritarianism, yet she and many voters like her are tyrants with their voting power, which they use without fully knowing any context and rely solely on feelings.
Completely.
She just got done saying that you're less promiscuous because you have abortions.
And then she said, no, that's not really true.
I just optically.
I'm not viewed as less promiscuous.
Well, look, that's not what you said, though.
You didn't say it's just a matter of time.
I would consider it to be less promiscuous.
Yeah, because you know that that's an untenable and stupid position.
I don't.
I don't think it is.
I think that that does follow you in ways that hookups that result in no pregnancies does.
I think you would have to sleep with a child.
Oh, no.
No, I agree.
Look, I agree.
But on the other hand, again, I'm a Christian ethicist, not a red pillar.
I don't know where you ever got the idea I'm a red pillar or that my audience is red pill at all because they're not.
There are, it is indeed the truth.
Is this my show?
You go in here a lot.
Is it mine, though?
Or do I have the crucible?
You have the crucible.
Yeah.
So the thing is, is like, I'm a Christian ethicist.
There's many people in the whatever chat who don't agree with me, who ate my guts.
Now, not most of them, I will admit.
Most of them like you.
Oh, yeah.
I've won a lot of them over, but they disagree with a lot of the things I say still.
I didn't win them over for that.
I won them over because I have better arguments.
And the thing is, is like you don't.
And I wish you did, right?
I'm not a formal debater.
You don't need to be a formal debater.
If you tell the truth, you can argue.
I mean, I'm honest.
I'm saying what I believe is the truth.
Yeah.
And the truth five seconds ago was you're less promiscuous if you have abortions.
Like, that's not what you're saying.
I think that looks less promiscuous.
That's not what you said.
That's a nice addendum now, but it's not what you said.
And I would consider someone that's had abortions to be less promiscuous.
Okay.
Yeah, we have some chats coming through.
Hold on.
One sec here.
We have Pasty George.
A message from the government of Canada.
Pasty George donated $200.04.
If the whatever podcast creates sincels and men who hate women, then why are so many men seeking traditional non-feministic women in other countries not influenced by feminism?
I have one thought on this.
If we're doing an assessment of respective audiences by you're either worse or better based on the recency with which your, I guess, collective or audience has had sex.
If it is the case that my audience has sex has on average sex more frequently than your audience, does that mean your audience is worse than my audience?
If they have sex more?
Like if my audience has more sex or more frequent sex than your audience?
It means you win.
Do I win?
You win.
You win.
You do.
And I'm sorry, Brian.
I didn't mean to drag.
Pasty George donated $200.
Can I finish that thought after this?
Why is it that whenever a person who's debating Andrew is losing the argument, they always resort to using his family against him?
What a pathetic move and low-blow method.
They always will.
Listen, you can't even really blame them, right?
It doesn't matter who it is.
It doesn't matter if it's a world-class debater or not a world-class debater.
You actually can't really blame them.
What else is left to them?
And then even when I engage and ask for the hypocrisy, there's never any hypocrisy shown.
It's just a mischaracterization of my positions every single time.
Without fail, that is the case.
All right, George, thank you for that.
Appreciate it.
We have some super chats.
I'll just read the smug look on her face when told she's uneducated on the topic while she thinks, oh, but you don't know I took a class and paid $10,000 for someone to tell me about their favorite books and grade my homework.
That's from David Paras.
He also sent this.
Agnostic comes from no, meaning knowledge, and is a claim on truth.
Atheist is a claim on belief.
Agnostic means you don't know, but you'd know that if your master's degree was worth the loans.
But you'd know that if your master's degree was worth the loans.
Do you want a quick response to David Ross there?
I'm not an atheist.
I don't understand what his point is.
I said I'm agnostic, not an atheist.
I don't know what I believe.
And I know that I don't know when it comes to if there is a higher power.
I don't think that we would be able to comprehend it if there is one.
And I think that human interpretations of it would be paltry and inaccurate.
There you go.
There are my religious beliefs.
Chore XD donated $100.
So Charlie's performance was so fucking pathetic because rather than preparing for the debate topic, she spent all of her time prepping for personal attacks.
And we should pick your worldview.
I didn't actually prep at all for personal attacks.
That was something that I stumbled across on the internet when someone was arguing with your wife.
That was it.
It was a happenstance.
It was a secret surprise.
And I went, oh, interesting.
Politics of personal destruction innuendo donated $100 Chuck.
This is why we voted for Trump.
Thank you for turning this native Angelino Republican in a sea of Democrats in the heart of LA prop 50 is unconstitutional.
Coastal/slash academia will eat through in Carly.
Yeah, California used to be a great place to live when I was a kid.
I love California.
You would, but I don't love it anymore.
All right.
That's I voted yes on Prop 50.
I think it's great.
I think it's awesome.
All right.
Well, any final thoughts from either of you?
Yeah, I'll just say I still don't take any of this personally.
I never do.
But ultimately, that's all you were left with was just a sea of disparaging personal attacks on people who weren't even here.
And for what?
Like.
Because I think your worldview is hypocritical.
I think that you have to do that.
Yeah, I know.
Can you just tell me what the hypocrisy is?
Do we want to do this?
I just want to know if you had to reduce it.
If you could just reduce it to one thing.
One thing.
What's the actual hypocrisy that I espouse that I don't live or that I don't believe?
I think that the way that you espouse your worldviews and the way that you conduct your streaming platform and debates, I do think that it encourages young men and women to essentially hate each other, if you want to pass that to me.
That's not hypocrisy.
Again, but what I'm saying is that you are like putting, like, like conditioning young men to see women who are less than perfect as partners they should never pursue, as disgusting, having a negative stage.
I never do that.
I always have the nuance of the position.
The position, like primarily what I see is cruelty.
To who?
Typically, like the young women that you debate with that are sex workers.
Why?
What do I say that's cruel?
About the things that they've done, their lifestyle.
The way that ruins them.
It does.
It doesn't it?
Then how does your wife's conduct?
Is my wife a prostitute?
I think three baby daddies is pretty is that a prostitute?
No, it's not the same thing.
No, it's not the same thing.
So why are you making the equivocation over and over and over again?
