Piers Morgan Uncensored - Woke Snow White Goes Broke + Ben & Jerry's progressive 'Hypocrisy'

Episode Date: March 21, 2025

The common parlance of the American Right contains quite a few novel adages these days. ‘Make America Great Again’ is the main call to arms, and ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ expresses a pseudo-secret resistance to Joe Biden. Another, is a warning to fellow capitalists ‘Go Woke Go Broke’. Dylan Mulvaney’s disastrous team-up with Bud Light is the exemplar of the rule, but then again, the socially progressive ice cream giant Ben & Jerry’s has doubled its profits in the last ten years. So does this prophecy hold weight? Piers Morgan wants to know. Joining Uncensored to discuss brand social activism is co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ben Cohen and former Anheuser-Busch executive Anson Frericks. Piers is then joined by a precisely selected range of experts and culture vultures to tackle Disney's new 'woke' Snow White; Uncensored contributor Esther Krakue, content creators Gary Buechler aka Nerdrotic and Will Jordan aka The Critical Drinker, author of The Case for Cancel Culture Ernest Owens, wrestler and actor Dylan Postl aka Hornswoggle and publisher of Film Threat Chris Gore. Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: American Hartford Gold: Protect your wealth with precious metals! Call American Hartford Gold today & get up to $15,000 in free silver on your 1st order! Call 866-692-2474 or Text PIERS to 65532, or Click the link below: https://offers.americanhartfordgold.c... Beam: Visit https://ShopBeam.com/PIERS and use code PIERS for up to 40% off Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We can start out with the creative bankruptcy of remaking another animated classic instead of making something new. You know what? She should be beautiful. She should turn up on set. Her skin should be white as snow and she should do... What's next? A bald Rapunzel. The dwarves are an ungodly nightmare. These were dream roles. Seven dream roles in a major production. Yeah. A major production. It's the complete absurdity of modern Hollywood. They are so desperate not to offend anyone that they end up screwing up. Why don't you just sell ice cream? Are you going to return your building to the people on whose land is foot?

No. Wow. Should that land be handed back to Ukraine on principle? I don't know. Go-woke, Go-Broke has become a popular way of describing the massive consumer backlash to corporations who, for some reason, there's a lot of money after selling their customers they're all racist bigots. You might be hearing it a lot of the next few days

as Disney's sanitized Snow White remake, remake finally hitched theaters. and what critics say is the biggest PR disaster in movie history, much more on that later. We begin with an intriguing debate about so-called corporate activism and two businesses, or two business titans with very different views on where the brand should brandish their virtuous liberal world views. Anson Ferrix was a top executive at A.B. Inbev for 11 years. He had a front-row seat for the Dillan Malvaney debacle, which sparked the collapse of America's top beer at a cost of billions. his new book, Last Call for Bud Light,

charts a rapid rise, and recent fall of corporate DEI. Ben Cohen is the co-founder of Ben and Jerry's, one of the world's most famous ice cream brands. Besides selling creamy indulgencies, Ben and Jerry's campaigns for the return of stolen lands to Indigenous Americans and the dismantling of the white supremacy.

So welcome to both of you. Two successful men with very different views about this. Ben Coe, first of all, thank you for coming on. As you know, I ripped into you, a New York Post column, I think it was a year or two ago, about your wokeest activities and was extremely uncomplimentary. So I admire a man who's prepared to come and face the music, and feel free to rip me back.

But just on a general point, Ben and Jerry's have been extremely active in this area. Interestingly, unlike a lot of the other companies that have gone down this route or tested the water with it, You don't seem Beninjo's to suffer any negative backlash, which is probably one of the reasons why you keep doing it. But do you accept that a lot of other companies have tripped up spectacularly by dipping their toes into the woke waters? Well, I think what we're talking about is fairness and justice. There's a bunch of people in our society that have been oppressed, that have been oppressed, that have been. been discriminated against women, people of color. And, you know, I think business is really the

most powerful force in our society. And business has a responsibility to help to undo the wrongs that have been done in the society and help to repair the society. Why don't you just sell ice cream. I mean, I like your ice cream. I've eaten a lot of your ice cream. I will continue to eat it despite your wokeism. But as I think I ended my column for the post, why shouldn't an ice cream company feel it's part of their remit to constantly

harang us about issues and social activism? Well, we're talking about standing up for what I thought were basic American values of freedom, justice, equality. You know, business, as I say, is the most powerful force in the society. Business controls our legislation through lobbying. It controls who gets elected through campaign donations. Business is a very political creature.

It's just that usually it's done covertly. And at Ben and Jerry's, we do it overtly. and we say we are a values-led company. These are the values that drive us, along with making great ice cream and making a profit. But are you also a hypocrisy company? I'll give an example. You know, in 2022, July 4th, Independence Day,

a great day for Americans, a terrible day if you're British. If it hadn't been for that, that, you know, George the third moment of madness, I think I could have well-being king of your country by now, and you might have been a lot better off for it. But on Independence Day, the great day in America's calendar, Ben and Jerry's demanded that Mount Rushmore be returned to Native Americans,

and it all sounded, you know, okay, you've got this big speech you guys made, and you want stolen indigenous land to be returned, you want to dismantle white supremacy, systems of oppression. And then somebody went, well, hang on a second. Hang on. Because Ben and Jerry's corporate HQ in Vermont is built on the ancestral home of the Abanaki people,

where 3,200 still reside. And they've now demanded reparations from you. We are a place-based people, they said. We are the ones who are in this place. So I'm assuming that as part of your civic duty for American values, Ben, you will be returning your HQ to the Abanaki people as a matter of urgency, will you? Well, the point that we've been making is that...

Well, hang on. Are you going to return your building to the people on whose land is put? It's a serious question. No. Wow. First of all, we don't own the building. But what we're trying to say is that the U.S. made treaties with Native Americans that the U.S. has kind of ignored.

But why shouldn't the same rules apply to Beninjeri's buildings? Why should you be exempt? Well, I think that it's a government issue. I think that it's the government that made these treaties with... It's not a principle then. Say what? It's not a principle then. It's just you want the government to do it, not you.

