Joe Rogan’s Double Standard For Sam Seder EXPLAINED


>>This week, there’s been this huge brouhaha
between Carlos Maza of Vox and Steven Crowder who is a professional victim and a one trick
pony. And he’s only claim to fame is trying to harass
people to the point that they finally take action and try to get YouTube to deplatform
him. And then of course, once they tried to deplatform
him, he pretends as if his free speech rights are being violated, and that he’s really this
great guy and he’s just a comedian. He’s not funny, he’s not talented, again,
he’s a one trick pony. We all know this, we covered the story this
week. Now there is a development. Recently, David Pakman, who’s a progressive
and a friend of the show, went on Joe Rogan’s podcast and this topic came up. And they brought up or I should say, Rogan
brought up the harassment toward Dave Rubin, take a look.>>Is that different in you opinion than someone
signaling something out for what you believe is their mental incompetency?>>Well, mental incompetent, do you mean that
they’re ignorant?>>You’re mocking me.>>Or that they’re mentally ill or cognitively
limited?>>Mocking, no just cognitively limited. Mocking their ability to think. Mocking their intelligence, mocking their
decisions, mocking the way they talk. And then encouraging other people to do the
same thing, and then that person gets harassed, based on their intelligence, based on their
performance on particular YouTube videos and conversations. And there’s an active harassers, there’s people
that do that. Is there a difference between say, what Sam
Seder does to Dave Rubin?>>What did Sam do to Dave Rubin?>>He has-
>>I don’t know that I’ve seen that video.>>Dozens of videos, don’t say that video. He has dozens of videos where he’s just dunking
on Dave Rubin.>>So I will say that Sam Seder and Michael
Brooks do have dozens of videos where they dunk on Dave Rubin. Dave Rubin does not have any type of mental
health condition.>>Yeah.>>Right? Dave Rubin is a perfectly healthy human, who
has decided to be a grifter. So the dunking is about the fact that Dave
Rubin is a grifter. It’s not about the fact that he’s gay. It’s not about the way he looks. It’s not any of that. It’s about his incredibly lazy grifting, because
he doesn’t even do the leg work to educate himself on the talking points necessary to
be a grifter.>>Right, you’re asking is there a difference
between going after people based on who they are verses what they do?>>Right.>>And the answer is yes.>>You just described it.>>That’s the difference.>>Right.>>Dave Rubin whom I used to know, somebody
that I used to know, he is all what he’s chosen to do importantly. And what anyone in the same cedar, Michael
Brooks vote videos what they point out is the failings of Dave Rubin to articulate the
thought process necessary to believe what he believes and he doesn’t do it. He doesn’t understand any of these things
because he’s grifting them. He didn’t sit down and think and go, you know
what, I’ve come to a giant epiphany.>>Right.>>He’s doing a paint by numbers and he can’t
even do that.>>Yeah, you’re exactly right and yes, the
dunking happens, but the whole point of what Sam Seder and Michael Brooks do is to make
sure that they basically debunk the nonsense that they’re hearing from Dave Rubin’s show. Because Dave Rubin keeps trying to present
himself as a so called classical liberal even though there’s that notorious Reddit ask me
anything, where he couldn’t even define or explain what classical liberal means. So we bowed of it pretty early. And so it’s important for people to know like,
is the information I’m getting from this person actual information? Is this person an honest actor? And the whole point of what Sam Seder does
is to make sure that people know. This is not an honest actor. He’s not even genuine in anything he’s saying. He’s not even saying anything really, when
you listen to him.>>Remember earlier, we were talking about
like count your blessings? So these are like major, these tech companies,
but hey, it’s a company, a corporation that doesn’t want homophobia on their platform. So everyone else left, consider yourself lucky
that they allowed dumb people.>>It’s like count your blessings.>>But they do, so YouTube had this weird
thing that I don’t even fully understand yet, but essentially they said, if your primary,
they let Crowder stay up for a while. They reached out to Maza and they said, hey
we’re looking into this after Maza posted just a run of homophobic slurs and just the
word gay used. But specifically the word queer, and that
is a slur. The reason that the name of academic branches
of different universities are called Queer studies is it’s a way to reclaim a word that
was used pejoratively in the past.>>Right.>>And so there is a difference there.>>Of course.>>Crowder is using the pejorative. He is using the slur, it just hasn’t reached
that level where people don’t say it. It hasn’t reached a level like the N word
where people don’t even say it.>>Right, right.>>But Crowder is using it that way, that
shirt he’s wearing right now says, socialism is for F words. And it’s got Che Guevara with a hands doing
this and you can’t see it but he sells that on his website which he promotes through YouTube. YouTube let him keep that stuff up there,
they’re like we’re not taking it down cuz his primary reason for doing it, was debate
even though ancillary to that were the slurs. And then they turned around and demonetized
Crowder, which I don’t know how Dave Rubin defines classic liberalism or capitalism whatever. But this is like a purely capitalistic approach
where YouTube saying, well, you can have your free speech, we’re just not gonna pay you
for it.>>That’s right.>>And that’s all Dave Rubin’s in it for anyway.>>That’s right.>>That’s what Crowder’s in it for, and that’s
what Rubin’s in it for.>>So let’s go to the next video, cuz there’s
more to this story.>>So I have some as well, I believe that
they are substantive, my videos about Dave Rubin are substantive. To your first question, there is a difference
between going after someone for sexual orientation.>>Right.>>Than going after them for the fact that
they say things that are wrong or don’t know stuff, until you’re making fun of someone
who has an actual handicap of some kind. Some kind of cognitive limitation that would
be a disability of some kind, then you are mocking someone for a disability.>>But the resulting effect of the harassment. See this is what I was getting at before with
Crowder. What Crowder said was one thing, but one of
the things that Carlos Maza was just discussing, was what the people that had watched Crowder,
what they were doing, how they were going after him.>>Which if you look at Maza’s complain, that’s
not what he was complaining about. He’s like I’m not mad about that, I got pretty
think skin when it comes to this stuff.>>Who’s even complaining about Crowder?>>He’s saying like there are a lot of people,
the doxing is against policy. And if anyone doxes Dave Rubin or if anyone
doxes anybody, there should be consequences to that. It’s just frustrating to see all of these
because what Rogan’s trying to do is say what about if people are mad at Dave Rubin and
people are mad at Steven Crowder, isn’t that the same thing?>>And it’s not.>>And that’s not even remotely the point
Maza’s mad that Youtube has Rainbow flags on their logo during pride. And they have all these messages in their
terms of service saying, you can’t use homophobic slurs. And everyone just look at three comments down
in the Twitter thread or whatever. And it will be people saying, here is a screen
cap of the terms of service, and here’s how it’s violated. Maza was upset that YouTube didn’t live up
to YouTube’s own standards.>>Right, and there are by the way, we’re
on YouTube obviously, YouTube is a great platform for people who wanna do independent content. But at the same time I think part of problem
and I mention this in the original video, is that they don’t apply their guidelines
or they don’t enforce their guidelines, I think equally. And it seems like they’re doing it kind of
here and there, they’re applying it when some situations, are not applying it with other
situations. So they have to be clear, it needs to be applied
consistently. There’s a lack of consistency, and I think
that that’s also leading to a lot of frustration and anger, but I agree with both of you. I mean, to compare dunking on Dave Rubin to
what Carlos Maza went through is ridiculous. And by the way, I wanna give you a specific
example of what the dunking looks like when it comes to Dave Rubin. Again, Dave Rubin is a professional grifter
and one of the things that he did was he agreed to participate in a pro Bolsonaro propaganda
video on YouTube, right? So he does that, and then a few days later,
a week later, some time later, one of his own viewers asks him about Jair Bolsonaro
who is now, unfortunately, the elected leader of Brazil. And so he’s reading the question and he’s
like Jair Bolsonaro, and yeah, he got dunk on for that, because you’re just in a propaganda
video for him, homeboy. How do you not know who he is? You’re calling him out for the grifting. It’s not about what he looks like or the fact
that he’s gay. It’s about what he does for a living, how
dishonest he is, and also more importantly, how he won’t even do the legwork necessary
to be a good grifter.>>Right, that’s what so frustrating, it’s
like, just read up on your BS, dude, just know your BS better.>>Right, this conversation is frustrating
for me cuz its nothing. It’s a nothing burger, no, not us.>>None of these people are that stupid. I may have to take him out of that box, that
was fascinating, the Bolsonaro situation. But separate from that, I don’t think any
of these people are that stupid. They’re hateful, and but why? When someone says, hey, you know what, that’s
a little too far, that’s it. Joe Rogan, he doesn’t think that this hate
and calling someone out for doing something stupid are the same thing. He doesn’t care because he likes it, he likes
his platform, he likes what he talks. I don’t think any of these people are that
stupid.>>Yeah.>>Yeah, we’ll see I don’t know.>>We’ll see.>>And with Rogan, he does a lot of like talking
and asking and playing Devil’s advocate sometimes. But in this, I couldn’t help but get the feeling
and he was like, I’ve got you, both of these things are the same, isn’t it?>>It felt real?>>And it felt real.>>It did feel real, yeah.>>But what’s frustrating from our point of
view, is that since we’re engaging this. Since the Sam Seders and Michael Brooks and
us, when we engage this kind of stuff, we’re just trying to say, there’s ignorance out
there that they’re spreading out there, falsely and without integrity. And we have integrity, so we’re going to tell
people about it.>>But from YouTube’s point of view, now we’re
in a back and forth in the same category. And when they come to demonetize stuff, they’re
AI isn’t quite there yet. And they’re just like, we might just get rid
of all of that.>>Right, and that’s part of the issue. I mean, they rely on the algorithms to do
this, and it’s not a foolproof method, as we know, which is why they don’t apply the
standards consistently. One final thing, look, obviously, we do a
little bit of dunking on Dave Rubin as well. But I also wanna note that it took years for
us to finally respond. Dave Rubin when on Rogan’s show, and lied
about us, lied about what we do, right? He’s the one who’s been badmouthing us for
years, and it literally took at least two years for me to finally feel like, okay, I
can’t take it anymore, I need to respond.>>And to be fair, Rogan’s the one who is
like, so let me ask you some questions about your own BS. And Dave Rubin flails, so I mean it’s not
like a solely a Rogan thing, but you know when Dave Rubin gets in there, it gets very
frustrating