If I look at a sex worker and say, hey, little Tom, your son one day is going to look up your pussy on the internet.
Do you think that that's the equivalent of saying, hey, you have stepbrothers?
Or your mom was married multiple times.
Do you think that that's even in the same fucking universe?
And how is that shaming pointing that out to them?
One day, these women's children are going to have people come over to them and say, hey, man, I jerked off to your mom's pussy.
Tell me I'm lying.
Tell me I'm saying something that's not true right now.
That they're going to jerk off to picture.
That these kids who are coming from these sex workers after they're all done with their funnies, okay, are in school.
People are going to come over to them and they're going to be like, hey, man, just to torture them, because kids are cruel.
And they'll say, hey, I just looked at your mom's vagina last night.
It was great.
I fapped to it.
Like, are you going to sit here really and pretend that that's not going to happen to these kids?
Because it is.
I mean, if you have a hot mom, that's already happening to you anyway, whether or not she does something.
If somebody comes over and says your mom is hot, if someone comes over and says, hey, your mom is hot, ha right?
That's a banger.
I'm jerking off to her.
Even that is nothing like, look at your mom getting double penetrated, bro.
Ha ha.
Do you understand the difference there?
It's gross, but do you understand the difference?
I do think that to me, those both would be considered societally tainted and fallen.
One may be more so than the other.
No shit.
But I still think that it is.
Where's the hypocrisy then when I tell sex workers this truth that that's going to happen?
You have, as a you have forgiven your wife for her past actions.
No, no, no.
There was no forgiveness required here.
What do you mean?
Talking about you doing a good thing or whatever, man.
Yeah.
Or you looked past her.
No, never said that either.
All right.
What are you talking about?
Like having those stepkids, like it was a good thing that you did.
Wasn't it?
The neutral thing that you did.
Oh.
It's a neutral thing that I did.
Okay.
Got it.
And what would be the moral thing that I could have done instead of that?
You could not use your platform to shit all over.
No, this was 2022.
This was like almost 20 years ago before there was a platform.
Oh my God.
You're so fucking retarded.
You're like impossible to have a conversation.
You cannot make these decisions, but I think that you should be clinging before you, you know, throw stones or whatever.
Throw stones at who?
Women.
You mean sex workers?
Sex workers, women that have had sex, women that have had abortions.
No, it's not women that have had sex.
Okay.
The idea is that you're still trying to move to like if I was a serial killer and I said it's bad to be a serial killer, am I a hypocrite?
Yeah, probably.
You're fucking, it's just what a fucking tar.
All right, Brian, I'm done.
I'm good.
All right.
So, Andrew, it has gone long.
What we are going to do now, if you want to stay for it, you can.
We're going to do a roast session.
The chat.
Yeah, go ahead.
They're begging.
I'll stay.
I'll stay.
You'll stay for the roast?
Okay.
So.
What is the roast?
People can stay both of those roasts.
They can roast me.
They can roast Mary back there, who's not even on the show.
They can roast you.
It's going to be a little bit more.
You know, I don't think it'll be that much towards you, to be honest.
Probably a lot towards me.
Yeah, you know, I think Andrew.
So the debate's pretty much concluded.
We're going to let those come in.
So, guys, $69 roast will go for 10, 15 minutes.
I got to get Andrew some food here.
I gotta, we gotta get him out of here.
Some pineapple pizza, pineapple pizza.
We gotta get him something.
We gotta get him something.
For Charlie, we have some applesauce in the refrigerator if you want some applesauce.
I'm good.
Presumably, I'm leaving after this, correct?
Yes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Of course.
Unless you were trying to purchase the In-N-Out for us.
No.
You seem like very chivalrous, so I figured.
I am very chivalrous.
Women say so all the time.
Sir, what's your orientation?
By okay.
Is it true that you dated Hassan, though?
Is that what you're saying?
I've never even talked to the guy.
That's you're in LA, though.
Don't you move in his circles or whatever?
No, no, I don't know those people.
All right.
$69 TTS.
Get it in.org cannot make a valid point that they immediately resort to personal attacks.
College educated?
What a fucking joke LaMau.
Hey, Manner Devour, remember when you were in my DMs sending me pictures of yourself, begging me to show my former roommate Pombi to convince you, to convince her to date you.
Do you remember that?
What?
Because I do.
Wow.
Okay.
All right.
Wow.
Guys, streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
$69 roast.
Get them in.
Barrier Wisdom donated $69.
Chuck PLS.
Take your Australian dollars and walk down Fiwero ST on a Friday night.
And tell me, with all that pro-feminism has, has ever fixed the problem here, I'm sorry for the families that have to live there.
Is Pat's pasty, pasty George?
It seems to be your biggest fan.
He is.
He's very enthusiastic.
Do you want to respond to the Figueroa Street?
I don't know what Figueroa Street is.
I'm just going to grab a beer.
Yeah, do you want champagne, by the way?
There's a.
No champagne.
Never makes me a never.
Okay.
I'm not much of a drinker, you know.
There's some super chats that I'm going to read here.
Cole Marshall, let me sell you on my worldview, insults his wife.
And now you admit you just pulled it out because you were unprepared.
Do you want to respond to that, Charlie?
From Cole?
No, I said I did not prepare.
I said I did not prepare on the insults to his wife.
That was something that I stumbled upon.
Actually, I must admit, to be completely fair, we have debates going on all the way through the 16th to debate con.
And this debate today was actually the only one I also didn't prepare for, to be totally fair.
And I usually always prepare for debates, but not this one.
I just didn't think I needed to.
Well, you guys have debated before.
That's why I didn't think I needed to.
David Ross, agnostic means I'm not sure.
Atheist means I don't believe the purpose of a college education used to be to learn things.
Didn't you do this one?
Root words.
No, yeah, Greek.
The point is that you throw them around.
Master's degree is apparently meaningless from David Ross.
Thank you for the super chat, David Ross.
You have a response there or I don't know what he's getting at.
I said agnostic.
I don't, I'm not quite sure.
By the way, I was just curious.
You had mentioned earlier on in the debate, just as a curious question, that you were on testosterone.
I was just curious why.
Let's not get into that.
Were you a bodybuilder?
No.