Well, I'm saying I'd like the government to live up to its agreements. Yeah, but this is my problem. With all due respect, this is my problem with the woke brigade. And I say that respectfully. Actually, I'm not even sure I'd do. Because it always seems to be littered with rank hypocrisy. And I'll give you another example. If you really believe that stolen land should be returned to people,

why did you support Ukraine not being given their land back? You personally donated. You personally gave a million dollars to a group trying to end Western armed shipments to Ukraine. Does that not again? Just fly in the face of your supposed... great high moral principle. Why would you not want Ukraine to have its land back? Well, I don't think anybody gave a million dollars to anybody. I mean, at least not from Benigerius. Well, you personally donated a million to a group that is literally trying to end

West of Armed Shipments to Ukraine. Well, I do support the Eisenhower Media Network. It's a group of retired high-level military officers. And that group took out an ad at the very beginning of the war in Ukraine saying, let's have peace. Let's stop fighting. And let's talk together and let's figure this out. And that Russia has legitimate security concerns,

just like the U.S. has legitimate security concerns, and Ukraine does. too. But shouldn't Ukraine sovereign territory land by your principle be handed back to Ukraine, the stuff that Russia has stolen? I mean, it's exactly the same principle, surely, as the indigenous land being taken from them that you made a huge campaign about. When people steal somebody else's land, isn't your principal, Benko, and that you have to give it back. So why would you feel the opposite about Ukraine? What we believe about Ukraine is that that was a war that was provoked by United States policies.

And I want to be clear, this is not Ben and Jerry's. This is Ben. Right. Ben and Jerry has taken no stand. So does Jerry not agree with you? I don't know where Jerry's at, actually. I haven't discussed it with him. Don't tell me you don't know what are you things.

Of course you do. But my point is, what about the land that Vladimir Poohy's out. has stolen with his murderous barbaric rampage. Surely the Ben and Jerry's corporate position should be, as it is with the indigenous people, the land should be handed back to Ukraine. Who owns it? Ben and Jerry's has not taken a position on Ukraine.

Right, but what do you think? You know, all wars end in a negotiated settlement. I get that, but do you think the land should be handed back? What we were suggesting happen is that let's have the negotiations. negotiating settlement before the war. I get it. Before we have to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Should that land be handed back to Ukraine on principle? Pierce Morgan Unsensored is now proudly independent.

If you like the show, we ask for only one thing. Subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Now let's get straight to the point. Support for today's show comes from a business focused on a critical issue. Prosperity. US national debt is at crisis level. inflation has made life more expensive for everybody, and the stock market is precarious. It's enough to make anyone's financial future feel grim.

So what is the solution? Well, a simple one is to opt out of the chaos and invest in something solid and reliable, physical, gold and silver. And there's only one name you need to remember, American Heart for Gold. This company has earned a trust to thousands of customers with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and glowing reviews you can see for yourself. They offer an incredible range of gold and silver bars. and coins, they can be delivered directly to your door,

or they'll help you set them up in a tax-advantage gold IRA. First-class customer service makes the whole process simple, secure, and straightforward. American Harvard Gold is committed to getting the truth out there and giving you peace of mind in uncertain times. And if that wasn't enough, you've got up to $15,000 worth of free silver when you make your first purchase and mention my name, Piers. So, make the smart move. Call 866-692-2474 or text peers.

That's P-I-E-R-S-2655-3-2. That's 866-692-2474 or text peers to 655-3-2. All the details are in the description. Now on with the show. I don't know. Okay. Look, viewers can make their own minds up, but it seems like there's a lot of swirling double standards going on here.

Anson, let me bring you in here. You know, we know what happened with the Bud Light fiasco. I could have told everybody at Bud Light this was going to happen. You put Dylan Mulvaney, who until Dylan Mulvaney was 26, was a gay man, and then suddenly says, oh, actually, I'm now going to be a woman. You put them in charge of one of the more ludicrous social media campaigns. I think I've ever seen a company embark on, which flew in the face of everything that Bud Light kind of stood for.

And you end up with Kid Rock firing a machine gun, of Bud-like bottles and a catastrophic drop in sales, down 30% I think in the year after, lost its position as number one. And it reminded me of what happened with Gillette when they did the same thing and basically told all their customers like me that you're all a bunch of Harvey Weinsteins

until you can prove otherwise in the most damning, sneering commercial imaginable. And then when they lost nine billion worth of business, they reversed and went back to big he-men, touching babies, which was pretty much what I wanted to see because I wanted to feel good about being a man, not shamed. So look, what's your view of this? Yeah, so what this comes down to me, peers, it's really about brand and authenticity. Like, do I necessarily like the hypocrisy of Ben and Jerry's? Do I like some of what I think that's some flawed political stances? No,

but I do actually respect Ben a lot. I actually write about this a ton of my book. I respect their company because at least they're very authentic to what they've always been, which they sell ice cream to advance a socially progressive mission. I mean, they put it right on their website. So there's no hiding what they're doing. And on their website, they say that we're going to support the Black Lives Matter movement, that we're going to support basically, you know, illegal immigration, that we're going to support biological men competing against women in sports.

I mean, it's right on their website, and they're using ice cream to do it. They have names like empowerment for voting rights issues and pecan resist to resist the Trump agenda. I actually don't have an issue with Ben and Jerry's and their branding. That's their brand. That's their customer. Some people like that. It's a free country, and you can compete with whoever you want. The issue that I have, and this is the issue with what happened with Bud Light,

it's when companies that aren't authentically what Ben and Jerry's was, which is a socially political brand, when all of a sudden that they were foisted on them and agenda to be politicized. And I can get all the reasons why where there's really, it was almost a group of asset managers like BlackRock, State Street, Vander, pushing ESG agenda. You had all these consulting companies like McKinsey and Bain that were promoting DEI consulting services and selling there. You got all these activist groups, the human rights campaign and others that Ben and Jerry's support putting a lot of pressure on companies to adopt essentially the same exact policies that Ben and Jerry's had for brands like Bud Light that had nothing to do

with social activism. I mean, if you take a look at Butt Light, their whole point was to be easy to drink and easy to enjoy. They became the biggest beer brand in America precisely because they were not involved in politics. They were involved in things that brought folks together like sports and music and humor. That's what they were all about. So then all of a sudden when this company does a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, who's a very controversial transgender influencer, who was essentially had really nothing to do with beer and somebody who was at the forefront and at Joe Biden's White House of advocating for gender affirmation care and then also advocating for biological men to compete against women in sports, all of a sudden the Bud Light

consumer stepped back and said, wait a minute, like this isn't the brain that I drink. Bud Light, for me, it was more historically about sports and UFC and all that stuff. What happened? And I think that's where Bud Light got lost. And that's where you have to start making distinctions about you as a brand. You have to stand for something. Ben and Jerry stands for political activism and, you know, maybe a little bit hypocrisy. But I think Bud Light, we're supposed to be easy to drink, easy to enjoy it, was different.