There Are Only 2 Genders | Change My Mind



so if you were to intentionally misgender a transwoman thank you thank you for putting on this fourth installment of real conversation change my mind for those who haven't seen the series this is just a a series here where we set up shop real pick a controversial topic and allow people to change my mind sit down unedited you get to see what happens when a real conversation transpires not set up to be a debate just a conversation we sit up at a campus today is there only two genders change my mind you will see three different people a full hour of change my mind today from in chronological order and I wanted you to see specifically three different approaches three different TACT's from the people we're trying to change my mind regardless of the fact that we didn't change ours so it's important to see that sometimes it doesn't matter what you do it is matter how you treat people they are coming in I guess we can say cocked and loaded and after the video you can stick around to see where you can buy the change my mind shirts and become a part of the change of mine army it's also magical London I've never fallen the car arrived at Fresno someday a blender to say Thomas Steven nice to meet you okay so um you know this is just a series we do or let people know my point of view there are two genders go ahead and change my mind it's the opposite of cable news we're not gonna edit anything out of context you said you disagreed I'm open to new ideas well I'm I'm wondering I'm wondering the phrasing of the question are you arguing that there's not more than like I mean a woman are you arguing there's not a difference between sex and gender or yeah I think I think they're two genders male and female okay so you're you're saying that male and female is a gender not a sex yes okay so okay and see that's that's where I would have to disagree okay um that male and male and female is something that would be by birth for example you probably have a penis of male sex organs as what I but why would you assume that do you but you assumed it though okay I did I apologize no he wasn't yeah I'm not trying to do any got jabs yeah it's interesting to me that you assume that I have a penis why because you seem I don't know because of us is it because of societal construct yes that's why yes wasn't because of my bone structure or my penis Bossier well that male and female is different than being a man or a woman okay in fact that we have as a society created man man and the male gender roles and just says women gender roles just as we would anything else the same way that we would say that I don't know that music is good or we have correct we have created it to place people into walls and so I'm saying that if you were male or female if you identified more as a man and the gender roles that go with being a man mm-hm that you have that so you're saying so you're saying that that sex and gender are very different yes okay I understood that's your premise so that's based on on kind of modern gender theory when did that start I I wouldn't know okay so why let me ask you this before I guess before we get to the history why do you accept that premise because it makes it makes the most sense to me and make the argument that we've created roles such as being being feminine and we have associated with being female as opposed to being female is being feminine yeah sure you understand that there are inconsistencies there for example with your presumption of my you know my penis but let me ask you this then how many genders are there I would say if we're we would say that there are two genders being men a man and woman and that there would be people that don't accept either of those and that would be in a X or non-identifying category what's what's the number how many genders are there I would I couldn't tell you isn't that important I mean they were that the point is that before you know 1948 with Simone de Beauvoir and then Judith Butler with modern sort of post-modernism feminism Theory gender and sex were effectively interchangeable you can even look on legal documentation depending on the permit they are legally interchangeable I mean this is the way it's been with societies for millennia we've had male and female so when you radically change that you do have to have a number in my opinion and some kind of an endgame it can't just be what we're going to shift the rules based on how people feel so I can understand if someone says hey you're wrong that there's different sex and gender but the burden of proof at that point would be on the person asserting that they're different to tell me how genders there are because we the society right have to know this we have to function within certain parameters and and I would say that those those parameters for gender would be whatever that person wants those parameters be if they identify as a man or a woman or they don't identify that would be their prerogative in that it's not my place or your place to tell them that they have to identify with being a man even if they are male or they have to identify as a woman even if they are female but we but we do that all the time people want to be things that they aren't and we say that's not the case you know this is we constantly do that as a society so I don't understand why it's my name is Lauren Chapman I work at SMU student activities yes we manage the outer events request process mm-hmm it's College Republicans actually and you can speak with Darren rubber deyrnas he spoke with drew and we have a permission so thank you very much so sorry I'd like to continue on that thought where were we sorry I forgot you were talking about we have we do it all it's we do it all the time so why is it a problem to do it if someone we know biologically is a male or a female and that can never be changed it can never be changed biologically but someone chooses to say that they're not that's a very that's a very modern idea and the question is why do we now have to subscribe to that and then it gets them the idea of compulsion of language compelling language you know gender pronouns what's allowed what's hate speech right it's it's a fundamental retransfer Meishan of society based on from what i'm hearing from you and listen mistaken abstracts I haven't heard a number I haven't heard what defines male or female only how people feel and I just that's to me that's not very convincing or conducive toward a productive society and I would and I would argue that reason we're talking about like like you said when I assumed that you had a penis when I have no idea if you have a penis or not and saying that people I got a nice big penis there okay and so that people when people subscribe to being you you would say you see somebody that you would presume to be male and you asked and you would assume that they are what identify as being a man sure as you did yeah yes and and so if but if you had told me that you were that you were in fact don't identify as being a man that you identify as being a woman I would believe that would be wrong of me to try and subscribe you to being a man when you say you identifies woman what if I told you that I believe I am a bobcat good for you man what would you accept that would it be wrong if you do not accept it yes really okay well listen I appreciate your intellectual consistency why would it be wrong of you to not accept my identification as a bobcat because if you I did if you identify as a bobcat man go for it great for you I hope you're the best bobcat on the fucking earth I think you're a nice guy I hope things have been productive and you I believe this has been civil but you do see obviously this is very this is a very emotive argument that you're making right you're making an argument for very emotional place and I think it's because of compassion it's because you're a good person but and I appreciate your intellectual consistency but the ramifications of saying that we have to acknowledge somebody legally who identifies as a bobcat you understand would be insurmountable the ramifications would be all sorts of new legal identifications that would be required which don't currently exist why the converse say I would love it if you want to sit down afterward and I would love to sit down and have continued this conversation I will are you Thank You Thomas are you done yeah I appreciate it Thomas thank you Madison I'm co-president of spectrum the LGBT organization on campus great love to talk to you about this sweet Thank You Madison my name is Steven okay I appreciate it you sitting down and what is it that you disagree with I think you happen to be you're confused on the idea of gender versus sex I'm confused okay yeah okay so when we say there are only two genders we often confuse the idea of gender and sex shorts is a generalization of X Y chromosomes so we assume that our you know X Y xx you know combination of chromosomes um so we assumed that you know male-female comes from your chromosomes right but that's really just the idea that there's only two possibilities of sex right so even within sex itself you know you can be born intersex okay means that you're born with sexual characteristics of both what we would consider male and female and then you have gender and gender is more about a mental state based off of societal norms so within our Western society we often discuss gender as being binary meaning that there's two options sure so boy girl man woman however in other societies non-western societies there are more than two options okay I thought can I can I ask you a couple questions there to unpack appreciate you taking the time by the way so what was here your name Madison Madison Madison so let's go to the sex concept before gender I think because the idea of gender being different from sex is predicated on the other the idea that sex is binary that's where you mentioned that term of gender binary so you mentioned intersex okay I'm aware of intersex and of course intersex doesn't necessarily mean that someone is completely between sexes usually they have very identifiable characteristics like a very large clitoris or micro penis in that case it also affects point zero eight people think it's as funny it's just true less than point zero eight percent population but they still exist let me ask you this in human anatomy class how many fingers are you talking beings have we're told typically that people have ten however there are people born with eleven but you're taught 10 right yeah so we don't teach people there are people born with 11 fingers they're people born with 12 fingers yeah but we don't completely dismiss that those people exist just because that they're uncommon do we we teach that human beings have ten fingers I would wager that everyone here has been taught yet human beings have ten figures of course there are anomalies that's the same way that we treat intersex or these as you said you mentioned chromosomes genetic abnormalities that are very extreme case so I think what we need to do is remove this extreme case with sex just as we would with how many fingers toes how many kidneys you have how many feet you have there is something that's typical there's something that's atypical then you go to gender this is were listen I'm open everyone has said sex is different from gender and gender is not non-binary so I would like allow you to kind of unpack that for me yeah so in Western society at least so in our country in our society we tend to think of gender to be on this binary spectrum okay you don't well not even really a spectrum just a binary so you have man woman and that's it those are the only two options however agenda really is more of a spectrum so it's non-binary there are not just two options okay you have man woman and then everything that doesn't fit into just man and woman is considered non-binary that's an umbrella term and that includes a lot of different categorization so how many genders are there I can't you can't put a number on the number of genders because everyone uses different words to classify themselves I would disagree I'm not that's worth change mama I'm not convinced that anyone can just use any classification for themselves for their gender and certainly not that then we have to compel society to address them this way right I'm sure you can understand it that the compelling of language is an issue so what gender do you think you are well I'm a male okay well I think maybe I think you're a woman no legally I'm a male oh it says on my driver's license that I'm a male okay so that's your sex no it said yeah it says on my carrying certificate that I'm a male gender some legal documentation say gender what if I say I don't believe you it doesn't matter exactly it doesn't matter if you don't believe me no it doesn't matter because biologic I am I would assume you're female yeah see you're making assumptions yes I identify as non-binary yeah I don't respect flee it it doesn't matter it does matter now let me ask you this what would you say is what pronouns are used for me it matters how I'm socialized in society it matters my gender expression it matters the way that I'm allowed to express myself and matters what bathroom I use it matters who I'm allowed to live with it affects every aspect of my lifes are you saying what pronoun should I use you should use they/them pronouns so you're saying what if I don't what if I don't if you don't I would consider that disrespectful and that's actually not do violence to misgender area it's an act of violence that is an act of violence to intentionally misgender someone here we come to the issue and this is why I'm out here you just said that's an act of violence that mean it's an actionable offense that means it's a crime so you believe it for me it's a crime I said it's an act of an act of violence things that are not considered crimes are acts of violence okay so you believe it's a non-aggressive act of violence I think that okay when you misgender someone if you were to misgender a trans woman yes trans women especially trans women of color are the most or have the highest rate of murder with an LGBTQ community right so if you were to intentionally misgender a trans woman that could put her at risk of murder you understand that because people think because I don't I don't understand I'm sorry I don't show that you're privileged in the situation then yes I believe we're both I think you're extremely privileged in the situation that you don't have to experience that or that you don't have to worry about that or consider that that you don't feel like you need to respect people's program I'm considering this I'm asking you questions you said these are the pronouns I need to use I said what if I don't you so that's an act of violence okay so that's an act of violence against you as a crime I would consider that disrespecting me as a person and that's not okay and that's not even ethical it doesn't matter if it's legal it's not ethical and I don't know how you can do something that's considered unethical I don't know how you can not allow me to speak and ask questions based on your own premises please this is we're trying to keep the civil I haven't yelled at you I haven't accused you of anything you're getting very heated you said that's an act of violence that's a crime okay I didn't say that was a crime you can act a lot you should have been an act of violence against you as a crime so do not say that you said it is an act of violence aggression it's an act of violence and I said misgendering and yes you said it was an act of violence against that person that is in fact a crime so here's my question since we've now decided we don't know the number of genders it's a spectrum it exists there is no set number you've asserted the premise that we are required to use the pronouns that are preferred by the individual we have no idea how many pronouns there are we can never know how many pronouns there are and to not use a proper pronoun to violence against him did you ask my pronouns before you sat down no I didn't ask your pronouns I haven't referred to you with pronouns you didn't ask my friend on cell you just said you can ask yeah you can't ask what are your pronouns but you didn't ask what are your pronouns you just talked about me being privileged interests and no one goes around asking pronouns before they speak with people I also to ask of a restructuring of society I did ask you based on a number that's not tangible with gender versus sex is something that is incredibly gross no I don't believe so yes I did I did actually you said you identify as male and that would after the conversation okay well let's say that sure so we need to ask pronouns before people and if we don't use those pronouns yeah how many pronouns are there there it's the same kind of thing there aren't so people can see the sign would it be okay if you just step aside for a second thank you very much there's no limited number of pronouns no difficult ones are she/her/hers him his hurt his treat him he