You're going to transition, weren't you?
Yeah.
Yeah.
You wouldn't, honestly, like, you would have been the hot dude.
I was.
I was really, I was a beautiful little twink.
I was.
I was gorgeous.
So you did sort of transition.
Yeah, for 10 years.
Oh, 10 years.
Presented as a man.
Yeah.
What was your name that you still Charlie?
I guess that's the benefit if you have a gender-neutral name and you transition.
Like, that's kind of a perk.
Our real name might not be Charlie.
Whoa, yeah.
You know what?
Who knows?
You look like an ethel like Ethel Kane?
Did I miss pretty?
Yes.
Ethel Kane?
Yeah, okay.
Sort of.
I don't know.
Red Fox, Charlie, what is your economic framework, socialist Marxist catalyst?
Socialist.
Socialist.
Got it.
Okay.
Guys, $69 roast.
Those were just some super chats.
Streamlabs.com slash whatever.
If you want to get some roasts in, we do have a few here.
Let's go with Chaw.
Thank you, man.
Chaw XD donated $69.
Every time I see Charlie debate, I start off thinking her worldview is dumb, but she's at least being good faith.
And every fucking time she proves she's just the moral equivalent of human-shaped slime.
Just be nice to me and I'll be nice to you.
That's how it works.
If I feel insulted, I'm going to bite back.
All right.
Thank you, Chaw.
We have Flavius.
Sorry, I can't remember the last part.
Flavia Sassanus is donated $69.
This 304 pro-choice sophistered the eyes of Gollum.
Be aware, lads.
I have done Gollum cosplays multiple times.
I love Gollum.
Flavius, thank you for that.
We'll do five more minutes or so of the roasts.
A quick few final messages, guys.
Guys, if you enjoyed the show and you want to learn how to become a master debater like Andrew and a journeyman debater like Charlie, debate university design.
I mean, it's I don't want to debate.
DebateUniversity.com.
Become a master debater.
Andrew's got a course on there.
Fantastic.
Lots of videos.
And he will teach you how to become the best master debater there is.
Like the video.
Discord.gg slash whatever.
Shop.whatever.com.
Guys, final shout out for Twitch.
Guys, if you have an Amazon Prime sub, you link it to your Twitch.
Quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
Pull it up, please.
Twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a follow.
Drop us a Prime sub.
If you have Amazon Prime, you know, you get the little, the, the, the, the good shipping, the two-day shipping.
Just drop us a quick Prime sub here at the end of the stream.
1.4K on Twitch.
Thank you, guys.
Appreciate all the support over there on Twitch.
Venmo Cash App, whatever, pod.
And then, once again, $69 roast.
Well, I'll just read this one.
Send it through Streamlabs next time, but thank you, Ash's Rose.
I hope you realize how wrong you are, Charlie.
You're confused, broken, little boy girl, or whatever you are.
You're wrong on every level.
Are you saying I'm androgynous?
What are your pronouns, by the way?
I'm just, I should have asked that.
Whatever.
Dave.
I go by.
Yeah, she.
He, you're fine with he?
Yeah.
But the thing is, is that I, you know, very much present as a as a woman for my job.
Leave that guy alone.
Thank you.
Okay.
We have Pasty George here.
Oh, okay.
Pasty George donated $70.
Charlie, I don't know what else I can say to you other than you are one of the most fact in the head feminists I have ever had the opportunity to listen to, but I do not hate you.
Yeah, you do.
If you wouldn't live next door to where you hater, pasty George, thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Paul donated $69.
Keep farming those fatherless men.
Andrew, cheering for you, brother, crack another tall boy for your wife.
Yeah, we're going to need another one after tonight.
Paul, thank you.
We have Black here coming in.
Thank you.
Paul?
And then Black, there it is.
Bit of a delay.
Black donated $69.
Why is it that the entire time, Chucky has not made one intellectual rational argument?
It's just pure ambling and illogical fallacious statements.
I have a master's, but can't form a coherent, though.
I mean, to be fair, we did have the broadest topic.
We did have an incredibly broad topic.
And that's how, in my opinion, I would characterize both myself and Andrew.
No offense, but you're a great debater.
You are.
But this did feel rambly today.
For me, not from me.
I was just refuting whatever you, I gave you a lot of rope.
I wanted to make sure that you had a lot of rope.
You could.
Thank you.
Yeah.
You have a master's in literature.
Fantasy, literature.
Fantasy literature.
Like Tolkien.
Yes, that was my research focus.
Would you, like, if you, like, how old was Frodo?
When he left the Shire, he was in his 50s.
See, nobody ever knows that.
That's actually, see, Chuck?
Now that would have been great.
We could have really had an olive branch if it was the case that you knew that Frodo was in his 50s by the time he left the Shire.
Almost nobody knew.
By the way, the audience put one in the chat if you didn't know that.
Almost nobody, because Elijah, you know, is Elijah Wood.
He plays him and he doesn't look 50, but he was 50 when he left the fucking shire.
Yeah, there was a huge time period before they left.
Yeah, a huge gap.
And in the movies, it was like that.
Three seconds.
I can talk Tolkien, who, by the way, hated feminism.
He's my hero.
I love him, but he hated Feminine.
Well, but he also, hang on.
Hang on, though.
But he also loved Catholicism.
And Elu Alouvatar was the entirety of what he was.
Do you know what he's conveying through Elu Louvatar and the Great Tree from the Elven Lands?
Like, do you know what the correlation there was?
I mean, it is kind of.
The Silmarillion is kind of the Bible with elves in the sense that there is a grand creator.
All, you know, all actions are foretold and determined by Alouvatar.
We, you know, the people of Arda were simply.
Oh my God.
Who the hell?
You can spew Warcraft.
I can spew fucking Lord of the Rings, you fuckers.
You can spew Warcraft.
I was a huge.
I had all the books.
I have all the books.
I was just going to ask, like, so if you had been around in the 1920s, like, would you have, like, would you have tried to hook up with Tolkien?
Tolkien?
He's your like favorite author and you wouldn't like at least give him like he was a handsome young man No, he was, but he was very religious, deeply in love with his wife.
Hell no.
Well, like, before he had the wife.