And then other brands on the right, you have brands like Black Rifle Coffee Company, which their whole mission is they want to serve coffee and culture to firefighters, military, police officers, people who love America. Let those companies, you know, let Black Rifle be Black Rifle, let Bud Light be Bud and be Ben and Jerry's, but don't necessarily have every company have to get Ben and Jerryed in terms of the policies that they've had. That's where corporate America went wrong over the last couple years. Ben, do you think that some of the positions that Ben and Jerry's took? Take the issue of transgender athletes in women's sport, for example.

Pretty much everyone I know now, even Gavin Newsom has done a U-turn on this, who's the king of woke in terms of politics. Do you think with reflection that it is grotesquely underwent? for biological males who identify as trans women to compete in women's sport? You know, I don't really know enough about the issue. But it's a Ben-in Jerry's policy, isn't it? But you support it? It well may be, but all I'm saying is that I personally, not positively, no.

Wow. I think that. I would kind of leave it to the people that are playing the sports. Let them decide. Well, how do you do that if you let the trans athletes compete in women's sport and beat women? Well, you let the teams, the whole group that's playing. Let them decide. So you don't have any official position at all?

Because the point was the Biden administration actively supported it. So nothing was going to happen until you had a president like Trump come along and say, this is ridiculous. I'm surprised you don't even know whether Ben and Jerry's supported that. And so, I'm not only answer to that for you, peers, they do. It's on their website right now. You can see that Ben and Jerry's, they're proud support of the human rights campaign, which is a group that on their website today, it says that there is no issue with transgender athletes competing in sports.

Yet, all of a sudden, it was only two years ago. You had Leah Thomas, who took a medal away from Riley Gaines. And then I think in 2019, it was one of the first instances. There was a transgender person named Cece Telfar that, beforehand in 2017 to 2018 competed in men's hurdles in the 400 meters and then ended up winning the gold that year. It's all completely ridiculous.

I mean, there are eight, I think it was that the UN, the UN did a report recently saying I think nearly 900 medals have been taken away from female competitors around the world because trans athletes had won. And that's just simply unfair.

Ben, I'm curious about this because you are the Ben of Ben and Jerry's. And yet here you are, apparently, seemingly oblivious to these very strident, but controversial positions that your company is taking. Do you not feel a little bit queasy about that?

Well, you know, I believe in transgender rights. I know that the company believes in transgender rights. Do you believe in women's rights? Yeah. Do you believe in women's rights to fairness and equality and safety?

Yes. So, I mean, I don't know your story, but do you have, Do you have any daughters or? I do. Would you be happy if suddenly a biological male got in a boxing ring with them if they were a boxer and started beating them up as we saw it happen in the Paris Olympics? I know we could laugh about it, but I watched the Paris Olympics,

and there was an Algerian boxer in the female category who was banned from the World Championships for testing positive for male chromosomes who beat up a young Italian female five. so badly she quit after 40 seconds thinking she was going to die. So this has real-time consequence. And if Ben and Jerry's is going to be this big social activist company preaching to us all about these big issues, A, I'd expect you to know as one of the founders what those issues are.

I'm surprised you don't. And B, I would expect Ben and Jerry's to reflect on some of the positions it's taken and accept as many, many other people are now doing. You were just plain wrong. Well, I would say that these are not really big issues. These are issues that are used to hide the big issues. I would say the big issues are our country is spending $900 billion a year, half of our entire discretionary federal budget on the Pentagon,

on getting ready to kill loads of people just like us in other countries. I don't know where you went. All I see is me on the screen. No, we're back. We're just giving you the full screen so the viewers could enjoy the full glory of your head. Piers Morgan Nuss Sensen is proudly independent. Our sponsors mean we can bring it to you for free.

Support for today's show comes from Bean who can help you out with an issue of utmost importance. Sleep. Good sleep, as I can confirm, is the foundation of physical and mental health. Our daily performance depends on it. That's why we are delighted to talk about Beam's Dream Powder, a science-backed, healthy hot coke over sleep. It's tested for high-quality

efficiency and formulated to ease your body into rest, supporting the four stages of a sleep cycle to help you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. Many other sleep A's calls next day grognus, but Dream contains a powerful, all-natural blend of rachy magnesium, al-thianineen, apigenin, and melatonin. It helps you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. If you like me, you need a good lie down after an uncensored debate. You can try Beam's best-selling dream powder with 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com and use code pears at checkout. That's shop beam, B-E-A-M dot com slash peers, P-I-E-R-S, and promo code peers at checkout.

Now, on with the show. Thank you very much. So what I was saying was that these are not really big issues. It doesn't involve a whole lot of people. But when you talk about how they're spending our money, how the government is spending our money, taking half of all of the discretionary budget to create a war machine that just kind of benefits war profiteers at the expense of everybody else, I would say that's a big issue that we ought to be concerned about instead of being distracted. Okay, but if it's not a big issue, why is it all over the Ben & Jerry's website?

Why don't you tell them to take it down if no one cares about it? There's lots of issues. Some are bigger, some are smaller as far as I'm supposed to learn. Yeah, but that one to you is insignificant. It shouldn't really be on the website, shouldn't? Well, when it's versus spending our national treasure and our soldiers and our national spirit on preparing to kill million, of people, yeah, I think that's a big issue.

In 2021, Ben and Jerry's announced it was blocking all sales of its ice cream in Israel's West Bank, which he called the occupied Palestinian territory. So you felt strongly what, that the West Bank should be just left alone, give them back because it was Palestinian land, left with the Palestinians? We felt like Israel was mistreating the Palestinians. But in relation to the land of the West Bank, it was owned by Palestinians and should be return to them in totality? The position that Ben and Jerry's took was that we disagreed with how Israel was treating

Palestinians. It was kind of an apartheid system. And against, you know, against various UN resolutions. Yeah, I get it. Against international law. I get that. But what should happen to the West Bank then? I don't have an answer to that question.

Really? Really. But that was a Ben and Jerry's campaign. You literally banned your ice cream from being sold right? Because you called it the occupied Palestinian territory. So clearly you feel that the Israelis should get out of the West Bank, right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have run back. I mean, we believe in a two-state solution.

So do I. I don't know where the boundary should be. But you called the West Bank can occupy Palestinian territory. It is. Okay. Is it not? Well, I'm just going to ask you a follow-up. So, okay.

So you have an objection to occupied territory, Dee? We certainly have an objection along with the rest of the world and the UN. A little bit. Do you have a, as a company, you have an objection to the idea of countries occupying territory that doesn't belong to them in your eyes? In general, yes. So why not Ukraine? I don't understand. Why is Ukraine not allowed to keep its territory?