him his and they them there's those are the typical number of pronouns we usually use three okay so I'm I just wanna again the goal is here to change my I'm open to new ideas yeah there's no set yeah different kind of space around us I think I don't know ones no one's being accosted here we're having a conversation sure I appreciate but it's but it's not though it actually it's a conversation between two willing participants right now I'm not I don't consent so yes when one is invited and we've gotten the proper permissions and I said sure it's an open campus you can do whatever you want you can protest but it doesn't mean that we're I'm going to be engaging in conversation with the crowd no that's not incorrect but I would have but I would love to continue my conversation here so when we talk about gender and sex right this is a very new idea you said in Western society new idea really no it's a when did when did gender theory start when did gender and sex become separate well they're actually it's not necessarily the idea of gender theory it's the idea that there have been different genders outside a man woman for centuries okay how so yeah you know their gender Native American cultures they have their genders ancient Egypt they had their genders okay you know so that's a it's a very Western idea to say that there are only two genders and that this whole thing is a new idea changing well you know what else is a very Western idea so it seems to me your preset position there correct me if I'm wrong is that because other cultures have done this there's a precedent yeah I don't think that we hermetically sealed in any way so you do realize um talk about how very different was from Western culture so antithetical to Western culture you named in the ancient Egypt you know what else we also believe in it's antithetical those cultures were against slavery I'm really confused as to why you brought slavery let me I would love to bring it up my point is because your premise is because it's found in other societies therefore it's okay or it is to be good my point is there are plenty of other practices well I'm trying to get to why I believe it's harmful and you're explaining why you don't but the point is if something was practiced in another society and it was harmful in another society and we agree that it's harmful for example we both agree that slavery was harmful we both agree that maybe cannibalism is harmful you can find these practices in societies my point is it's not a valid argument to simply say it's been found in other societies if that practice is harmful so it comes down to the idea of is it productive or harmful for us to separate the idea of sex and gender other societies have done harmful things I think I can agree that doesn't necessarily mean that it's okay I think respecting someone's identity makes that harmful I don't understand I think I don't agree with you comparing gender identity to cannibalism or slavery that seems pretty offensive I know I've seen do you think a lot of what I've said is offensive you've been set up here from the get-go for it to be offensive and I'm not trying to offend let me react splain what it is take any practice okay take the practice of neck stretching for example which is not harmful okay it is harmful actually okay well some people don't think it's harmful they don't think it's harmful many societies take any practice that's relatively benign that we believe to be harmful that they don't believe to be harmful the point is just because another Society at one point is practiced it doesn't make it correct can we agree on that I I'm sorry I just I think you're making really false comparisons no we agree can we agree because listen there are also many societies the other way right who've only ever recognized two genders exist that's most so you're implying that those societies were wrong I'm I'm implying that they have their other societal standards rights idol standards are based off of a lot of things it's very intersectional what we decide to accept in society so if you're going to say well because your society can be wrong chemo say mark yes he can be regressive he was wrong about gay marriage you know I don't think people are wrong saying that you know gay marriage being gay is unnatural and Bing gay is a crime in society being wrong but sure we adapt to modern times and I think that we need what you just compared us to ancient Egypt in India as though that was a valid argument for committing is still going on sure in other countries this is stupid you just said it's not fair to use other societal comparisons no no I'm I'm trying to get to the premise of the argument premise of your argument here okay this is very respectful as possible Yuka said this has been practiced in other societies for a long time yeah my point is that's not an argument because there have been horrible things may be benign things may be semi harmful things in other societies we would both agree on that so it's not a valid re very slavery but no one is arguing to bring flavor exactly so why are you why are they aren't of course it still exists in other countries in the Middle East in some countries that you've mentioned I said I just I don't think you're making a fair comparison just going on a tangent in order to my point is it's not it's not an argument it is an argument I think it's an argument okay so I will use your Western standards are not necessarily the pinnacle of what we should be doing it Western societal standards do not mean that we all need to be following the same thing because we're not all Western and we don't all follow those beliefs so if a Native American to do if it's the law we all have to follow the law yeah okay so yeah the law is different I think the law is different than a societal a societal standard so legally how is how is the law different it is the societal standard legally legally yeah yeah yeah let's stay within those parameters okay sure so in other there's other countries that are considered Western that would recognize that their gender sure yeah yeah I know that mm-hmm okay so why not if so how many genders are there comes back to if we're going to do if we're going to change this so we are sitting here talking about gender so if I were so this is a modern theory in the United States right sex and gender were interchangeable I'm gonna finish one sounds here okay I would appreciate that you've been very privileged and speaking over me I'm not convinced right the job here is for you to sit down and change my mind I think that's very productive for you to do with other people on campus I don't think this is a way to change somebody's mind I don't think you want your I well instead of instead of assuming that how about actively trying to change it so my point is you've mentioned that it's non-binary but you haven't given me a number of genders and how we restructure Society you've merely pointed out that it's an act of violence to use an improper pronoun see I think that would have you just talk about a societal standard if the societal standard is using the wrong pronoun is an act of violence against somebody I think that's an incredibly dangerous societal standard and it's one that nobody can uphold consistently we not agree right I said I mean intentionally using the wrong I mean when you know someone's pronouns you intentionally use the wrong pronouns because you don't agree with them or you don't recognize their identity to be real thoughts and active violence because that's purposely disrespecting someone you know one wants to be purposefully disrespected I understand do the wrong name all the time how would you feel I would feel very disrespected if you for example came in bombastically and other people interrupting I feel very disrespected it's intentionally using the wrong pronoun so if you ask them when their pronouns or they were correct to you and say no sorry these are my correct pronouns and you continue to disrespect them you have to understand how much that puts a trans person at risk does that person surveillance I don't and I know that you like to say that an act of violence mean that it's legally a crime it is that's not how I'm defining an occupier it doesn't matter how you define an active violence no matter law defines the active violence I don't think it does you don't think it matters how the law defined I'm saying that active violence does not have to mean that it's only a crime I'm saying that it's an act of violence against another person an unwilling participant is in fact a crime legally there's no way around we agree on that can we agree on that let's find some common ground can we agree in active violence against somebody else is a crime and no one should commit it I'm saying no one should commit it I'm not gonna say that it's necessarily illegal okay but it is really criminals allow you to assume what you want but it is illegal I would like you to finish earlier thought but I think this is a very central point to the argument because this is one of the first things that you've said yeah and we haven't found common ground we don't agree on that I do find that the idea no I feel you can sit down afterwards we'll have a conversation no no listen I would like to have a conversation with one person and then you can all line up and have one-on-one conversation but I do I don't consent so I'll have a one-on-one conversation I'm not shoving a microphone or face I'm simply holding it but you just said this isn't it this is not an equal setup I've paid for this microphone this is my microphone so would you like to would you like to have her take your place I'd like to finish my thought that you haven't let me finish actually okay do we have a time code to have a time code I believe it's been about over 30 minutes but go ahead yeah so I would like to finish my thought because I actually hasn't been over 30 minutes it's been less than 30 minutes okay go ahead so my thought is that you talk about legal ramifications how many genders are there okay so when you have countries that recognize their genders or non-binary gender options you know how they put that on their form non-binary other you know their gender right how is that complicated well can it can I tell you how it's problematic how is that problematic it's problematic because you have people who've been sued arrested or put out of business for unknowingly using the improper pronouns and that's the point that I'm making there's been a setting to a societal standard what can be filled out on a form that's your premise I'm saying there's been a societal standard one that's biologically based for millennia which we've now changed and we're punishing people who don't agree so you may think it's disrespectful for someone to not use the pronouns that you demand I think it's equally respect about disrespectful to demand that somebody live in a spectrum that hasn't been agreed to and they don't even understand in the UK this happens all time in Canada yeah c16 in Canada is really important for example we have we have comedians have been put before human rights Tribunal's can't usually recognize the law is their legal standard that's their societal standing right so the people who aren't you agreeing without aren't agreeing with their societal standing right but it's a societal standard that flies in the face of biology my issue is gender that's legal so do you believe that people should be put before human right Tribunal's for you the improper Jin gender is biology it was until 1948 you know that right no I don't agree with you on that I'm sorry okay but when did gender theory start I don't know the your gender theory started I'm sorry I'm not a human encyclopedia okay it was 1948 Simone de Beauvoir and an Judith Butler these are people by the way when he started there were still only two genders gender was a grammatical issue usually used to refer to as a noun I'm french-canadian so in French we have masculine and feminine right it really is a very new concept in one that is not rooted in any kind of biological precedent to say that there are unlimited genders that's the issue and so when you are jailing people and punishing people for not adhering to an entirely new system that give yourself has an off that you haven't defined I do think that that's a problem I think saying that somebody using improper pronouns is an act of violence against someone I just disagree I think that's I think it's a real problem and I would hate this I think it's disrespectful to force somebody to use pronouns they're being invented by the day if I know I'm being invented by the day I don't know where you're getting that information how many genders are there how many things are there there I can't define the number of genders or the number of Pro not exactly because anyone can determine them they are being invented by the day new genders each day so if I told you that I identified as you know if I said hey I want you to use just my name not my pronouns sure does that make you uncomfortable no right hi that wasn't hard was it no wasn't hard yeah it's ugly that's what people are asking you to do no yeah you know as a matter of fact you have people you have a TA we just had her on the program yesterday who sorry on Monday who got in trouble for using the students name because a student demanded that he use femme use masculine pronouns even though she was a girl and he said listen I'm not comfortable that I will use her name miscue on pronouns I believe that person would be using masculine pronouns and you just misgendered them yeah you used the name you use the name yes yeah I did because she's a female I think that is how that works so we establish that is how that works you agreed with me previously that we and we established previously gender and sex are totally different no I don't agree how do you know that person is a female I know that because of biology and here's think gender theory did you did you like happen to just like examine them and decide that person's a female because of what you saw they're external genican can I ask you a question yeah do you genuinely feel that I've been interrupting you more than me you keep saying you're not able to finish a thought I haven't finished a phrase I think you just finished a phrase okay do we want to score points or do we want to be I think you've been interrupting me quite a bit and you just assume the premise that I don't agree with no I that's my point that I've not been able to make is gender theory as you're describing it is very new it started with Simone de Beauvoir in 1948 and what you're discussing is the idea that actually came with Judith Butler the first time there was this idea that there are more than two genders was janmani I'm sure you're familiar with that case that's very new and there's no biological backing behind this theory it is based on an emotive response so I don't agree that gender and by insects or separate legal documentation sometimes don't say they're separate we're trying to adapt that now based on how people feel and I don't think that we should adapt to law considering something an act of violence because someone uses a pronoun which is biologically correct because you consider an act of violence against you that's a biological pronoun he her his whether they're male or female yeah but how do we determine that what if we decided that she her hers was what we're gonna use for males it doesn't matter doesn't matter we right now yeah we have male and female no it's a biological standard the words that we use are based off of like what we as a society use though this pretty societally based okay I would say amphibian what about amphibian is that societal amazing an amphibian is a you know I'm not a science major but I will say an amphibian is a like scientific classification of reptile bush tree blueberry yeah okay so these societal to me the point is that language is a reflection of standards that we have a society our doctors sexist I think some doctors are sex our doctors transphobic if they refer to their patients who have a penis and they come in for a prostate exam as a male is that doctor hate speaking is that it I think if that doctor Miss genders their patients and yeah they are being transphobic okay well I don't my mind has not changed but I think I tried to find some common I'm sorry that we didn't I'm sorry I'm sorry that you feel that way yeah thank you medicine I'm not gonna shake I figured nice to meet you Spearman hey I'm doing well Thurman how are you Stephen nice to meet you Thurman sorry yeah by the way if you would like to hold the microphone you can she never asked okay here's the thing that was actually by accident because I've been using he and her for my entire life it's not meant as an act of disrespect and now you see the problem in claiming that's an act of violence against somebody I'm sure you can establish intent with every person you encounter Thurman how are you sir fantastic yeah it seems like there have been people who've gotten into a fight at the dinner