But they were like childhood from very young teenager.
I guess I would have to.
Yeah, but if she had died of the pox, she had the pox.
She had the pox.
I was about to say bubonic plague, but that was definitely way better.
She had the pox.
Yeah.
But like, yeah, the wife's not in the picture.
The pox.
No, it's because it's no, he's he's he's British, right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
English.
Like that's why the orcs all sound English.
Yeah.
Because they all were English.
Do you know the scouse?
Like the scousers?
The what?
Scousers.
What is that?
Manchester.
Wait, no.
What?
Liverpool.
Liverpool, yeah.
Liverpool.
I got my.
Yeah, yeah.
Like, if you were a scouser and he was just like, I don't know, in Liverpool, like, would you, like, show him your ankles or something?
No.
If Tolkien was alive today, I would.
Hate him.
You would fucking hate him.
I'm unfortunately a teacher's pet, so I would just...
You wouldn't date him, though?
Like, think about the royalties.
No, I don't care about the money.
Okay.
The estate, you know, but I realize that.
You realize that Tolkien would have fucking hated your worldview, like, with a passion.
I think that Tolkien would have had a lot of grace for me as a human being.
He did.
He was.
He did have a couple of.
Stop it.
Get some help.
He would have loathed.
Gay friends.
He loathed.
No.
He was friends with.
Oh, my God.
No, these are people who came out later and said, we were buddies.
And then when it's investigated, they're like, well, we're not really sure if they're actually buddies or not.
That's in fact actually the case, isn't it?
With Tolkien.
I'm talking about those two?
I'm pretty confident.
Tolkien never commented on it, but I'm fairly certain that he, the only thing he ever said about homosexuality was that at the age of 19, he had never heard the word.
So I think he probably did the kind of not to say the typical Catholic thing, but also the typical Christian thing, but like hate the sin, love the sinner.
You know, I think.
That's not a Christian doctrine.
It's not a Catholic doctrine.
Well, that's been my experience.
I know a lot of Christians that I hold in high regard who even if they disagree with my lifestyle, they still treat me with love and respect.
And I think that's what I'm saying.
Yeah, they treat you with enablement, but the thing is...
Oh, sorry, sorry.
Mario wisdom to nature.
I can skip.
I didn't mean to cut you off there.
Oh, I was just saying, like, look, yeah, Tolkien, did you notice the distinct lack of homosexual characters in all of his works?
All of them.
Not one.
Not one.
Just saying.
Well, you weren't really allowed to write about those things back in the day.
Bullshit.
You were to.
I also don't think.
You were to.
That's such bullshit.
So I have a whole presentation on this if you're ever interested in it.
Yeah, I'll watch it.
I'll tear it apart.
Look, I'm a big Tolkien fan myself.
The very first book that I ever read that was technically an adult book was The Hobbit.
Still my favorite book to this day.
I've read everything by Tolkien, and I love the guy's work.
And the entirety of the imagery that he was conveying was Christian imagery.
And he drew on all of the most horrific virtues of mankind.
And he personified them in the races that he created.
That's what Elo Louvertar was doing.
And that's, I mean, Gandalf was an angel.
Like, all of this was around the idea of Christian ethics.
The entire tale was about Christian ethics.
And it was about how small people can do great things with the grace of God and how they can be selected and have angelic protection.
That's what Gandalf was.
Yes, it was about uplifting the abject.
No, it wasn't just about uplifting the abject.
It was about the fact.
You know, central to it.
Aragorn was a powerful man, and he came into what was his righteous, the thing that righteously belonged to him through the pathway of kings.
Like, this was not a, oh, it was just about the little guy who was fighting his way up.
The man was aristocracy, and you were supposed to have faith that the aristocracy was good.
Even if it was the case that they were thrown out by an order of imposters like Denither, you were still allowed to go take what was your natural birthright and that kings weren't bad and evil.
If I recall correctly, I do believe that I can't remember which ancestor of Aragorn's abdicated the throne, but I believe it was willingly, and that's when the stewards of Gondor were put up.
Mind you, Dennisort was incredibly corrupt, absolutely.
And it's a victim of his own pride.
However, he was under the control of the ring.
He was under control of Sorrow.
Yeah, through the Palantir.
But I think that Aragorn's, an important part of Aragorn's journey is: do you remember the scene where Farimir and Eowen are laying in the houses of healing, and the elderly woman gives him Kingsweed, I believe?
And she keeps him.
Kingsfoil.
Kingswell?
Kingsfoil?
Yeah, King's Foil.
You have your master's degree in.
Sorry, so sorry.
So my memory is bad to meet.
You should know this.
It's Kingsfoil.
You should know this if you have your master's in, like, Tolkien or whatever.
Forgetting that it was Kingsfoil instead of Kingsfoil.
I mean, that's you have a master's degree.
Forgetting the name of a leaf.
I didn't forget the name, and I'm a casual fan.
I'm just pointing that out.
Casual fan.
Casual fan.
I hate to break it to you, but the Tolkien's body of work, most of it was published posthumously, and everything is like different versions of the various stories.
The Silmarillion is a cobbled together, loose canon of the various drafts by Christopher that Christian put together.
His son.
When you spend a lot of time, having to pour through, I mean, my God, the unfinished tales, the histories, the Silmarillion, it gets bogged down in your head, especially when you consider that every freaking character has three different names, some of them only mentioned once.
Do you know how hard it is?
That's because he wrote a new language.
Yes, but that's because he wrote a new language.
But the thing is, none of that has anything to do with anything.
Ultimately, the entirety of the story of the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit being the first in the series, ultimately, I consider it not even a trilogy, right?
You don't even get the proper context without the Hobbit.
And so the thing is, is like the entire thing was an indictment on the social order of communism and socialism and the uplifting of Christian ethics over all other ethical systems.
100% that was the case.
I think Tolkien would say that he hates allegory and that you're allowed to interpret his works however you like.
That would be allegorical.
He doesn't like allegory.
Yeah, but what you just said was allegorical.
What do you mean?
Well, so you're saying that you can interpret his works as being allegory, right?
I think if the author explicitly says it's not allegory and you do so anyway, I mean there's some workaround with like death of the author that you can go with that, but I think that labeling Lord of the Rings as allegorical.