Why would you be happy for Putin to take that? What's the difference? I didn't say that. What I said was that we were against the war. We called for a ceasefire. It was not Ben & Jerez. It was Ben and the Eisenhower Media Network that was doing that. So should Ukraine have its land back that Putin's taken?

You know, the way wars work is my understanding, and I'm, again, I emphasize that we were totally against this war, which was a war of choice. The way war's work is there's a negotiated settlement at the end, and somebody gets some territory. So that could apply. I mean, what is the alternative? By that criteria, that should apply with the Israel-Hamas war, then, which might include landing Gaza, land in the West Bank. It's the same thing. It's a war, and by your yardstick in Ukraine,

if some land's been taken, well, okay, that's what happens. Well, it wasn't a war at the time. What was happening was that the war was over. There was an occupation of the West Bank. Palestinians, it was essentially what the UN called an open-air prison.

There was an incredible amount of poverty. People weren't, able to earn a living, yeah, we really felt that that was unjust. No, I get it. I get it. And we agreed. Listen, many people would agree with you. Many wouldn't, but many would.

But I'm just curious why you would feel that passionately about the Palestinian people's right to have their land, but you would not feel that Ukrainians should have the right to keep their land. I'm just curious. I never said Ukrainians don't have the right. to keep their land. So Putin should give it back? What's that?

Putin should give it back to them. I never said that either. Or what do you think? I think we ought to stop this war. We don't love to stop the war, but what do you think happens to the... What happens to the occupied territory? I don't know.

Okay. It's extraordinary. You seem to know very emphatically what you would do with the Palestinian-Israel situation, but you don't seem to have a clue what you would do about Ukraine and Russia, even though to many people's... eyes, it's exactly the same.

You know, many people who argue the case for Palestinian rights to land agree completely that Ukraine has the same right. It just seems to me as a bit of an inconsistency with your positioning. Would you accept that? Not particularly. Like I said, we were opposed to the U.S. provoking that war in Ukraine. That's the position we took.

and it was not been in Jerry's position, it was my position, along with the Eisenhower Media Network. And what we said was, let's stop fighting. Let's have a ceasefire. Let's use our words, you know. Let's have adults talk to each other

and work out a solution as opposed to having to kill a couple hundred thousand people first and spend trillions of dollars in the process. Okay. Let me bring, And some back in here. This issue going on with Elon Musk and Tesla is kind of fascinating.

It's not in the same kind of wheelhouse, except that oddly, all the people that used to love Elon Musk, including many on the woke left, have now turned on him with a visceral hatred. And you're seeing Tesla cars being torched all over America and so on and the share price diving or whatever. What do you think of that? Yeah, you know, it's funny.

It's the same people that, like, two years ago, we're saying, oh, the conservatives are overreacting by boycotting but light are now burning Tesla. So talk about the hypocrisy that we were talking about earlier. It's pretty comical. Elon's a tough one to discuss because the guy is the CEO of six different companies. And what might be good for some of his businesses by getting involved in politics are not good for other businesses. Obviously, in the case of Tesla, it really hasn't been good. If you take a look at the share price and then you take a look at some of the resale value of Tesla since he's gotten involved with the Trump administration, For Tesla, it really hasn't been good.

And I think if Musk was just the CEO of Tesla, I think a lot of people would be saying that, man, this is not good for the business. And maybe we've got to figure out some way that he takes a step back because he's been too involved with Tesla. And again, if I was the Tesla shareholder, not necessarily happy. The thing is with Elon, though, is that he has a lot of other businesses. For Twitter, this has been really good that he's gotten involved more on the political side.

He opened up free speech. He had this whole debate about his whole platform should be open to everybody in all voices. Twitter usage and revenues is backed up, I think almost, record highs right now and that business is doing incredibly well. And then his other business, SpaceX, SpaceX being involved with the government, being able to rescue astronauts just this past week from Boeing. I think it's been a huge boon to SpaceX. So it's really hard to tell with Elon Musk. Elon Musk also just being the controlling shareholder and the majority owner of all these businesses, it's a little bit different. I think he plays on a little bit of a different ballgame than others.

And again, I can't think of another person that's the CEO in this entire world of four, five, six, seven different multi-billion dollar companies. So it's just a little bit of a different situation. But in general, I don't like it when individuals who are the heads of companies are taking politicized positions because I think that we see that what ends up happening, the share price the company declines, the sales decline, customers decline. And ultimately, that's the least sustainable thing that a business can do because then they have to fire employees, they have to close factories, supplier shut down.

So it's best for generally for companies to stay out of politics or stay in their political lane. And, you know, I have no idea, I have no problem with if you're Elon Musk and you're running a car company opining on car emissions policies, opining on union related issues related to car factories, those things are all in your lane. You know, some of the other issues that a CEO like Elon will be getting involved with. If you were just the CEO of Tesla, I would have, I would have issues with. You know, you think about Ben, he opened this call by talking about he just wants everyone to have fair and equal opportunities. I think that, you know, for most people, everybody wants people to have fair and equal opportunities, but we get back and then like, what does that mean? And that's the problem when companies get involved, whether it's on the Israeli-Palestinian side, is it fair that a bunch of innocent Israelis were captured and then murdered on October 7th? Is that fair and equal?

I don't think so. You know, is it fair and equal that you have voter, we had to put in voter integrity laws because it seems like there were people showing up without IDs. I don't know if that's fair or equal. we had unlimited immigration in this country of the past couple years. Was that fair and equal to people that all of a sudden were displaced when migrant or illegal immigrants were placed in their high schools or taking up hotel rooms in the areas? Is that fair and equal? I think these are debates that we as kind of co-equal citizens we all tend to have,

but we should have that sort of in the democracy that we live in. And for the most part, it shouldn't be companies, and it shouldn't be companies are the ones that are taking positions on all of these issues because it leads to declining share prices. As customers, they sort of fragment because they don't like necessarily. politics coming with their products. Right. I mean, Ben, there's a big story involving Ben and Jerry's. Your chief executive, David Stiever, was removed by the parent company Unilever earlier this

month in a growing row over political activism. It comes a month after Ben and Jerry's accused the Unilever of demanding that it stops publicly criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump. The filing said Unilever has repeatedly threatened Ben and Jerry's personnel, including CEO, David Stever, should they fail to comply with U.S. Unilever's efforts to silence the social mission. I mean, pretty controversial scenario there between you and the parent company. What can you tell us about that?