table and then we all have to put a good face on but Thurman I'm glad to have you here I'm open to having my mind changed so I'll just break this down for you basically yeah so I think your last exchange basically the guys are trying to establish like sex and gender which technically are different and the sex usually is boiled down to more of you know reproductive potentials and gender is like a lifestyle and everything like that more societal yeah okay yeah yeah I really don't know what to make of the of the new like gender standards now as in terms of like you know people just living whatever lifestyle they want sort of let's say someone that appears to be you know female lives a male's lifestyle I don't understand where we transition to like having new classifications and everything like that but technically speaking there are sexuality spectrum and gender spectrum right so you have you know your typical healthy male your XY you have your typical healthy female xx so if you have something in my client filters right now this isn't just I think there's variations we found many x Romans can I say want one question there yeah why do you say healthy xxx why healthy meaning basically the standard non deviant for people will consider normal okay yeah so if you have Klinefelter's right technically speaking that would be non-binary and that's not a lifestyle thing that actually is a biological picture so we discuss people who are intersex yeah yeah so you'll have like and that's not to say they're hermaphrodites because we don't have that in our species but you know have the two x's and the Y the under underdeveloped male sex machinery we don't need a sensor then you can use either some man was like they call it micro penis it's been used as an insult as an actual term yeah well your friend two or enlarged clitoris these are these are medical conditions as you're discussing they have enlarged breasts you know smaller you know reproductive or high-pitched voices gender mastica yeah yeah so sure in that case and I'm it's a green thumb yeah yeah so in that case yes there's no debate you know you technically are both sex wise and gender I honestly have no idea how to choose that that really kind of depends on sure who are like how like severe severe cases sure can I couldn't address a couple things that may develop some questions we talked about it earlier with intersex you know it affects such a small percent of the population yeah and most these people actually have a very identifiable you know that sexist generally speaking it's not just right in the middle and because there's we talked about like the previous condition as you mentioned men with these conditions or female with these conditions that's often the the rule with intersex not always right but um as we said we teach there are people have two feet now some people don't have two feet in anatomy class we teach people have ten toes we teach people have one heart we teach people have one head all of these things have exceptions to the rules at all these medical aspects so the point is we don't use extreme exceptions to define our rule as a matter of fact that's how we consider those exceptions yeah so biologically sexes male and female this is how it's been taught I think we would all read out but sex has been taught that way and then you've talked about gender you say you're not entirely sure so I would like to hear your thoughts your opinions on on gender how that differs from sex and how we define it just by definition gender is basically electrum lives like choices or lifestyle rules so if you were saying like mother would you like some water I know it's hot out here no okay no so like if you're a finding roles right so like like let's say like courting so you know Steve you're asking girl you know thinks you're cute you said courting yeah I asked a dame asking I go court a day my love it no no I like it that means you're a gentleman yeah so anyway so yeah you know he said girl you know she's cute you take her out you asked her you pay you know typically this how that goes so that would be like your gender role is it your gender role as a man okay yes well you mentioned gender roles right and I hear that a lot we say gender roles so are we to mean that gender as you know authenticated through whatever documentation we provide right now or how we have to identify people are we really just saying is gender a synonym for gender roles well the inner rose is the behavior of your gender does that make sense so like how you like identify somebody's gender sure is basically the lifestyle choice just by definition well I'm only I'm only asking a second none of this is gotcha I'm asking because when I asked you what how gender was different you said it was more to his performative was based on behavior yeah Lisa but now you've said gender roles are behavioral so what's the difference between gender and gender roles I think so it's a synonym yeah yeah okay certain genders have certain roles okay yeah okay sex is amorphous so my question here is I'm I'm interested why did you say gender was different from sex but then you said someone might you use the term gender role differently but now you are saying that it's effectively the same yeah well I used gender role basically in relation to like your behavior okay you and the girl you have separable and you believe that determines gender that's a slippery slope when you use that language but that's why I'm just confused and I want to I think we need to set something concrete especially if it's an act of violence against somebody I no I'm just I just want I think it's important would you agree I mean I think more what they were getting at was they were trying to say like it's a salt which is more like verbal and battery battery and more like physical thing either way both are a crime so it doesn't change the premise both tickets I don't have the right to assault you nor bad are you nor you me I hope you don't yeah I think we're getting a little out of hand you know if you're filling on the floor and something like the non-binary are option there's really no way of knowing you know and I gotta be honest it's really going out of your way if I like say hey Steve you know you you didn't ask me my pronouns I didn't ask you your pronouns yeah I mean you know I'm not like coming at you like deliberately trying to let you know disrespect you like if I knew right you know you refer something different I'm like hey I wouldn't be like hey bro you know I have no way of knowing that right like a guy to me is so well I mean we've had many transgender people on our show when I use the pronouns they prefer but sometimes you make a mistake listen when someone identifies there you have people sometimes who just look like man and they say I'm a woman that there's no standard anymore as to how you identify and we used to we used to determine this is why I say some new there used to be transvestites you know you know what about security director Hoover right many more no that's that's a this is important because I'm confused with this as when I spoke with a psychiatrist and she said that legally it's very difficult for her to go by at the dsm-5 determines gender dysphoria so we used to have transvestites those were for example men who dressed crossdressers and then we had transsexuals and these were people who went through sex change operations in therapy right so these were the terms at a pretty modern term is transgender so then we have to use the right term not transgender can be somebody who goes through hormone replacement therapy transgender can be somebody who goes through as a matter of fact the vast majority of them don't get bottom don't get the sex change at all transgender could be just as simple as someone who dresses up like a woman and identifies as a woman so that's new we used to have transvestite transsexual gender we said as however somebody identifies and there are legal ramifications I'm trying to see if there's an objective standard and if that objective standard is is conducive toward I think transgender is more of a behavioral thing just like I was saying like your gender roles or how you act and your positions relative to other people and they're defined differently in different cultures you know just like maybe over east the woman might ask you and that would be the female role right in that society but uh ya know I would think transsexual would be like the actual you know hormone therapy and everything like that that's very offensive now what ya transsexual it can be very offensive now just like you said healthy chromosomes can also be considered offensive yeah there there is their legal ramifications depending on the country and that's my point if it's a never-ending shifting landscape of what's okay and what's not okay I don't think right let me ask you this what about so you said that transgender I think you've a bit of a different opinion than some people here I find that interview said transgender is behavioral so you don't believe that transgender is a biological issue well just by definition it's not it's not currently something I believe I'm not like sex is the physical you know your representation and then gender is completely different like I said with the Klinefelter's technically speaking like you do have like characteristics of both sexes but sure in terms of in terms of like you being you know biologically set so if you're XY and you feel like a woman I'm not saying that we should necessarily try to impress that because people do you know have different identities especially with the youth I'm like 22 or you know young people you are really kind of trying to you know trying to find your way in as well sure but at the same time I don't think we should overlook it like it's non deviant behavior and I don't mean deviant like evil or and like that because technically you're using this series the proper term nation deviant means to deviate from the norm and it's in mathematical terms will get triggered and you know yes so yeah so I don't mean that in like you know like I hope you have your own security here when you I'm actually from Chicago I'm like left centered but you know Chicago you have to keep one and you still sleep with one eye open gosh well I appreciate you taking the time I I do know we have other people want to line up and the reason I ask you that is because a lot of people say well listen transgenderism and this is what's important because we're actively trying to move the term gender just for it the dsm-5 is what determines gender dysphoria it's actually a clinical condition you know some of the body dysmorphia bodybuilders are often considered that body dysmorphia right they've used some but we view that as unhealthy you know bodybuilder can look in the mirror for example after steroids and come down off a cycle and say you know oh man I'm a wimp and they're huge that's body dysmorphia we often give them counselling well if you look at the suicide rate you look at the medical issues whether it's pre or post op it's very very high in the transgender community and they are treating it right now as a biological one right you've set a biological what transgenderism you said it was behavioral but if we now are no longer saying hey gender dysphoria is is non-productive it's actually corrosive to simply put someone in hormone simply provide a sex change operation we can't do that so we're performing these operations now which ends up actually altering people's not your DNA but your hormonal profile your equipment so we're treating it as a biological issue yeah I think there's a lot of variables especially considering the age I think especially if you're a teenager still you just kind of hold off no matter what you feel you know teenagers think they know everything yes I don't like that we're do many college students but you know you're 13 or think you're grown 16 still think you're growing 19 feel like a child again you start questioning things I mean people were older you know in their 30s and 40s I think we can be to their own devices as to what they what they're thinking and what they're identifying with but when you get in a you know kind of shady situations like a 16 year old saying they want to be this or that sure and you you know go through with it I think that's risky I think it's actually illegal in some places to not do that there are actual there's actually a doctor in the UK who performed sex change operations his whole life including with children young teenagers and he's since said you know what the outcome has been so negative I won't do it anymore and he's losing his practice yeah so this is gonna have really you can have really significant effects there was a kid and he said basically you like you know more things like he was a girl right away that was misgendering you said born a boy you see physically what do you see how complicated it gets difficult but it's more tired but he was a small child right and his parents trusted him and you know they went through the whole process and then I don't want to say he changed his mind because that sounds a little crass but basically he just didn't want any part of that anymore but they had already physically all through them so yeah you know that as a matter of fact if you do it young a lot of people don't realize this and this is something that the transgender community I'll be open anyone who wants to maybe there's someone disagree but the platform right now certainly the transgender community and politicians is that puberty blockers should be allowed that these joke you know that these people should be allowed to just to stop puberty as a matter of fact and you just saw this problem action parents mmm-hmm jazz Jennings is a good example you know jazz jennings i am jazz it's a it's a reality show i didn't either honestly to be fair that was the only trick question here i found out about it like four months ago jazz jennings and one most famous young transgenders has a reality series well jazz jennings can't create a fake vagina because he never went through puberty and developed a big enough penis so because there's not enough tissue you cannot invert it to create a vagina but this is actually occurring i don't know how old jazz jennings is now but once you transition well before teenage years so but this is policy this is actually what what the community pushes for now there are exceptions to the rule and i think there we have a lot of reasonable transgenders to come on the show say hey I support the idea of people being able to do whatever they want to do go through sections operations by the way I do – my issue is when you apply societal standards to other people that affect everyone else's lives that are biologically inaccurate and we say that misgendering someone is offensive well it's equally as aggressive to tell someone that they have to use a pronoun or a gender that they've never heard of that doesn't exist legally that's never been used yet or they could potentially be guilty of a crime that's my premise so that you are legally required no I don't because they couldn't they wouldn't be able to yeah as you've heard from the argument here they said I don't know gender is a spectrum you couldn't legally change it to a way that would be standardized that would protect freedom of speech from people it's happened people slip up all the time and they get slapped with it so I don't know why we do I think there's some other people lining up I don't want to give you the boot but man I appreciate it thank you thanks man look at this your wallet is still there it's not Chicago anymore yeah I was from Detroit it's we're the ones you guys pointees there at least we're not Detroit so I get it what what's thank you thank you for putting on this play for the whole world okay thank you well she was actually as a matter of fact just to clarify where we talking of an act of aggression her touching me when I didn't want her to touch me that's not a salt that's actually battery so it's actually worse than using the improper pronoun but I'm cool with it I'm not triggered like this video subscribe or of course join my club a lot of credit um /mu Club it's what allows us to do this kind of anti cable news content because you support the content off site and we can do more content on site also at loud or Crider shop calm is where you can now buy the change my mind t-shirts so we have what pro-gun program and pro-life pro-gun and prolife will be adding to it and become a part of the change my mind real conversation Armand Ellison there is some responsibility if you buy one of these shirts yeah people will approach you yeah people will be ready to try and argue with you your goal your purpose should be in wearing this shirt actually have a conversation and just just require that people rationalize their own arguments you'd be surprised as to how many minds you can change don't be caustic if you buy a shirt a lot of clutter shop comm let people change your mind but maybe they'll learn something about themselves