He literally said he got the entire idea from his faith.
It was drawn on his faith.
I would love to see your reference.
And by the way, not only that, the Catholic Church, right?
He wrote it due to his love of languages.
That was nevertheless, he wrote a story on the basis of the language.
He wanted to create mythologies.
That's what he wanted: mythologies which would encapture Christian ethics in a way that Western nations could understand.
That's what he said himself.
And yes, I do.
I have Christopher Tolkien's footnotes.
He wrote tons of footnotes.
Yes, I am well aware.
So, all right.
Footnotes that he wrote, I assure you.
Anyway, but my point is: if I forget the name of King's Foil, forgive me.
I don't know if I can forgive you.
Like, yeah, the master's.
I think that's a good thing.
I've got to do an open prostitution track.
After California reduced enforcement laws, forgetting that it was Kingsfoil, my bad.
Okay, Alfred California reduced enforcement laws in 2022.
Sorry, we were talking a little bit.
Street solicitation increased.
You want to respond to that?
I didn't even.
I don't even know what it was about Figaro's street.
Okay, I'll put it up again.
Do you think I should watch Figaro Street?
You're an L.A., right?
Yeah. Okay.
Okay.
Lana donated $69.
Mary is scary looking.
She's not.
Who's Mary?
Is that a Tolkien Lord of the Rings?
Is that Mary?
Yeah.
Oh, the girl who works for me.
Uh-huh.
Oh, I thought it was like a character in the Lord of the Rings.
No.
Or the Hobbit or something.
I don't know.
That's a character in the Bible, Brian.
Well, yeah, but I mean, why would you say that about her?
Dane Snyder, I'm 54 years old.
My father was a 1% outlaw biker.
My stepfather was a sailor and not nearly the man Andrew is, but I was blessed to have him.
Andrew, go to your hotel room, think of what a great man you are, and forget about this shrew.
You're there, man.
She's a beach.
Dane Snyder.
Thank you, Dan Snyder.
Do not disparage the great name of Dane Snyder.
We have Airborne Animal.
Airborne Animal donated $69.
You can see how lost and unhappy Charlie is by her cold, dead doll eyes.
She lashes out to spread the poison to everyone around her.
Probably more than just words in her relationships.
Stats don't lie.
My dead doll eyes?
How long are you taking tea, by the way?
Approximately six months.
Six months.
Yeah.
And you got so muscular that you didn't know what to do with yourself.
I got really freaking buff.
It was, it was awesome.
I heard so cool.
The in like female bodybuilders, the certain organs.
The clitoris.
The gy ginort, gigantic.
He's going to ask you if you got a big click, Charlie.
That's what he's asking.
That would not be appropriate.
But that's what you were asking.
That would not be appropriate.
I don't.
I just.
Is that a compliment for like, you know, how they you know, like big dick energy?
Like big clit energy.
You know what?
To be honest, I don't think so.
It didn't actually.
It's still.
I think just if I had been born male, I would have had a micro penis.
So mine is still normal looking.
And it is, I'm sad every single day about it that I didn't get a bigger one.
It makes me so mad.
God denied me what was my due.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
No, no.
Thank you.
She's so broken inside, donated $69.
Amazing how Chuck has a 10-body count yet uses it as a pejorative against Andrew's wife.
Almost like it's a Freudian slip, knowing it's morally reprehensible to be a rainbow's.
Multiply it by three, and that's the real number.
It's always look, it's all it's always the case.
I'm sorry, I haven't had sex with more than 10 men.
I don't know what to tell you.
How many he said she said 10?
I'm gonna have to count.
I don't date women too, right?
Yeah, but they don't consider that intercourse.
That's a body.
And I would also say, what's that?
Okay.
You kind of strike me like, I feel like you have, at least with the women, I don't know about the men, like you have game, like you've smashed like probably like all kinds of hoes in Hollywood.
No, like you've just rizzed up all these no.
Oh, sorry, like Long Beach is more your none of them.
I'm like a dweeb, dude.
What do you mean?
Lesbians aren't.
Women like that?
Women like that.
They directly.
They love that.
They love that.
I'd have to count.
You have.
Yeah, yeah, you probably.
But it's not that much.
Like, I'm not.
You probably killed me.
You kill her.
Did you happen to trip and fall into the DM circle of vipers that includes Hillary?
Good question.
Have you ever had any communication with Hillary Crowder, Chuck?
No.
Would you lie?
No, I've never spoken to Hillary Crowder.
Would you like to?
I didn't even remember the name of the dude.
All I remember is that he was the no-fault divorce guy, and I was like, oh, didn't that guy abuse his wife?
I didn't realize he was a personal friend.
I thought he was a politician guy.
Steven Crowder?
You thought he was a politician?
No, no, no.
Not a politician, but like some political talking head dude that not in the circles that I run in.
You realize I thought those are people, though.
They're people.
Like, I'm here in front of you.
You know, I'm a human being.
So's Crowder.
Like, it's terrible to say those horrible things about him that just aren't true.
Shouldn't you at least say the horrible things that you think are true?
Or that you know are true?
I thought it was true.
Pasty George here.
Thank you.
Pasty George donated $70.
Pasty.
I was wondering why Charlie was a bit chunky and had a funny shape.
Too much testosterone ruins a woman's body.
Mental illness strikes again.
Well, I haven't been on T since first time was 2016.
Second time was 2021.
But I'll have you know that my waist to hip ratio is 0.71.
I'm just wearing a baggy shirt.
I don't know what to tell you, man.
Not that it matters.
Not that it would even matter if I was fat.
Okay.
Sorry.
Barrier Wisdom donated $69.
Chuckler's been roasted enough.
So I'll roast Brixon.
Brixon, you need to try harder.
You got fat, bro.
Come on a run with me tomorrow morning, 4 a.m.
No regrets.
Semplify.
Hey, I've been losing some weight.
No, no, no.
I've been losing some weight.
Looking trim.
I've looked.
I don't know about you.
Hey, I'm surprised you didn't say anything.
I've lost like 10 pounds since last time I saw you.
That is true.
You have lost a little weight.
I mean, that's true.