Well, when the company was sold to Unilever, Beniger's used to be an independent publicly held company. When it was sold to Unilever, which was something I tried to avoid but was not able to, there was a unique governance structure that was set up. whereby there was a legally empowered independent board of directors that had authority over two of the three missions of Beninjuris. Beninjuries has a social mission, it has a product mission, and it has an economic mission. And the independent board of directors got the legal authority to determine the social mission. of the company. So what's happened now is that, you know,

recently the company wanted to put up a post in favor of dismantling white supremacy. They wanted to put up a post, you know, agreeing with free speech and against the, you know, the arrest. of, you know, this guy at Columbia. So that was not Unilever's authority. That was not an area that Unilever legally had authority for. And so the board sued them. And now they are threatening to fire the CEO of the company, Dave Steaver,

a guy who started as a tour guide 35 or 40 years ago and has risen up the ranks to be an incredible CEO of the company. Has it given you any pause for thought that this political activism stance that Ben & Jerry takes, particularly if you have a parent company that doesn't agree with it, becomes a sort of act of self-harm? It's definitely a problem when you have a parent company that doesn't agree with it. You know, Ben & Jerry's has been owned by Unilever since the year 2000, and pretty much up until two or three years ago,

things were going pretty well. But there's been a change in management at Unilever, and there's a lot of conflict right now. In 2018, Ben and Jerry said it was taking a stand against Trump by rebranding one of its flavors under the name Pekin Resist. Can we look forward to more resisting, ice cream varieties now, second time round? You never know.

Would you be happy with Ben and Jerry's actually coming out with a variety of ice cream which directly attacked Trump, given the emphatic nature of his win? I think that Ben and Jerry's should be taking stands on issues. I'm not looking to attack particular people myself. I mean, Trump, for example, Ben and Jerry's dropped a video announcing that it would never stop fighting for our democracy. This is when Trump returned to the White House.

Unilever does a lot of business with Russia, with China. Have you made your feelings clear to them, that you resent them doing business with democracy-loathing countries like Russia and China? Or does it only apply to America's president? Personally, I have no problem with doing business with Russia, China. Really? Yeah. So why do you have a problem with Trump and democracy? Why are you releasing through Ben and Jerry's videos saying you'll never start fighting for democracy?

I think there was a bunch of undemocratic actions that Trump was taking in this country. Well, hang on. Just to be clear, you have a problem with action. that may damage democracy in the United States. You have absolutely no problem doing business with Russia and China. I don't believe that every country in the world needs to be a democracy. And actually, I don't really believe that the U.S. is a democracy in practice. Right.

But why do you care? I mean, it's supposed to be one person, one vote, but it's one dollar one vote. I mean, billionaires and corporations control our legislation through lobbying. They control who gets elected through political donations. Would you be happy in Congress represent the money? Would you be happy doing business with North Korea? I believe that we need to get along with nations around the world. I don't believe that every nation has to have the same form of government.

No. I don't believe that it makes sense for anybody to to, to, to, to, to, what, ostracize other nations and have wars with them or have some kind of crazy system? Would you have done business with the Nazis out of interest? No. Why? They're an exception. Why?

Well, because they were engaging in genocide. Right. But you have no problem with anything that say the Chinese are doing to the Uyghur Muslims. You know, I have problems with things that most countries are doing. I have problems with things that the U.S. is doing. That's okay. It doesn't mean that we have to consider them to be enemies. You know, our capital in Washington, D.C.

was built by slaves. Is that worse than what China is doing with the Uyghurs? I don't know. Okay. We'll leave you there. Gentlemen, thank you both very much indeed. Appreciate the debate. All right. Thanks, Pierce.

Good seeing, you all. Disney's remake of Snow White has become one of the most preemptively hated movies in the history of Hollywood is finding out this week after a disaster-strewn two-year builder. The downfall began in 2023 when star Rachel Zegler, heralded as the boundary-breaking first ever Latina Snow White,

condemned the beloved fairy tale as creepy, predatory, and sexist. It then emerged that Disney had axed the seven dwarves, apparently to avoid typecasting and defending actual dwarves. This all came as a nasty shock for dwarf actors who already compete for a very limited number of lucrative roles. ...separate characteristics. They weren't these cave-dwelling monsters that people speak of.

They all had seven different characteristics for seven different actors from my community. And I don't feel it's right that they got taken away from us. I completely and utterly agree with you. And the irony is that they profess these progressives to want to do this to protect you. Well, I'm done to say that Dylan

will be rejoining us shortly to give an update, but I'm afraid it's not a happy ever-after scenario. The Seven Dwarves were first replaced by seven diverse magical creatures, whatever that means. And as Fury mounted, Disney did decide to bring the dwarves back. Instead of dwarf actors, human actors, they use cheap CGI dwarves that look like garden gnomes. Was the budget of $270 million and one of the most popular stories in history, how did he all go so badly wrong?

But during to explain all this, uncensored contributor Esther Cracko, Gary Bukla, aka Nadrotic, the critical drinker, Will Jordan, and author of the case for cancelled culture, Ernest. Welcome to all of you. All right, let me start with you, Nedrotic, on this. Where did it all go so

catastrophically wrong? Was it Rachel Ziegler, you know, appointing one of the wokenest actresses in history? Was that the catalyst for all this? Or was it virtue-sittling gone mad? What do you put your finger on? I think it was. I mean, we can start out with the creative bankruptcy of

remaking another animated classic. instead of making something new. But yes, it's all Rachel, Rachel Zegler and her behavior. And if it was just one comment, it probably would have been forgotten by now. But it was comment after comment, and it was pissing off everybody,

pissing off old Disney fans, pissing off new Disney fans, pissing off Trump supporters, pissing off all of America. And it became such a disaster that they had to shut her up, which was the smartest move they made. But the onus is all on her

and Disney's reaction. to it. And quite frankly, if she has said nothing, her movie probably still forgettable, would have done a lot better. Critical drinker, I mean, it's even down to the fact that Rachel Zegler and, is it Zegler or Ziegler, by the way? I think it's Zegler, I think is how you pronounce it. It's Zegler, right. Let's just clarify that. The battle between her and Galgado, right, is that they take diametrically different views, even on things like the Israel-Hamas war. Zegler publicly supporting Palestine, Galgado served in the IDF

and wrote, I stand with Israel, you should too, the world can't stand on the fence, so on. So here, the two stars of the movie, even diametrically opposed in a very polarizing manner over a big war that's raging. Sure, it feels like every aspect of this movie just seems to breed controversy,

and yet that's just another aspect of it. By all accounts, they do not get on particularly well. I think you could tell that from their body language when they were presenting an Oscar together, they just could not have disliked each other more. So, yeah, it's just another nail in the coffin of this movie, unfortunately. Ernest, you've seen it. So

what do you think? Don't tell me. You loved it. I loved it. It was incredible. Of course. I think that Rachel, well, you can say, of course, but, you know, you haven't seen it, so you might agree with me. I've read some of the previews of people who have. She's been killing it. She's vocally,

she's vocally talented. She's crushing it. A lot of people saw first previews and movie critics are already saying great things about her performance. She's whimsical, she's funny, she's lighthearted, and it's a great film. And I also think Gal Gadot plays the evil witch very, very well.