Crowder's Democrat Debate Livestream Takeover! (Teaser) | Louder with Crowder



America with their majestic mountains and amber waves of grain this Thursday on our last livestream before our summer hiatus we tackle a culture worth appropriating with our salute to the United States of America join us for beer and barbecue as we mercilessly critique and Mock the people who most want to see America destroyed are a part of the Avengers we're live-streaming the first Democrat 2020 primary debate Biden they're gonna put y'all back in cage Bernie the American journalist spoke about how bad the country is these people are lining up food cut cake I like to drink a cold brewski I'm just like you and a bunch of other people we all have to pretend that we've heard of complete with a costume party guests giveaways a likely banning in our trademark ladder with credit drinking game with rules to follow let's head into our summer break with a bang kicking off this Thursday June 27th at 8:30 p.m. Eastern

Exclusive Interview w/ Dan Crenshaw | Civility in Politics & Debating Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez



sup guys I'm here of congressman-elect dan crunch on how you doing Dan well well so a lot of things have been happening with you and social media and just the internet how you've been adjusting to at all well I've gone through a lot of interesting ups and downs in my life and you know we have a saying in the SEAL Teams it's adapt and overcome we apply that to everything you can't apply it to anything and so we're just taking it one step at a time not it's not like it's all coming down all at once right you know what I've been trying to get famous for about a year now I mean that's what running for office really is you're trying to get people to notice you that's kind of the whole point you know I wish had gotten famous in the primary when we were having a real hard time he was struggling to to meet all the voters we could and gonna spread that message spread that dream that were that and let it catch fire you know it did but it was hard and that this fame came with really right as we were already getting elected which is great I mean you know we're excited about it you know in some ways it's a little bit of added pressure but that's a good thing and I think what people like about you is just your demeanor you kind of bring civility to politics and I want to talk a lot of more about that civility in politics right now we're very polarized you know between the left and the right and people see you on TV they see you in interviews they see how calm you are and you kind of notice how the media tries to construct some type of conflict but you really keep it and civil there's there's no secret to that except know what you're talking about know why you believe it and then you won't get caught up in the emotion of it you know I think people get emotional when they really don't know maybe the underlying reasons why they believe something you know civility can still mean very very sharp disagreement you know and I'm very conservative I I really there's not a whole lot of things I agree with on the left but that doesn't mean they're bad people and I would appreciate if they didn't think we were bad people just because we have these conservative beliefs and kind of conservative foundational narratives that drive our approach to governance and that that's that's really that's the first step towards civility you know it's its understanding that they are fellow Americans so they're not bad people for what they think we can say their ideas are bad you know that's okay but we've got to be careful on how we paint the other side I think I think that's what Americans are sick of and and we'd be able to expand how are you reaching out to the other side to your Democratic constituent when it comes to other maybe conservative Republican figures the left is a little more afraid of them because they're very bashful but you have a very you have a very calm you're very welcoming demeanor so I had have you noticed anything like that when you're trying to reach out to the other side yeah well I haven't been on the hill yet to reach out so you know that have been sworn in yet so it hasn't really occurred that that being said you know during some of the the new member orientation events I just got back from a bipartisan trip to Israel and there's it's it's obvious to me that there's plenty of particular issues that Democrats and Republicans can agree on and that and that all of us sort of collectively take the emotion out of it and say okay we're gonna table all that stuff that we just can't agree on we're gonna fight you tooth and nail on and then there's other things that there's there's no reason we can't agree on ok Israel being one looking granted not all Democrats agree on being pro-israel but some do alright just work with them on it a lot of Democrats I think agree that work training issues of vocational training to trade skills those are those are gonna be vastly important if we're going to increase worker productivity in the next few years which is coming it's one of the few economic indicators that that isn't increasing as like as much as we'd like and giving people the skills they need to climb the economic ladder that's how you that's how you get people out of poverty I mean there's this the stuff isn't rocket science but if it is hard to implement though so working with Democrats on that kind of thing a lot of crats want to work on things like opioid crisis and you know again we've no reason why we wouldn't work together on that and then there's the hard stuff that you know border security right I'm I am very much hawkish on getting a secure border in place I live in Texas like we see it every day Texas itself spends billions of dollars I'm sorry just under a billion dollars a year of state money which is a lot for a state to protect the border that's that's that's not a state's job that's the federal government's job about 400,000 apprehensions on the border every year more than that the year before what we're seeing in 2018 it's just under 400,000 right now before it's ended that's that's an unsustainable problem and you know trying to work with Democrats on on certain solutions that I think will be amenable to them even if it's not a wall all right guys got the house you own the house I get it you're never gonna vote for a wall all right but what will you vote for to stop people from crossing the border illegally that's gonna be a question I'm gonna ask constantly in a calm way all right you don't need to throw stones at them they will shut their ears off if you can if you throw stones in certain ways and and what I think they'll at least respond and have a conversation about it if we lay out our case in a coherent and thoughtful and respectful manner yeah and I would say that you're kind of Europe you're in a new wave of conservatives coming into the government right now just like we have a new wave of Democrats coming in and in regards to that the new way of the new wave of the Left coming in you know just got elected democratic socialism what is your exact take on that with the new wave of Democrats coming in so we talked about you know bad people bad ideas I mean this is a good example of a very bad idea that's that's a democratic socialism in a nutshell it's a dangerous idea it's it's outside the window of reasonable debate that's the reality the things they're proposing a green new deal destroy fossil fuels ten years these are outside their windows of reasonable debate you know they're alienated within their own party within the Democratic Party so you know there's there's a lot of daylight between us like I mean it's an exceptional amount of daylight not so with a lot of other more moderate Democrats again you can find things to work on there but but you know socialism is a democratic socialism doesn't matter what you call it they would you look at their policies it is that is socialism you know for all sorts of reasons or dangerous and in food if we ever have any doubts on on what those dangers might be we could just look at about a century's worth of history on what socialism is done to people in countries and it's it's not good it's not good it's a great way to undermine the foundations that make this country great so you know there's nothing to discuss there okay so last question then and correct me if I'm wrong if you've ever heard anyone say is but I personally believe that you would be the perfect person to debate Alexandria cause nunca tez has anyone ever told you that before you know it's been brought up maybe one day so would you would you debate her yeah why not yeah of course I'll debate anybody pretty much but uh I could imagine that being interesting and fun and at the same time it's it's you know what are you even debating um you know it would be a good show but our our ideas are so far removed from each other well I think it's because she has these ideas but she refused like Ben Shapiro offered talking to her and Charley Kirk Ennis Owens and I think that people want to see her talk about her ideas with someone who doesn't agree with her and she's not giving the people that I don't think she she will debate you know I think that the trick is is to just we'll see if run the same committees they'll say that it is see it on c-span but debate is healthy you know you should have you should have those discussions you know and I think the proper way to even address somebody like Alexandra is to simply ask her the questions that you wish journalists would ask her you know like and you know there's examples of this happening Jake Tapper did a pretty good job how are you gonna pay for it just tell us there's a very simple question how are you gonna pay for this you know wouldn't when you're throwing out sort of radical ideas like that asking for a little bit of explanation it's probably the best way to debate them because there is no explanation there is no explanation these are not well thought out ideas and you know I I don't like being hyperbolic in my language but they're dangerous they're dangerous ideas they will result in exactly the opposite effects of what you want you want to help a lot you want to help the poor this will do the opposite because more people have less jobs a diminishing economy based on the policies you want to put in place hurts the poor there's no other there's no other options here you know destroying an entire energy industry that that hurts the working class that that hurts my family in particular it's my district and it hurts all the people who want to heat and cool their homes I mean there's these things have consequences and you have to think through those those issues so yeah I think I think somebody like we should maybe questioner on these things and talk about those ideas yeah well that would be great if that happens but thank you Dan I appreciate a lot I think you're one of our favorite congressman I think a lot of conservatives really love you who you are so thank you for going to them

YouTube censorship will continue until your politics improve | Ezra Levant



you can't very well use it as your stick call yourself gay wonk have that affectation and then object because a comedian who you yourself have attacked is now mocking you in returns or you can object it but grow up dish this shit out take him well that's not how it works at Fox and so he went on this endless tritter Twitter pout rant that every leftist in America retweeted now Crowder is funny I think if you don't think he's funny that's fine but 3.8 million people have subscribed to his YouTube channel that's triple the size of our YouTube channel and he gets tons of views and he's also on a paywall channel called blaze TV with Glenn Beck so he's a pretty big deal he's not as big as Tucker Carlson on Fox News but he's pretty big on the internet so lots of leftists were retweeting and liking Carlos Meza cuz they ain't Steam Crowder on YouTube well at first they held the line the company replied to masa directly and publicly let me read what they said they said thanks again for taking the time to share all this information with us we take allegations of harassment very seriously we know this is important and impacts a lot of people our team's spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged it to us and while we found language that was clearly hurtful the videos as posted don't violate our policies we've included more info below to explain this decision as an open platform it's crucial for us to allow everyone from creators to journalists to late night TV hosts to express their opinions within the scope of our policies opinions can be deeply offensive but if they don't violate our policies they'll remain on our site you if a video remains on our site it doesn't mean we endorse or support that viewpoint there are other aspects of the channel that we're still evaluating we'll be in touch with any further update so that's what they wrote back to Massa on June 4th pretty free speech she to me and look at this steven crowder celebrated he said team youtube made the right decision if they banned us they'd have to ban and then you see he linked to this video of other political comedians saying very rude things including about the sexuality of someone they were attacking take a look you're the president's but you're turning into a real prick tater you attract more skinheads than free Rogaine you have more people marching against you than cancer you talk like a sign-language gorillas who got hit in the head in fact the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's pollster you know if I go that's a beautiful photo of you and your child but let me just say one mother to another do something about your dad's immigration practices you feckless cop and obviously I I hope India and Pakistan don't go to war but if they did go to war it'll probably be the most entertaining war of all time yeah because the Indian soldiers would run out on the battlefield and that'd be like time for you to detect jacket look at the quick tag it can take a jacket jacket nearby now let's ask lots of questions about this and bad about these in that sometime at night Kabul oh look up in sky and say what the hell going on up there UFO live on another planet phone and whole like et call or read on TV about white people getting deducted by alien sticking all kind of hell up they but and that's I'm saying yeah so that's a free speech victory aim gotta say I was skeptical I have to say I really couldn't believe the YouTube was standing up for free speech well I guess the wall of anger ratcheted up in the face of YouTube's for explanations and I I wonder if they were some moves behind the scenes I wonder if Barack Obama made a phone call or Hillary Clinton made a phone call to YouTube's owners Google remember Google is a 100% Democrat company they fired the one guy who was conservative there their senior executives are all Democrats their executive vice president Eric Schmidt offered to build Hillary Clinton's campaign website remember the senior staff meeting at Google the week Trump won here's a little bit of that this is videos from their staff meeting after Trump won as we started to see the direction of the voting I reached out to someone close to me who was at the Javits Center where the big celebration was supposed to occur in New York City someone who's been working on the campaign and I just sent them a notes that are you know are you okay it looks like it's going the wrong way and I got back a very sad short text that read people are leaving staff is crying we're gonna lose yeah that's Google the most telling was this woman a senior Google executive practically crying saying the Hillary Clinton campaign was we she spoke in the first person plural as in it wasn't Hillary or they or them It was as if Google and Hillary were the same thing do you remember this that was the first moment I really felt like we were going to lose and it was massive like kick in the gut that we were going to lose and it was really meaningful so maybe I don't know we'll never know maybe Obama or Hillary Clinton or someone made a phone call to those Democrats at Google who own YouTube and made them think again and said what are you doing standing with steven crowder he's a Republican and Vaux is Democrat because the very next day after they wrote their defense of free speech they thought again and they wrote this update on our continuing review we have suspended this channels monetization we came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the product community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies oh really well that was quick agreed to say because earlier they said they had teams plural reviewing things so they sounded like they went through exhaustively and voilá in one day later they said no no no no no were shocked shocked a day ago they weren't shocked but now they're shocked was it really egregious Oh was it was it a little bit like was it like this weirdly shaped dicks Jew face oh sorry no no no that's not steven crowder that's Carlos Mazza himself that's an excerpt from the Ezra Levante show every day I do a video monologue and then I interview an interesting guest and then I am by reading my hate mail but you've got to subscribe to it which you can do with the rebel dot media slash shows you