Thank you, Andrew.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Yeah, but Charlie, are you going to join us in our weight loss?
We should all join Weight Watchers together.
There's nothing wrong with being fat, though.
You heard Charlie.
Well, I mean, like, how would it, how would if I was fat, how would that be relevant to the I mean, it wouldn't be ultimately relevant to any debate points unless unless the debate point was around fatness, I guess.
Yeah.
Airborne animal donated $69.
You can see how lost and unhappy Charlie is by her code.
She lashes out to spread the poison to everyone around her.
Probably more than just words in her relationships.
Stats don't lie.
Airborne animal.
Thank you for the roast.
Do you have a response to him?
I'm very happy.
Okay.
I'm the happiest I've been in my entire life.
Actually.
As the sex you were born as.
Like in this moment.
Just hanging out with Brian Allison and Andrew Wilson.
Just you, Brian.
That's all I ever wanted was to hang out with you.
But you're the happiest you've ever been is the sex you were born as.
The what?
You're the happiest you've ever been is the sex you were born as.
Well, I mean, isn't that what I'm doing right now?
Are you the sex you were born as?
Yeah, am I not doing that right now?
Was the sex you were born as female?
Yes.
Oh, okay.
Well, then.
Did you think this is why it's so hard to talk about detransition stuff?
People don't get the, they don't get it.
I'm FTMTF.
I get it.
I do understand.
Pasty George donated $70.
One thing that confuses me: Charlie was for the phony COVID pre-pandemic, its lockdowns and taking away people's rights, yet is against anti-abortion laws and deportation of illegal criminals.
But that's freedom.
I don't get it either.
I don't get it.
Honestly, Pasty George is right.
Like, I don't get it.
That's okay.
You don't have to get it.
I'm sure you've argued with this about people that are much better debaters than I am, and you still hold the view that you do.
So I don't know if I'm going to change your mind on it.
I was willing to listen.
We have this Blothest.
Blothes donated $69.
Andrew, why is it that no one can ever explain to me how there can possibly be a gender pay gap?
If gender is a social construct and I'm assured it is not real, because I can identify however I feel.
Well, what they would say is they would say, well, the leftists would say, yes, but based on that social construct, there's pre-existing conditionals which then inform people's views.
And when they're informed on those views, it creates institutional biases.
And it's due to those biases that they believe that if you present as a woman and you're convincing enough that you're less capable than a man.
Literally, I'm not kidding.
That's your fucking argument.
Ask Charlie if you think I'm wrong.
That would be their argument.
On the gender pay gap?
No, that nobody could ever demonstrate it to him because gender is a social construct.
I don't think gender being a social construct really impacts the pay gap wages.
I mean, I guess in the sense that, oh, Lord have mercy.
I was warned to not discuss anything trans related or gender theory, so I think I'm actually going to say that.
Who gave you all these warnings?
Yeah, wait, who yeah, who warned you?
There's a lot of done this before.
Yeah.
But we're trying to not make sure I don't fuck up and look like an idiot.
Well, they failed at that, but who were they?
I don't want to say in case people get mad at them.
Well, I'm not going to get mad at them.
I'm just curious.
I've got to give polite advice, which was don't, you know, don't bring it to trans stuff.
You know, pick out your definitions.
Who?
People have done this before.
Yeah, who?
Come on, tell me.
I'm curious.
Pixie?
No.
Not Pixie.
No.
Who done it?
Not going to say.
Intel Wilde says Trump 2028.
What do you think?
Are you.
Would you vote Trump 2028?
Would you vote for Trump?
No.
Oh, okay.
Would you be willing to put on a MAGA hat right now?
No.
Okay, just one that asks.
No.
Jay says, R.A. Chuck doesn't seem to understand what a promiscuous person is.
Give your definition and try to apply to Rachel.
Actually, I'm curious about this myself.
Oh, Lord have mercy.
This gets into a bit of classism here on my part.
So, it feels like the, again, this is on the basis of, if we're going by optics, having children with three men, I think.
would look like to people like you are someone that sleeps around.
Even if you aren't, that is what people will see when they look at you.
Whereas a woman who is promiscuous but never has a child because of it, she is essentially getting out scotch-free.
Yeah, but do you see what you did there?
You use a word concept fallacy.
So you said, based on societal structures, because most women who have many children with multiple men are promiscuous, the construct is that the viewpoint will be that you are too.
I actually agree with that.
Rachel told you that when she was on the phone.
Of course, she agrees with that too.
Oh, sorry.
thought that was mine but the question but the word concept fallacy came in when you said but even though the optics are this way it's yeah Yeah.
Do you want a new one?
Can I get a new cup, please?
Can I get a new cup?
Am I that gross?
No, it's really nothing.
Andrew, do you remember that one time where a little bit?
I have it too.
We have so much in common.
We have don't.
Sorry.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
All right.
wait wait there's a few more coming through we have you this guy says he doesn't know you the man man drover thing Come in here in just a moment.
Is it going to, what?
There it is.
Sorry for the delay.
Mandy, I would donated $69.
I don't recall ever being in your DMs for anything.
But since you brought it up, would you hook me up with Palm B?
Anyone that wouldn't want that is blind as rainbows?
Fair enough.
I could be remembering the wrong person.
You've done that a lot tonight.
Remembered the wrong situation with the wrong people.
I mean, I'm not going to lie.
My word recall, name recall is poor.
It's getting worse, too.
Mary donated $69.
Hi, Mary here.
Lano, I don't know you.
So maybe I could be fucking scary to you.
Did you like see her in the reflection or something?
I don't know.
Wow.
Mary catching strays.
Always.
Thank you for that, Mary.
We have Blafest here.
Final call, guys.
We're going to wrap.
Blafist donated $69.
Andrew, I understand the fluid nature of gender.
For quite some time, I gained the perspective only people like me have when I lived as a man trapped in a women's body.
But then I was born.
The fact you don't think that, that's such a clever joke and you don't get it.
Would you like to explain it to me?
Yeah.
He said he was a man trapped in a woman's body until he was born.
Okay.
Pregnancy.
Got you.
I'm getting another beer.
Well, I'm leaving shortly.