And so I think they both were perfectly cast for the film, and I think that is going to be a great film that's going to get over $100 million in the global box office. Which is great, because they only spend double the... Hang on, they spent nearly 300 million, so that would be a catastrophic failure. You realize that, Ernest?

Actually, 350. I mean, I think that... So, Ernest, you think it would be a success if it grossed $100 million having cost $350 million to make. Is that your position? I'm talking about opening weekend. We saw this with the Lion King remake. Everybody was acting like it was going to flop, but I think it's going to be a slow burner. I think it's going to do the same thing that the Lion King did.

Not equally, but I do think there's going to be a buildup. And I think that the performances speak for themselves. Esther? As much as Rachel Zegler tap dances on my last good nerve, she is a talented singer. However, that was not what this film was about. There are many talented singers in Hollywood. Snow White shouldn't have been the shade of Snow Latte, first of all. I think the casting was probably the biggest thing,

barring the fact that even if she'd kept her mouth shut, which she should have, because there was a lot of money writing on this. The casting was Oswald. I love Gal Gadot, but she's not a very emotive actress. And I don't think, there are limits to how far I can stretch my imagination to believe that someone who looks like Gal Gadda. But isn't the jealous of the appearance of someone like Rachel Zegler? But isn't the problem that every time?

You say it's not about whether she opened her mouth or not. Isn't the problem that literally every time she opened her little woke mouth, all hell broke loose. She called the prince basically a stalker. She then hammered Israel. She then told Trump supporters she didn't need their business. Imagine being a Disney executive. And you hear the star of your new Snow White remake alienating more than half the country.

The republics just won a big win, right? Alienated them all in one fell swoop. Yeah, the smartest thing they did, as Gary said, was to try and bury her. Hang on, hang on. Critical drink is talking. Yeah, the smartest thing, as Gary said, Disney could have done, was to bury her and just keep her from talking to anyone. Do not give her a hot mic and do not let her spout her stupid, uninformed opinions. She's a kid. She's a dumb, uninformed kid who's never done a day's work in her entire life. And of course, she has an opinion on everything. That doesn't mean we have to be a woman. She couldn't point to Israel on a map. The fact that someone like Galga who's actually had a career, had to sit next to this spouting munchkin, someone who actually has a career who, I'm pretty sure the hardest role in her life was pretending to be jealous of the looks of Rachel Zegler. And this is not to take away from the fact that she is a talented singer. Hold on, Rachel Zegler is very talented.

By the way, she's not even even going to get into that. We know she's snow latte. The original description of snow white skin in the book is as white as snow. Yeah. Lips is red as blood, hair as black as emily. It couldn't be clearer. They missed the mark there. They shouldn't possibly me.

Nodrotic, should we care that she wasn't as white as snow? A fairy tale. Well, people have eyes. That's for Nodrotic. Oh, that's, sorry. Apologies, Piers. I think it does matter because it is, if you want to remake a Disney, I mean, there are tens of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 remakes of Snow White or Adaptions of the Story.

But if you're remaking the Disney Classic that started the, company, I would think you wanted to make it as close as possible to the original, including the dwarves, and including the main character, Snow White. Well, we're going to come to the dwarf part, which is just beyond parody, to be honest with you. But Ernest, the British Board of Film Classification has put trigger warnings on here to say a woman is deliberately poisoned and a girl is surrounded by ominous trees. Can I ask you, I've never understood who these trigger warnings are aimed at.

Who could be that pathetically spineless and lily livid and weak and snowflakey that they need to be warned that in a animated movie they're going to have, well, it's not fully animated, it's animated in it. In this, you might get things which might be a little unsettling. Are you the guy that they're doing this for? No, absolutely not. I mean, I don't live in Britain, but I do think it's interesting that there's a lot of critique around censorship.

You all are supposed to be the bastions of free speech and expressions, and you all are turning over snowflakes. Because Rachel Zagler said a couple of different things that don't ruffle your feathers politically. I think you all are the council culture crew. Maybe you all should be, you know, co-authors of my book, since you all seem to agree about how problematic and how issue and hominists. I have no problem with her.

If she was a Trump or you would agree. Listen, I've got no problem with her spouse. You would agree. If she would be having this conversation. I respect her. right to spout any nonsense she likes. Doesn't mean to say that we can't criticise it for it. She can't say it. She should say she should be silenced.

She shouldn't be silenced. That's what you said. I said if you're Disney. But you say she should be silence. If you're Disney, Ernest, you want her to shut up and stop trashing the movie. She shouldn't have taken the role if she was going to jeopardize $350 million. Hang on. Pretty go drink.

Yeah. Can we look at this from a business perspective? Right. Ultimately, Rachel Zegler is there as a representative of the Disney company. She's there to sell a product. In this case, the product is Snow White the movie. Now, the best way to sell product is to appeal to as many people as possible. And if you straight up say that 50% of your audience

can get fucked, then you're not really appealing to a white audience, are you? It's just bad business. That's bringing somebody who has seen... But you're proving my point, though. There's a double standard. No, no. Everyone should keep their mouth shut. Everyone should keep their mouth shut. Everyone should

be a lot of opposite. Everyone should be beautiful. Hold on. No, no, no. everyone should keep their mouth touch. Snow white should be beautiful. She should turn up on set. Her skin should be white as snow. And she should... What's next?

A bald Rapunzel. It's not hard to do this properly. A beautiful singing actress who keeps her mouth shut unless she's talking about the film and how great it is. So she doesn't tank $350 million. It's not hard.

You don't believe what you're saying. Hang on. Let's true. I want to bring in someone who's seen the film. This is a publisher of film Threat, Chris Gore. Chris, you've seen the film. Is it any good? Yes, I have.

Well, I'll have to give it up to Rachel Zegler. she has quite a singing voice. She's actually very good, and it's a solid three out of ten. On every level, every other level, you can judge the film. It is a colossal disaster.

From the over-blooded exposition to the dwarves, the dwarves are an ungodly nightmare. Why they did it in CG, I do not know. They put seven little people out of work for this. They are horribly animated, horribly.