Joe Rogan's Double Standard For Sam Seder EXPLAINED



this week there's been this huge brouhaha between Carlos masa of Vox and steven crowder who is a professional victim and a one-trick pony and his only thing you know his only claim to fame is trying to harass people to the point that they finally take action and try to get YouTube 2d platformer him and then of course once they try to deep platform him he pretends as if his free speech rights are being violated and that he's really this great guy and he's just a comedian he's not funny he's not talented again he's a one-trick pony we all know this we covered the story this week now there is a development recently David Pakman who's a progressive and a friend of the show went on Joe Rogan's podcast and this topic came up and they brought up where I should say Rogen brought up the harassment toward dave rubin take a look is that different in your opinion than someone singling something out for what you believe is their mental incompetency well that mental incompetency or that they're that they're mentally ill or cognitively limited cognitively limited mocking their ability to think walking their intelligence mocking their decisions mocking their the way they talk and then encouraging other people to do the same thing and then that person gets harassed based on their intelligence based on their performance on particular YouTube videos and conversations and there's active harasser so there's people that do that is there a difference between say what Sam cedar does to Dave Reuben what does Sam do Dave Reuben he has I don't know that I seen that video dozens of videos don't say that video he has dozens of videos where he's just dunking on Dave Reuben so I will say that Sam cedar and Michael Brooks do have dozens of videos where they dunk on dave rubin dave rubin does not have any type of mental health condition right dave rubin is a perfectly healthy human who has decided to be a grifter so the dunking is about the fact that dave rubin is a grifter it's not about the fact that he's gay about the way he looks it's not about any of that it's about his incredibly lazy grifting because he doesn't even do the legwork to educate himself on the talking points necessary to be a grifter right you're asking is there a difference between going after people based on who they are versus what they do right and the answer is yes different Dave Rubin whom I used to know somebody that I used to know is a he it's all what he's chosen to do poorly and what anyone in the sam cedar and michael brooks vote video is what they point out is the failings of dave rubin to articulate the thought process necessary to you know believe what he believes and he doesn't he doesn't do it he doesn't understand any of these things because he's grifting them he didn't sit down and think and go you know what i've come to a giant epiphany right he's doing a paint-by-numbers and you can't even do that yeah you're exactly right and yes the dunking happens but the whole point of what sam cedar and michael brooks do is to make sure that they basically debunk the nonsense that they're hearing from dave rubin show because dave rubin keeps trying to present himself as a so-called classical liberal even though there's that notorious reddit ask me anything where he couldn't even define or explain what classical liberal means so we bowed out of it pretty early and so it it's important for people to know like is the information i'm getting from this person actual information is this person an honest actor and the whole point of what sam cedar does is to make sure that people know this is not an honest actor he's not even genuine and anything he's saying he's not even saying anything really when you listen to him it's just so early we were talking about like count your blessings so these are major these are like major these tech corporations but hey it's a company a corporation that doesn't want homophobia on their platform so everyone else left be lucky consider yourself lucky that they allow dumb people look at it's like your blessing what they do so YouTube had this weird thing that I don't even fully understand but essentially they said if your primary they let the Crowder's stay up for a while they reached out to Mazda and they said hey we're looking into this after maza posted just a run of homophobic slurs and just the word guy used but specifically the word queer and that is a slur the reason that the name of like academic branches of different universities are called queer studies is it's a way to reclaim a word that was used pejoratively in the past right and so there is a difference there Crowder is using the pejorative he is using the slur it just hasn't reached that level where people don't say it it isn't it hasn't reached a level like the n-word where people don't even say it right um and but but Craig isn't using it that way that shirt he's wearing right now says socialism is four F words and it's got Che Guevara with a hands doing this you know and you can't see it but he sells that on his website which he promotes through YouTube YouTube let him keep that stuff up there they're like we're not taking it down because his primary reason for doing it was debate even though ancillary to that were the slurs and then they turned around and demonetised Crowder which what I don't know how Dave Rubin defines classic liberalism or capitalism or whatever but this is like a purely capitalistic approach where YouTube saying well you can have your free speech we're just not gonna pay you for it that's right and that's all Dave Reubens in it for anyway that's right you know like that's what Crowder's in it for and that's what Reubens in it for so let's go to the next video cuz there's more to this story so I I mean I I have some as well I believe that they are substantive that's my view is that my videos about Dave Rubin are substantive to your first question there is a difference between going after someone for sexual orientation then going after them for the fact that they say things that are wrong or don't know stuff until you're making fun of someone who has an actual handicap of some kind some kind of you know limited cognitive limitation that would be a disability of some kind then you are mocking someone for a disability but the resulting effect of the harassment the the see this is what I was getting at before with Crowder like what Crowder said was one thing but one of things that Carlos Mesa was just discussing was what the people that had watched Crowder what they were doing how they were going after him which if you look at Moses complaint that's not what he was complaining about he's like I'm not mad about that I got pretty thick skin about Crowder he is saying like there are a lot of people the daxing is against policy and if anyone Doc's is Dave Rubin there if anyone Doc's is anybody there should be consequences to that and I do think that it's just frustrating to see all of this because what what Rogen's trying to do is say what about Peter if people are mad at Dave Rubin and people are mad at steven crowder isn't that the same thing and it's that's not even remotely the point Moz is mad that YouTube has rainbow flags on their logo during pride and they have all these messages in their Terms of Service saying you can't use homophobic slurs and everyone just look at three comments down in the Twitter thread or whatever and it'll be people saying here is a screencap of the Terms of Service and here's how it's violated maza was upset that YouTube didn't live up to YouTube's own standards right and there by the way we're on YouTube obviously YouTube is a great platform for people who want to do independent content but at the same time I think part of the problem and I mentioned this in the original video is that they don't apply their guidelines or they don't enforce their guidelines I think equally and and it seems like they're doing it kind of here and there they're applying it with some situations they're not applying it with other situations so they have to be clear it needs to be applied consistently there's a lack of consistency and I think that that's also leading to a lot of frustration and anger but I agree with with both of you I mean to compare dunking on Dave Rubin to what Carlos masa went through is is ridiculous and by the way I want to give you a specific example of what the dunking looks like when it comes to dave rubin again dave rubin is a professional grifter and one of the things that he did was he agreed to participate in a pro bolson ro propaganda video on youtube right so he does that and then a few days later a week later some time later one of his own viewers asks him about shire balsan ro who is now unfortunately the elected leader of brazil and so he's reading the question he's like Jair bull Sarner oh and yeah he got dumped on for that because you just did a propaganda video for him homeboy how do you not know who he is and here here you're calling him out for the grifting it's not about what he looks like or the fact that he's gay it's about what he does for a living how dishonest he is and also more importantly how we won't even do the legwork necessary to be a good grifter right that's what's so frustrating it's like just just read up on your BS you just know your BS better right this conversation is frustrating for me because it's and it's nothing it's a nothing a burger it's nothing no no but just none of these people are that stupid I may have to take him out of that box um that was fascinating the Boston auro situation but stepped from that I don't think any of these people are that stupid they're hateful and it's this but why when someone says hey you know what it's a little too far that's it and there's this Joe Rogan doesn't think that there's a like he doesn't think that this hate and calling someone out for doing something stupid are the same thing he doesn't care because the he likes it he likes see he likes his platform he likes well I don't think any of these people are that stupid yeah we'll see I don't know and with with Rogan he does a lot of like talking and asking and playing devil's advocate sometimes but in this I couldn't help but get the feeling that he was like I've got you both of these things are the same isn't it and it felt real and it felt real it's from our point of view is that like since we're engaging this since the same Cedars and Michael Brooks isn't us when we engage this kind of stuff we're just trying to say there's ignorance out there that they're spreading falsely right and without integrity and we have integrity so we're going to tell people about it but from YouTube's point of view now we're in a back-and-forth in the same category and when they come to dis my monetize stuff there their AI isn't quite there yet and they're just like we might just get rid of all it and that's that's part of the issue I mean they rely on the algorithms to do this and it's not a foolproof method method as we know which is why they don't apply the standards consistently one final thing look obviously we do a little bit of dunking on Dave Rubin as well but I also want to note that it took years for us to finally respond Dave Rubin went on Rogen show and lied about us lied about what we do right he's the one who's been bad-mouthing us for years and it literally took at least two years for me to finally feel like okay I can't take it anymore I need to respond and to be fair Rogen's the one who is like so let me ask you some questions about your own BS and and Dave Rubin flails so I get it I'm this is not like a solely a Rogen thing but you know when dave rubin gets in there it gets very frustrating on the go don't worry we got you covered you still listen to t whitey at our new podcast network find us on Apple podcast at Google Play Store or at TYT comm slash podcast