Yeah, as soon as Andrew comes back, as soon as Andrew comes back, we'll wrap the show.
So guys, that's the final call for the roast.
We're wrapped in three, four, five minutes.
Oh, he's he's quick.
He's already got it.
Crack it open, Andrew.
All right, guys.
If you enjoyed the stream, like the video.
Like the video, guys, if you enjoyed the stream.
Venmo, cash app, whatever, pod.
Let me just shout out some people.
Caleb, thing for the 30 on Venmo.
Siara, thing for the 10.
Venmo, Timothy, thing for the 11 Cash App.
Twitch.tv slash whatever.
Mary, pull that up super quick.
Final call out for Twitch.
Guys, twitch.tv slash whatever.
Guys, if you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
Quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
Drop us a follow, drop us a Prime sub.
Really appreciate it, guys.
Thank you, thank you.
And shout out whatever.com if you want to merch, discord.gg slash whatever.
We post behind the scenes.
And we are going to post the video.
Charlie actually tried to sell Mary some methamphetamine or something before the show.
So we're going to be posting that.
Just kidding.
She didn't do that.
She doesn't deal in methamphetamine.
All right.
Debate University, no drugs.
DebateUniversity.com if you want to learn how to become a master and come to debate con 15th and 16th.
15th, 16th.
Where is that?
Where is it?
Nashville, Tennessee.
Nashville.
You can go to Modern Day Debate to get your tickets.
Gonna be a great time.
Having a huge party Saturday night.
Hope to see all of you there.
Rock and roll, guys.
Okay, we have Chaw here.
Who gets the final word from the roasters?
Who's gonna get the final word?
It looks like we have three coming in.
Chaw XD donated $69.
It's kind of funny in an ironic way, Andrew, that just days ago.
Hey I know a real red pilling was the same personal attack against you to make almost the same argument Charlie did.
Yes, he is a progressive.
I remember I called that guy a male feminist.
It was the same exact shit.
Ironic to me that she says I'm a red pillar when a red pillar was just attacking me with the same fucking argument you were.
It's like the ultimate in irony.
Thank you, Chaw, for that.
We have.
I can't fix her, donated $69.
Let's be honest, brothers, you all would still hit cheese high key bad for real, for real on God.
Also, Chuck, collab with Sneeko.
What?
Do you want to respond?
Okay, well.
What do you say to that?
Huh?
You're going to collab with Sneeko?
No.
He's pretty, like, he's a super nice guy to hang out with in person.
Honestly, like, I've hung out with the guy.
I've gone shooting with him and stuff.
And he was a super nice guy.
It's more like I try not to attract attention from the wrong kinds of crowds, which is the opposite.
But he just swore off Red Pill.
He just said Red Pill was dead.
Okay.
I feel like a lot of people who make streaming their entire life and that's all that they do are kind of scary.
Aren't you a full-time Twitch streamer?
Yes, but I make sure that I have a rich life outside of Twitch streaming.
But not Sneek.
There's no way Sneeko could ever get to that.
But like if you're streaming like eight hours a day every day, you know what I mean?
He doesn't do that.
Okay, my bad.
All right.
We have, look, this might be Paced George.
Michael final word.
George donated $70.
Charlie, I am annoyed by you and disagree with your views, but at least you dress decently and do not look like a hook.
So I'll give you that.
Depends on which stream of hers you're watching.
Did you do that intentionally?
Like, I'm coming on the whatever podcast, so you're going to dress more modestly.
Whenever I do debates, I try to dress more modestly just because I feel like the attention should be on the debate and not my body.
I mean, you could have just done like a Lord of the Rings cosplay or something.
I could have, but I also just really like dressing in a way that's comfortable for me.
Okay, fair enough.
Because I dress the way I do on my stream.
That's not my day-to-day life, how I dress.
Good times.
Good times.
All right.
Well, we got Intel Wild here.
Intel Will donated $69.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Chuck is an ugly, disgusting, soulless, blue-head, woke-kuma gremlin.
Oh, wow.
I think Intel Wild might be colorblind.
Your hair is brown.
That is.
Oh Roros donated $69.
Hypocrite trying to unicorn shame a woman who has only been with men she has married.
How anti-women and then you hate men and wanted to be one.
You need help.
Maybe it was just all the years I spent trying to be a man that made me such a vile misogynist.
Well, usually the usually it's the opposite.
Like usually when women LARP as men, they end up becoming much more or much closer to the MRAs and men's rights advocacy groups when they actually have to live like one.
At least that's the experience of the reporters who go in.
I mean, yes, that is, I mean, we could have had a very long conversation about that because I do have feelings on my lived experience with that.
Well, I don't know what it taught you.
Did you fully transition?
Like, I don't have a penis.
No, I mean, like social transition.
So like, did you dress up as a man?
And at work, I went by he, him, in college at home.
Did you experience?
Do you feel you have more privilege as a woman?
I will say that it feels men are less inclined to want to like beat me up now, which is nice.
And I have discovered that sometimes men will purchase you beverages, which was not something I was previously enjoyed.
However, it could be because Twitch streaming was kind of how I started presenting as a woman.
So to me in my brain, it is tied up with like objectification and feelings of discomfort versus feelings of safety.
So it depends.
You get free things sometimes as a lady, less so as a man.
Dana Snyder donated $69.
Thank you, Dan.
I wish I'd have had a stepfather like Andrew to mentor me into manhood.
After tonight, you can't make me turn on you.
Your display of manhood here has been perfect.
I'm your friend now, no matter what.
I just want to say the accusations that my audience is like a bunch of incels or whatever.
You see this fucking Giga Chad, Isaac Vanderbilt?
This guy's a fucking red-haired fucking god.
And I bet he just, he just got done.
Like he literally, he just got done having sex with a woman.
And then he's like, wanted to take a photo.
Become a member.
I'm sorry, bro.
Become a member of the whatever podcast.
I didn't want you to catch a stray.
I apologize.
I was very offended.
I could tell.
I was really offended.
I'm really sorry.
My blood was boiling here.
I know.
I know.
I could see.
I believe we're all that's.
Let me just, I want to be fair.
Well, I don't want to screw anybody over.
Okay, so I'll give my outro.