I think might scare young children, but really, in the end, it's just, it was ill. It was a bad decision even to make this. And the sort of, it's not as woke as it could have been, but there is messaging underneath. They might as well have said the words equity, because they went right up to that line and didn't say it. but it's terrible and torturous. I can't imagine kids are going to love it, but wow, they really had an opportunity and failed. I mean, it's going to be interesting how it does it at the box office because they spent so much money on this. The pre-publicity has been so awful that if it gets off to a very poor start, you can see if it's becoming a real turkey.

Well, I don't know. I really think that the advanced ticket sales are in the gutter. trash. People are posting screenshots of empty theaters, but this is not a movie. This is a movie where families will decide to see a movie, not buy advanced tickets and walk up. So it could go either way. I think in the end, because of the budget, it's a financial disaster. And it's just shows how creatively bankrupt Disney is as a studio, that they're even considering doing this. These These live action remakes have all been awful. And this one has been burdened by, of course, Zegler and her being very outspoken politically.

Probably a bad choice. They didn't rein her in soon enough. I don't think she understood the responsibility of taking on this role. So where her career is after this, I think Broadway. But she will never be an actress that will be at the head of a tent pole, big blockbuster. No one will take a risk on her. And this movie will prove that out. Chris Gaw, thank you very much.

I appreciate you joining us. Thank you. Well, let's get into this other aspect of it, which was the ludicrous decision to not actually use dwarf actors to play Snow White and the Seven Daws. And Critical Drinker, my whole position on this is from the star has been

in the dwarf actor world, there is not a big, gig or a more lucrative better pay gig out there in Hollywood than playing one of the dwarves in a Disney remake of Snow White. And yet in an effort to supposedly be more inclusive and to signal their virtue for what they saw as a marginalised group of people in society, they completely screwed them over. And they deprived seven dwarf actors of great jobs. They then tried these mystical beast nonsense.

then they abandoned that and they brought in CGI versions of dwarves which apparently look and sound absurd in the film. What is going on here? What's the mindset behind this?

I think you're giving them too much credit by implying that there is a mindset behind it. This is where ideology ends up tying itself and knots to the point where you've got a Snow White who isn't white, you've got a search for true love that doesn't have true love in it because that's problematic

and you've now got the several Dwarves who aren't dwarves, but now are dwarves again, but they're CGI dwarves because we don't want to employ real dwarf actors. It's absurd. It's the complete absurdity of modern Hollywood. They are so desperate not to offend anyone that they end up screwing up everything that they do. They were fired for their own good. Disney are facing a big protest and backlash from dwarf actors and actresses over the decision to replace Snow White's seven dwarves with CGI characters. Returning to uncensored is Dylan Possible, aka Hornswoggle from W. Dylan, great to see you again. What a mess Disney made of this. But just on that

point, we discussed this before, but what really, what I really resent is that dwarf actors have been deprived of potentially one of the best gigs of their entire careers. You know, Pierce, you mentioned

the seven actors, but what about the stunt doubles and the standings and all of that? Now you're talking 12 to 15 at least people in the acting industry from my community that got left out of jobs. And here's the thing. To me, was it Disney's call?

Sure. But this all fell back on what Peter Dinklage said on that podcast about what is he on his soapbox about for all of these years. And him literally making that statement and canceling this whole community of their jobs and what makes him the voice of my and our dwarf acting community and little people community. Why is it him that speaks up for all of us? I was on television for 10 plus years. Why is he being

taken as the voice of a whole community? That's my issue. What has been the, what has been the, I would have. Has he faced a big backlash now because I completely agree with you. Who appointed him? priest to deciding what work goes to who? From me, he sure has. I can't speak for the others, but for me, he sure has, because again, what makes it okay?

Producers, directors, I would love these roles. I would love all of these roles. I would love any roles. Whether they're written for a dwarf actor or whether they're written for another actor, any role is okay for anyone. That's the thing of

where I'm coming from. Me going out for a role doesn't necessarily have to be a dwarf casted role, but these were. These were dream roles. Seven dream roles in a major production. Yeah. A major production. Disney never does anything small as we know. Disney does big things.

This is a dream role for people of my community. Of course it is. And the other thing, I just thought that the secondary phase, when they brought in these magical creatures, which were all of varying heights. Some were very tall, right? I mean, I'm not how that made you feel, but, you know, I just thought it was absurd. I mean, I just think it was,

I think it was trying to fix an immediate voice and fix that issue. Who knows? But again, I go back to, why is it one voice that matters? Why is it? Why aren't we taking other people in the community? And this doesn't just go for Mike,

my community. It goes for any community. Why aren't we taking other voices into consideration? I heard that dwarf actors were not even asked to voice the CGI characters. It didn't even get voiceover action here, which again... I have no idea about that, but who knows? I mean, that's... The whole thing is ridiculous to me. And here's the thing.

Someone said about how it's not original or their creativity is out the window. I don't feel that way. love these remakes. I'm a Disney fanatic. I'm a Disney adult, as they say. These remakes are these live action remakes, I love them. But the issue is, Snow White is what kicked off the Walt Disney film

franchise and company. So now argue with me if you want, who was the star of Snow White? Was it Snow White or who do the dwarves stand out the most? The dwarves are what you remember about the film.

Seven different characters with different personalities who now could have been seven different actors with different personalities and different dream roles. And you know what's really laughable in a sick way is if you asked Disney at the time why they were doing this. So we're being progressive. We're listening. We're listening. You know, they're listening to people like Peter Dinklish. And so yes. No, no, they're listening. They're listening to one. Right. Right. That's my point. So they take him. People is multiple. Multiple. That's my issue. Yeah, I agree.

They're listening to one voice. Right, I agree. But what they're doing, they're making a... To me, he's not... I never voted him as president of my community. Right. I never voted that. He's the one that spoke up because he had that voice on that podcast. I get it. I really, really do.

He had a huge platform, and he said that on a platform. Yeah. And it just got buzzed. I understand that. But then why not after that go to other dwarf actors? Or even not even dwarf actors? just people in the dwarf community. Yes. I'd be like, hey, you take this offensively?

No. I would bet. I would bet my house that you ask 10 people, nine in the dwarf community are going, no, that's great for our community that they're going to need of roles. I think Peter Dignage owes you all a massive public apology.

And it's fine for him because he's made his millions. He won't. And he won't do it. The issue is he won't do it. The check from L when he took that role, cashed perfectly fine. Exactly. Cashed perfectly fine.