Left Wing Media Activist Email Leak Shows How They Deplatform Political Rivals



what you are seeing on your screen right now is an email from a slate journalist named April blazer for those that are listening on the podcast I'll just be describing what worked what we're showing this email in my opinion shows the tactic of activists in media 2d platform their political rivals through loaded questions and language meant to create maximum pressure and increase the cost of businesses to work with certain political groups I will make a few caveats I wrestled with publishing the name of the journalist I initially had redacted her name from the piece however it's extremely important to see articles she's written and tweets she made that show she is in favor of de platforming and in one article I believe it shows it was her intention the whole time to get the proud boys shut down from their financial services I believe it was intentional now that's just my opinion I'm speculating we can go through this email and I will explain to you exactly why I believe that to be to be the case I also want to talk about the ultimate ramifications of this behavior the destruction of journalism and how these these activists are harming the intellectual and academic communities following the Vox ad pocalypse we've seen many history channels teachers journalists get their accounts restricted shut down band etc demonetised I should say that instead of banning this email Oh actually let me do this for those that aren't familiar Andrey kate REO is the chairman I believe there's a chairman of the proud boys he received a notification that his Chase Financial Service the processing portion and his personal account would be shut down that's my as my understanding after talking and looking over some of the data and information I spoke with Enrique taro to get comment on this story and he said that he believes it was on the 1st of February that would mean this email from slate came in a day before he got notified his account would be shut down his Chase Paymentech now you understand that we'll go through the relevant information but we'll start with the email April blazer of slate.com wrote this to several to three different email addresses at JP Morgan a2 at JP Morgan one at Chase titled slate inquiry providing service for the proud boys hi there in April a journalist at Slate riding to ask if JPMorgan Chase is aware that the proud Boys affiliated store prod was affiliated online store 1776 dot shop uses Chase Paymentech as its payment processor 1776 dot chop is what's redirected from fun to the West org which proud boys found our Gavin McInnes cited as the Legal Defense Fund of the proud boys the proud boys are designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group and members have engaged in group of violence in Portland and New York City the group has been suspended by Instagram Facebook and Twitter is the usage of Chase Paymentech in support of such groups against chases policy on a deadline many thanks April first I shouldn't have to say this but I will I actually oppose the politics of the proud boys to a to a rather great degree in fact to the UH to their faces I have told them well one of the things they say is that they refuse to apologize for the West and when at when when they asked me I said absolutely not I will apologize for the West it doesn't mean the West is bad but I do believe there are things that we've done wrong in the growth of this country in the United States expansion militarism imperialism that absolutely should be held accountable and apologized for it I don't agree with them on traditional politics traditionalism etc I shouldn't have to say it but I will but now let's point out a few things first the the email to me is my understanding having actually worked with some activist groups and been involved with with stuff you know years and years ago working in nonprofits etc is we're seeing a lot of framing tactics here that show that that say to me the intention of this email is not for a story it's too deep Bank 2d platform individuals this person doesn't like a cursory glance of April Glaser's Twitter feed and things she said make me believe she is absolutely at odds with the proud boys having made some comments that may be considered passively disparaging to certain fingers on the right we'll go through in a second here's the thing I'm curious as to what April story was going to be the story that she could have written off of this was would probably be something to do with JPMorgan Chase provides processing service for a proud boy affiliated store personally whether or not that's new newsworthy I believe is up to the the writer it may be in certain activist circles maybe in smaller markets I don't think it's necessarily newsworthy on its own but that's just my personal opinion you absolutely could believe it's newsworthy to know that Chase you know that the proud boys sell bracelets and t-shirts and chase processes in their payments it's important to note additionally that Square and PayPal also suffered financial services to the prod boys around the same time there's some interesting things I'll point out before moving on writing to ask if JPMorgan Chase is aware that the proud Boys affiliate store uses Chase Paymentech right but she ends by saying is the usage of Chase Paymentech in support of such groups against chases policies on a deadline there's an important thing to contrast if she's asking if they're aware she's under the impression it's possible they are not in which case they would not be acting in support of such groups I believe it would be absurd to imply that Chase manually in an individually investigates every client they've ever had – what you know – what groups they're affiliated with etc on a deadline that's essentially fair a lot of people are often on deadlines however the story she wrote didn't come out till 7 days later after the proud boys were already banned this story the swag shop of the far right came out February 7th the email was sent on January 31st I should have pointed to at the beginning but I'm gonna get to it now there's a lot of information to go through I reached out to chase because I've actually received many other documents that paint a rather disconcerting picture however chase could not confirm or deny the existence of the additional documents however through two different on two different circumstances chase confirmed to me the authenticity of this email in my conversation with slate they made reference to the contents of the email but did not directly confirm however in my opinion based on what they said about what's in the email I believe they understand what the email is and that it in fact does exist but but more importantly Chase told me twice yes they found this email and then again said I thought we already confirm this for you you know see the the previous threat essentially so the questions I had I reached out to slate for a response they've we've had it back and forth and interest kind of argument for some reason where they absolutely pushed back on me referring to April Glaser as an activist though I think that's an opinion she very well may be an activist and a reporter that's fine they have not yet gotten me an official comment so I will I will follow up with their official comment but the things I would ask is if you're on a deadline why would the story not come out for a week were they really intending on writing a story letting us know that Chase provides processing services for the online shop of the proud boys maybe it also could be that they were and then as soon as they got news that Henrique Theriot chairman of the prod boys was being banned they decided to wait on the story and then publish in greater detail it appears that in the story from April Glaser she did receive there may have been direct communication with some of the other financial services let me see if I can pull this up they say 1776 an e-commerce site that appears to support the group remains functional or it did or it did last week the payment processing company square pulled its service from 1776 a source close to the move confirms to slate that would if that happened about a week before that leads me to believe she made contacts to other other organizations Square and PayPal around the same time which would make sense uh so uh she says and and while a spokesman spokeswoman said Square does not comment on individual accounts she wrote in a statement Square does not tolerate our products or platform or our platform being used for hate when we determine accounts violate our Terms of Service we take swift action they don't she goes on the write that JPMorgan Chase chases chases Chase Paymentech also previously provided payment processing services for the 1776 dot shop and a source close to the decision confirmed it had stopped by Tuesday of this week the site had switched to a PayPal button PayPal then yanked the account used on 1776 dot shop a source close to the decision said not the first time PayPal has pulled the plug on proud boys affiliated accounts as of publication 1776 once again has a field for shoppers to enter a credit card number but it's unclear if it works or if any vendor is powering it I want to stress right now as well there are many activist organizations that have been scouring the the code the visible code of that website to find who they who they use for payment processing I don't believe in my opinion it's coincidental that around the exact same time as this story activists are pulling off the same thing I think it's fair to point out April Glaser is absolutely an activist we can see that on from this image that was posted by big league politics from enrich Henry Theriot who I believe it's Henrique he received this on it was dated February 4th I spoke to Enrique who said that he received word he believes on the first that his Chase Paymentech would be shut down and then shortly later they informed him his personal account would be shut down it is my opinion based on the email in question the intention of April Glaser was to get him taken down either because it's political which I believe I believe overtly political or also because it helped produced the story that she then wrote later where she says chase pulled their services now I do want to highlight some other issues that show in my opinion again April Glaser absolutely is not a journalist at least at the very least you could call her an advocacy journalists on activist activists to makes the most sense for several reasons I believe the email she sent was designed to cleverly put pressure on the company I would personally consider that a threat if someone sent me that the implication being that we are going to write a negative story about you and we're on a deadline and you support this group that's that's all very very negative I have been on the the end of stories that are like this and it tends to function the same way however yesterday April Glaser wrote this story bring back the Golden Age of broadcast regulation especially for YouTube and Facebook she is directly advocating for the bringing back of old-school regulation that restricted certain speech the end of the story she says protecting the safety of their users will always come second that's where laws are supposed to come in it's time we got some now you could argue that she's our she's not talking about speech regulation or D platforming however she tweeted this earlier this morning at 11:26 a.m. in a thread she made starting two days ago she said I made a thread which totally isn't my style but a lot of chatter now about what to do about regulating tech platforms ignores the fascinating history broadcast law which I happened to have studied freedom of speech isn't the same as the freedom to broadcast and amplify that speech I wrote about how Public Interest obligations over US broadcasters work and why it's such a useful frame when thinking about social media regulation she followed up at 11:26 by saying this is not about regulating content it's about the possibility of potentially reporting efforts to combat misinformation data privacy and yes not allowing hate speech to be broadcast to large audiences there's not a couldn't say it's a direct tie-in to the email in question that she sent but I believe in my opinion this shows she believes in deep platforming restricting the speech of certain groups and I believe this is an example of her advocating for deep platforming and restriction of speech now another issue that's really important is whether or not you want to follow my speculation here it's possible she was legitimately asking chase and all those things that's fine I personally believe it's an activist tactic because I've seen this employed by activists and organizations having been a director at several organizations having been active in in you know hacked activists mmm circles several years ago it all follows an activist framework what she did in the email was she made a loaded implication that chase supports the proud boys she highlighted information from the proud boys that comes from a third party organization with no authority the Southern Poverty Law Center's opinion on the proud boys is irrelevant by any journalistic standard unless you're trying to generate a specific outcome she goes on to say that they've engaged in group violence again out of context and provides nothing but harm to the narrative it's a negative narrative if she didn't include this and simply asked about the proud boys that potentially would have been fine if she wanted to understand if chase provided services to controversial political groups I could understand that however by using the Southern Poverty Law Center and by saying they engaged in violence these are out of context third party nongovernmental opinion I believe the intention was specifically to force chase interest into shutting down the proud boys I would also point out that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI according to the independent have referred to an tyfa as domestic terrorists she could inversely frame the story that the proud boys are known to engage in violence combatting known terrorist groups I believe that characteristic characterization would be completely absurd and that it falls outside the realm of journalism I would also like to point out that I believe this is a direct violation of at least two journalistic ethics as we've seen April Glaser has advocated against hate speech I would I believe and and based on her Twitter her Twitter thread and the things she's stated her politics fall opposed to the proud boys in which case there is a potential conflict of interest up for interpretation but also she is not minimizing harm by targeting a shop to which she knows is run by Henry taro – Henry Theriot as an individual in her story she says that the business is registered to Henry Theriot who may be the same person as an Rika Theriot if she knew that before reaching out the chase I believe it's a violation of the minimization of harm because she is targeting a private individual she absolutely can tell this story about the proud boys without directly referring to his small business in which case Henry Kotaro has broken no laws I am I am under the I believe it is fair to point out the proud boys are not a criminal organization they are controversial I do not agree with their opinions I there are certain things they've done in terms of getting arrested in which individuals have been charged for violence the organization itself you can criticize them all you want but I don't believe they have any governmental scrutiny to the extent that an tyfa does but again all that's an opinion I personally believe that by targeting the business of a private individual associate with the proud boys she has overstepped the bounds of minimization of harm that's just my opinion if you want to argue journalist journalistic ethics you're free to do so I'm not saying I'm completely right but more to the point upon the tweeting of when when April Glaser said yes it's about not allowing hate speech to be broadcast to large audiences I sent the tweet in question to slate and sure enough April Glaser deleted the tweet so I will copy the link to tweet I will open a new tab paste the link in and we can see the page no longer exists however I did archive it she followed up that tweet by adding she says it's about and yes not allowing hate speech to be broadcast to large audiences and about acknowledging the reality of concentrated media power and protecting the role of information infrastructure in a democratic society so for whatever reason she deleted the tweet slates told me they did not instruct do so and went on to say they believe the tweet in question has nothing to do with what we were talking about I disagree I believe this email shows that she believes in restricting speech that she deems to be hateful so I do want to now branch off from here I think I've hit as much as I possibly can in this capacity she uh there's a tactic used among the media to if they're trying to generate news what they'll do is they'll send a request that's loaded that forces a company take action wait until the action is taken and then they'll write the story the example I often cite is mafic media mafic media is a left-wing anti-war media organization they were suspended by Facebook after CNN reached out to Facebook asking why Facebook oh I don't know exactly what CNN asked but they said that Facebook I'm sorry that mafic media is funded by Russia I believe it's owned 51% by roughly which is funded by Russia today but that's not against the rules however CNN reached out to Facebook Facebook then suspended mafic media and then after the suspensions CNN wrote a story saying you know Facebook had suspended this group it's a common tactic among low tier you know journalists just trying to that article to trigger the story themselves which is another violation of journalistic ethics imposing their will to make something happen so they can report it reminds me of if you've seen the movie Bruce Almighty well it becomes mr. exclusive for not familiar the guy gets God powers and then makes the news happen that is a serious violation of journalistic ethics so what I want to highlight beyond this is you know essentially just they're there it is I'll that that's the the email in question let me don't you thing in the comments below but I really do want to highlight the ramifications of what we've seen in the wake of the Fox ad pocalypse and the tactic of these activists in media to target their political rivals if you don't like the proud voice by all means you feel free to criticize them the proud boys have broken laws in certain circumstances been arrested and charged and I've highlighted this in many videos and they absolutely deserve to be I believe I did completely to secure their politics that's fine but this appears to me to be an activist tactic of framing a narrative to put pressure on a company to force them to terminate the services of a private individual the results can be pretty damning so Mark Kern who has gums on Twitter tweeted earlier traditional journalists are gunning for YouTube in a big way this month they are trying to get all independence be monetized if you want to know why it's about money traditional journalism is dying ad blocker cuts off their revenue and people prefer to get their news reviews and entertainment from youtubers and streamers the reason I'm moving on to highlight this is because what we're seeing from slate in my opinion and trust me what you I think you understand why I'm saying that so much the this is very important when you look at what Carlos maza did to steven crowder Carlos maza in the past had mocked Steven Crowder's criticism of him and said he wasn't being gay enough but now he's upset conveniently on Pride Month Carlos maza is also advocated for the platforming and said to do it more and more importantly Karl's maza used to work for Media Matters for America the tactic we're seeing from these people it's the same thing in different ways in this instance as marker and points that points out traditional journalists are are hurting and so they're targeting at youtubers this then results in collateral damage mr. Alsup history has received a ton of attention because he is a history teacher who's having his content removed the Guardian notes YouTube blocks history teachers uploading archived videos of a certain World War two leader in Germany more importantly I want to make sure I absolutely stress this bit here this is all kind of an addendum to the initial report I did stardust vibes who i made reference to in my first video this morning had his channel d monetized and I got to say starters vibes channel is absolutely incredible there's many videos that have over mil to have millions of views and it's very simple this video is thunderstorm sounds by a lake house with four hours of a thunderstorm by a lake house and it's a video and it's beautiful absolutely beautiful people turn this on to relax and that the white noise and the nature sounds are really helpful especially is when people are trapped inside in winter months he had his channel D monetized in the past day or so we're now seeing this is a follow up on the Pratt path story YouTube is deleting thousands of channels with videos of World War two history now multiple teachers are complaining that videos uploaded to educate people have been deleted this is the dangerous nature this is the dangerous debt this is what happens the collateral damage of when they target people in this way this is what we can see it ends up with sandy Macomb I believe I'm pronouncing her name right is a journalist who had a historical video from strout's Ville that was actually used at the trial of James fields restricted on YouTube in response to all of what's happening here so I think I have a lot more stories I could go through I'm not going to because it's videos already going very very long so I'll leave it here but suffice it to say this is the collateral damage we see from activists in media pretending to be journalists this is the result when you allow these big companies or when you pressure these companies so so let me stress what we saw from April Glaser of Slate to chase in my opinion increased the cost of chase it's a threat of negative press that could result in a stock price drop and harm to their business resulting in chase taking the obvious action of getting rid of the proud voice then April reported on it the same thing happens with YouTube excuse me YouTube terminating all of the monetization into accounts is a direct result of activists in media continually slamming YouTube and damaging their revenue streams recently we saw a story actually let me let me see if I can pull this story up I don't know exactly where it is so maybe maybe I can't do it but there's a youtuber by the name of Jeremy Hambly also known as the quartering who recently had a journalist to reach out to advertisers what appeared in his channel and they've they've claimed to have since pulled ads a tactic in media is to target the resources of content creators journalists and personalities they don't like to harm their business these are activist actions journalists don't need to do this journalists don't you know The Daily Beast doxed a private individual it adds nothing to the story you to but D monetizing people is the same pressure chase getting rid of the proud boys is no different than YouTube getting rid of Crowder and others the rhetoric will continue I'm sure they're going to direct all of the ire in the world at me because I reported on this and because I acted in defense of the right to people like crowded have new monetization they'll make all the claims in the book about me by all means but you know what you got no leverage on me because I'm sorry I just don't care if everything in my life was gone I chill on the beach and listen to nice lake sounds that is inherently a problem for them they try to use the threat of cutting off financial services to harm people not necessarily to hurt the individual or scare them but to actually shut down their business it's entirely possible this video will be but brick gated for a variety of false flags because I have kind of I've kind of pulled the the the you know pulled back the curtain and shown you activists in media absolutely do this it is not a conspiracy it happens every day the Southern Poverty Law Center has recently been in turmoil because they're known to have been an extremely racist and sexist organization their privacy on the president it was stepped down because of the controversy and it was around twenty years ago that this information came to public life but for some reason people care about the opinion of this organization I could use any organizations opinion to accuse anyone of being any group I believe this only serves to be a pressure to damage the business of political rivals so there you go this isn't the only document I received I want to stress that however I have not been able to confirm the authenticity of other communications which I believe make a way more damaging picture but I'm not going to release or comment on the contents of because Chase has refused to confirm or deny so we'll leave it there let me know something in the comments below you can follow me on minds at Tim cast to stay tuned I'll have more segments coming up at youtube.com slash Tim cast news during at 6 p.m. if I receive a comment from slate in the meantime I will I will add an addendum to this story and I will include their statements however and I get I they didn't get back to me soon enough I have to record the video at it and upload it was my intention to include their statement so in that regard I apologize it wasn't included in the story but I will do my best to make sure the context of their statement will be included at to contrast my my personal opinion on this matter I will end with one final thought in terms of minimization of harm and the revealing revealing the name of April Glaser as I stated early on I think it's important to look at the articles she's written in the context she's written them and the statements she's made on YouTube so you understand her position when it comes to deep platforming and restricting speech and how that plays into the the culture war as a whole and why I believe that she was absolutely trying to harm the business of the crowd boys again I don't know this has been much speculation on my part one final thought just for posterity this email was confirmed to me on two different two different email chains by Chase as well as the contents being referred to directly by slate a slates PR individual I'll leave it there thanks for hanging out and I will see you on the next video you