Guys, in terms of our stream schedule here, Andrew is here.
I just got to let them know the schedule.
Andrew is here.
Such a green, bro.
It's so bad.
Andrew is here tomorrow, Sunday.
Dating talk.
Fingers crossed, you know, there's issues with flights and travel and stuff.
We have some, we've got Amaranth tomorrow.
We have a female bodybuilder, more testosterone than Charlie took, let me tell you.
We have some other interesting guests for the dating talk panel tomorrow.
It's going to be a very good day.
It might be the biggest dating talk panel of the year.
Monday, round two with Naima?
Neima?
How do you say Naima?
I'm not round two with her.
That's going to be a fantastic debate.
So be sure to tune in for that.
All right, these came through, so I gotta.
Blafist donated $69.
Brixon, do you know the main difference between Christianity and Judaism?
I think it is that Jesus saves, but Moses invests.
Okay.
All right.
I didn't know that, but thank you.
Shut it down.
Shut it down.
Thank you, Blafest.
And then we have Dane Snyder.
Love Dane.
Is he going to get the he might get the final word?
Dana Snyder donated $69.
Andrew, after tonight, you can't get rid of me.
I raised all five of my kids.
If I hadn't, you'd be my choice to raise all four of my sons and my daughter.
I don't know if that's helpful or not.
But I, Dane, it's nice always to see you.
I think that was a nice sentiment, but it comes across a little what?
Well, don't worry.
One day.
You know.
Like one day when you have children of your own, you'll think, what happens if I expire?
That's what you'll think.
It'll happen.
and hopefully you set up a will for if you do andrew if like some 15 year old who caught a crypto pump and he's got like 50 million dollars if if he tried to he wanted you to be his dad for like three years and he was like i'll give you 10 mil would you know No.
20 mil?
No.
All of the crypt.
Okay.
No.
Okay.
Sorry, anybody in the chat.
Okay.
That's some maladjusted shit.
Yeah.
I wouldn't do that either.
I donated $69.
The point was how you don't see the irony of trying to shame Rachel by saying baby daddy in a degrading tone when you have a 20 years old slept with 20 times the amount of people hypocrite anti-women.
20 times?
That is certainly not the amount of people I've slept with.
Let me be clear.
I haven't stated the amount of people I've slept with.
What is the amount of people you slept with?
I would literally have to count, and I would give me an estimate.
Multiply it by three, and that's the real number.
What's the actual estimate of the torque?
Do you want me to count women and men?
Yes.
Even when I'm using the strap?
Yeah.
Yes.
Strap.
If you're fucking men up the ass, yes.
Are you, like, talented?
I'm.
I'm tallying.
Yeah, let her tally.
I'm thinking it is my brain right now.
Oops.
Just like a rough estimate.
She is tallying there.
Here, I'll move that so you guys can see.
Probably still can't see, but...
Let's see.
Intel Will donated $69.
Her eyes tell it all.
She's dead inside.
Soulless.
Feel sorry for her.
Frowning face emoji.
Face with diagonal mouth emoji.
Well, if you feel sorry for me, if you go to my Twitch page, there's a donate button which you can send money.
You can send me money on the internet if you feel really good.
What's the tally?
I lost.
Looks like 12.
We're over 12 right now, but I have to think back.
Do you have a, should I ask?
What?
Do you prefer Innies or Audis on the woman?
Like, I only date women with Audis, large labia.
Are you joking?
Are you joking or are you trying to bro out right now?
what's going on like what is the you are my bro don't you You don't believe in BLM, huh?
You are BLL.
No, I am.
I'm B.
I am BLM.
You are BLM, right?
Yes, I am.
BLM.
Hashtag BLM.
I am.
We are broing out Charlie Brown.
Okay.
Charlie Brown.
Okay.
What about estimate?
A fair estimate is about 15.
Rachel Wilson says I'm no longer insulted that this person hates me.
I'd be worried if she didn't.
Yeah.
Would you like to take a moment to apologize to the evil things you said to Rachel?
Look deep into that camera.
Look, no, not the TV.
Look, that camera right there.
Look deep into that camera and give a heartfelt apology.
I can't.
Makes sense.
Wow.
I would feel like a pussy if I went back on it because I said it with my chest.
So I'm very sorry about the abuse that you suffered, and I do apologize for bringing any that up.
Any traumatic memories, perhaps.
He didn't seem to care at the time.
Blafist donated $69.
$10 million to raise a child.
It only costs $3 a week to feed, clothe, and educate a child in Africa.
It really makes you think, especially considering how much it costs to send them there.
Blahfest, thank you very much for the roast there.
It's not funny, Blaffest.
All right, guys, like the video if you enjoyed the stream.
I want to say GG to both of you.
Guys, last call, hit the like button, please, on your way out.
Also, please leave a nice comment once the live ends.
It helps with the algorithm.
I read them and it's just a nice little way to top off the stream.
Thank you, everyone, for tuning in tonight.
You could have been anywhere in the world, but you were here with us.
We appreciate that.
Thank you to everyone who super chats donates and supports the show.
We are going to be live again tomorrow, Sunday, 5 p.m. Pacific, dating talk with Andrew Wilson.
And then Monday, approximately 3 p.m. Pacific for a debate.
And here, Pasty George, thank you for the soup chat, man.
Appreciate it, appreciate it.
Thank you, Pasty George.
Thank you, thank you.
Let me just make sure I'm not screwing anyone over.
Nope.
We look good.
Let me just double check.
All right, we're all good.
Any final thoughts from you guys?
Or are we good to wrap?
Good to wrap.
Charlie, good?
I want to say that when we started talking about Tolkien, I almost apologized for saying that.
I don't care.
Shut up, bitch.
Go ahead.
Go ahead and wrap it.
Go ahead and wrap it.
Then you were wrong about Tolkien.
All right, guys.
No apologies.
Let's see.
Did we read the one, do the one about the dead eyes?
We got it.
Did that one come in just a little bit?
We could do that maybe like a third time.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
All right, guys.
07's in the chat.
Thank you guys for tuning in tonight.
We will see you tomorrow, 5 p.m. Pacific.
Thank you, Charlie.
Thank you, Andrew.
▲
Export Selection