Exactly. Fine for him, not fine for everybody else. It's brilliant to talk to you, Dylan. You've been such a great advocate on this. Honestly, every word you say about it just rings so true. And again, this isn't about me personally. This is not the dwarf acting community. I mean, can I just say it?

And even above that, go ahead. No, I don't mean to trivialize this, but this kind of reminds me of what was done to, like, ring girls who were basically fired for their own good. So I'm not a huge boxing fan, but I went to see a boxing match in London, not of my own volition. I was on a date. And I was like, this is great.

I get to see some boxing and, you know, I get to see some cheeks as well. This was fun. And there was no cheeks. It was just, you know, bloody boxing. And then I asked one of the staff there, where are the ring girls? Like, I came here. This is part of the reason why I came. And they were like, no, no, no, they were fired because of equality.

And I feel like this is kind of a similar thing. You know, something has been happening on behalf of a community without actually the community's in. Well, nobody asked the ring girls. It looks great to me. I feel this is completely different, ma'am. This is absolutely completely different. Absolutely completely different.

I'm in the sports entertainment world. I can't take your side on that. So this is literally people just going off for these roles that were made for them. And now they're taken away because one voice. Yeah, I totally agree with you. Dylan, great to see you. Thank you very much. It's nice to see that your advocate for DEI, P.E.I.

Pierce, I'm happy to see that. What's that? I'm saying I'm happy to see that you're advocate for DEI is refreshing. In what sense? Well, I mean, you know, it's interesting because so much of the show

in the past and just these narratives lately have been about cutting jobs and being efficient and you're advocating for Disney to do more inclusive work. No, I'm thinking you're missing the point. I agree with the movie. You're missing the point where the movie is called...

I think I do. I agree with you. DEI to think the dwarfs should play dwarves? No, it's authenticity. It has nothing to do with DEI. Nothing to do with DEI. Nothing to do with DEI. Ironically, what is, okay, if it's DEI,

what is inclusive about excluding dwarf actors on the roles? No, I'm saying, I mean, I agree with you. I think that there should have been dwarf representation. Yeah, but you don't think that a white one should have paid snowy. You know, you, you know, Pierce, we've had this conversation for a while about historical films. And you said, could you play Nelson Mandela as a white guy?

And I told you, I don't think so. No. And you were very much like, well, you thought it was important about the accuracy about that. And now you're saying a fictional character like Snow White, I guess, can't be played by Latino women because a fairy tale narrative, I guess. Brandy shouldn't play Cinderella because Cinderella was white. Snow White had skinned white as snow. Hold on. No, I'm sorry.

I don't understand the limits of your advocacy. Snow White was called Snow White because her skin was as white as snow. I don't understand the logic of having a beige lady play Snow White when they're perfectly available white actresses that could play that. Just like Ryan Gosling isn't playing Mbacher or something from Black Panther. Like, where are the limits of your advocacy? So it's okay for one race, but not another. Yeah, I think the whole point is they are dwarves in the movie

and dwarf actors were deprived of playing them. That's not a DEI issue. It's just an authenticity outrage. I want to end or something. It just wasn't human doors. I want to end on something which we may all agree with, even you, Ernest, which is are Hilaria and Alec Baldwin, the most annoying people on God's earth?

But do we now have a scintilla of sympathy for Alec Baldwin after we saw this clip of them in a red carpet talking about their God-author reality show? Take a look. I think we're going to see. No, we're gonna see how it feels to have it be out there. It's gonna be Greg. This is, you're a winner.

Oh my God, when I'm talking, you're not talking. No, when I'm talking, you're not talking. This is why, yes, we'll have to just cut him out of the show. No, I mean, I think this is a really raw show, and it's very real, and we took a lot of chances. And, you know, I think that it's, we'll see where it leads us, we'll see what it feels like to have to be out there, and then we'll see, you know, if people are like it. Oh my God, I'm talking and not talking. Not talking.

It's that fake Spanish accent as well. Well, let me start with you, Ernest, on this. Come on. I mean, she's a horror story. Any woman that does that to her husband on a red carpet. Talking, not talking. I mean, it's unbelievable. What was going on?

What is she doing in private? Yeah, to be a flying the wall in their house, after a lot. Oh, well, literally, they are a fly on the wall, aren't they? But Ernest. But yeah, they're on a reality show, and they're doing what they do best. And I think in many ways, celebrity culture in that regard, it's cringy.

It's cringy. And it has nothing to do with their political stances because they're a hot mess on that front. But I would honestly say that, you know, when you think about it, I mean, this is what happens when you have a camera on you for 24-7. It's not good for anyone. Yeah, but actually, Esther,

what it showed was a real glimpse into that marriage. Yeah. I've always felt a little bit of sympathy for her having to be married to an idiot like Alec Baldwin. But actually, watching that clip, it looks like he's in some sort of misery remake. Yeah, I mean, a few months ago, we were talking about whether he deserves...

They're meant for each other. Well, I mean, we were talking about whether he deserves to go to prison a few months ago. I think this is a fate worse than prison. He has, like, 20 kids with this woman. You know... A face worth of incarceration. 18 years.

18 years. He's incarcerated with hilaria. Yeah. It is hilarious, isn't it, Nadrotti? It's absolutely. hilarious and I don't have any sympathy for Alec Baldwin whatsoever. I think the universe tends to unfold

as it should. Calmer is a bitch, baby. Good luck. Yes, it is. He's got the living prison sentence everyone else thinks you should actually have. Critical drinker. You know what I was really surprised at it? I mean, on their actual reality

show, there's a load more of this stuff in it. It's unwatchable, Tosh, really. But also, once again, Alec Baldwin, portraying himself as the kind of victim of the whole shooting incident on that set, when in fact a beautiful young woman was shot dead by Alec Baldwin.

Now, I don't believe he did it deliberately, obviously, but he had the gun in his hand that fired that killed this woman, right? And the idea you then do a whole reality show for personal gain, millions of dollars in which a lot of it is there, how's he doing with it all after the shooting, how's the family?

What about the poor woman who died? What about her family? Yeah. It's such a transparent attempt to garner sympathy. Like, because every scene is just them playing with their 500 kids or however men that they've got trying to act like normal human beings. And it's all just, hey, look at this guy. He's got so many people who depend on him and he loves his kids. Don't you feel sorry for him now?

Not especially. No. And I just know behind the scenes they have probably a bunch of nannies who do most of the work for them. So it's just more Hollywood fakery. Yeah, I feel sorry for the kids. for those kids. My God, where do you turn? Thank you, panel. That was terrific. Really appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Pierce Morgan Unsensit is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission

to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.