EXPOSED: Google’s Entirely Far Left Leadership! | Louder With Crowder



there was the Google memo that went out as they are calling it the anti diversity manifesto now this news developed so fast this happened after we aired last night Google fired the employee who wrote the memo in record time record time the guy just got absolutely Canada as of this morning rumor is that Google has already replaced the employee in the spirit of diversity she's actually a single black mother transgender pansexual undocumented immigrant with a PhD in women's studies and she has rickets so she is a modern marvel but she checks the boxes never firing that they not only fired him the CEO took time out of his vein vacation to condemn this as though as though it was that outlandish and that offensive so here this is what the CEO said we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves wait for it however portions of the memo violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace well it doesn't do that we'll get to that in a second to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and like a fourteen-year-old girl he says not okay all caps because that's how you talk to an actual misogynist or an actual Klansmen that's not okay bro okay it's not cool dude you're please bro to rape it's not okay I highly recommend that people go and now it's out there read the full memo for context don't take our word for it this is what he goes out of his way and ben shapiro highlighted this too in the original memo you tell me if this is gender stereotypes I'm not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are just I'm simply stating with a distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain what we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions and this is this is what really bothers me when they say he just she just condemns women and says they're not fit no actually he he lists some areas where men might naturally be more effective than women not all as he just said but on the whole you know on average and then he goes on to the qualities that women would naturally have our areas where women would naturally excel at over men like women in his own mo women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things that's a that's a good thing women on average are more cooperative and then here's something subject it if you think it's it's good or bad I would say good women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average go back to the CEO he says the memo has clearly impacted our co-workers some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender so just see this this memo it's incredible was so earth-shatteringly offensive that some women at Google took a sick day the women were so offended that the memo insinuated they might handle stressful situations more emotionally that they decided work was too stressful to attend a woman I'm more likely to take a sick day I'm punching out but call it my sick day I just that's why you're seeing ads for Muslim singles because these are the women in charge of our housing algorithms hey could you put something relevant to the search no I can't somebody said my thighs look big in these pants hey what was the restricted vote algorithm 16 year-olds are seeing x-rated films don't bother me right now I feel fat let's assume for a second that Google and YouTube is earnest when they fly us out to New York to have our meetings in our summits and they say they don't want to boot right-wingers they say that they want to be friendly differing opinions they say that they want to be a friendly environment to conservatives and liberals like let's assume that that's all true take it at face value okay here's the question would they be able to recognize their blind spots would they be able that's the crux of this argument that we're actually having with this memo on the firing would they be able to check their inherent biases if they wanted to I would argue no let me present my case Exhibit A Susan was shigeaki the CEO of YouTube she's a Democrat donor promotes the Young Turks and advocates for transgenders in the military she's a CEO of YouTube she's not just to let just a liberal she's a social justice warrior leftist she uses words like microaggressions and trigger warnings on ironically be sundar Pichai pokai I see he's a CEO of Google okay Democrat donor and of course advocates for transgenders in the military not sick not even saying his opinion is wrong or that you shouldn't or should agree with him I'm just trying to present to you the points of view of these people who are in charge of everything always at Google and YouTube let alone the rest of Silicon Valley Exhibit C John Gianna Gianna drew see the only consistency in the hiring is that they have very difficult names he's a senior VP for search at Google and a noted Democrat donor next person Sridhar Ramaswamy senior VP for ads and commerce at Google huge Kamala Harris supporter and an actual Hillary Clinton donor next person Sergey Brin co-founder of Google president of Google's parent company Democrat donor gave 800,000 to a PAC that offered free rides to polling stations shortly before the election now you say well that's not necessarily right or left no of course it is because we don't believe that people who need to be given rides and free sandwiches to polling stations nor have ID should probably be voting I know that's racist next person Chad her there's the name YouTube co-founder there you go just a good old white guy YouTube co-founder and advisor noted Democrat donor next person Danielle Brown the names are getting easier Google's head of diversity in a twist of irony Danielle brown head of ever seen a Chihuahua Kiki worked directly for Hillary Clinton's campaign next person John Doerr Google board member Democrats support PAC donor and he actually held a democrat fundraiser back to hard names Omid cordis Donnie the former senior VP at Google now executive chairman at Twitter because of the incestuous Silicon Valley relationships Democrat donor and a Trump hater on Twitter there's no idea of conflicts of interests I'm sitting on the chair at Twitter and I'm going to use it to bash the president on Twitter finally we have David Drummond senior VP at Google for corporate development and he is a noted Democrat donor here's the takeaway there and I want you to do your own research take a dart board take any of the senior executives at Google Facebook or Twitter okay place their names in a dart board throw the dart any name you hit is going to be not only a liberal but a far left activist every single one now they may be earnest they may think that they really want to bridge the gap they may think they really want to have a dialogue they may think that they really want to welcome all voices but we see here with this letter which was very carefully written this memo which went out of its way to do all of the hey listen okay to set the tone I am NOT saying this applies across the board I am NOT saying this is a plus or a minus I just think we might want to discuss the differences you're at it here so clearly they're not looking to have a conversation but even if they actually were they would be incapable of it they would they would they would be incapable of it just pick any one anyone out there like this video subscribe by clicking the subscribe button it's acted sinesses circle now it used to be a square which most buttons aren't squares lets us on a phone there's square buttons on phones what mouse buttons are circles you understand what I'm talking about or watch the recommended video which is popping up in a box or subscribe at ladder with credit comm flash mug Club join them on clip so you can get the daily show and that means that you are not beholden to the YouTube censoring overlords let's be honest you like being there where you are under their thumb power bottom