Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #531 - Elon Musk Accused Of Violating NDA, CEO Says They CANT Audit Bots w/Matt Binder

Episode Date: May 17, 2022

Tim, Seamus of FreedomToons, and Lydia host podcaster, YouTuber, and journalist Matt Binder to discuss Elon Musk's edgy response to Parag Agrawal's Twitter thread, Project Veritas' exposure of censorship of the right, which direction YouTube radicalizes people, Starbucks' choice to pay for gender 'reassignment' surgeries and abortions, and the Buffalo shooter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So it's one of those days where Elon Musk posts a poop emoji at the CEO of Twitter and you know things are going good. But hey, good for him for making things a bit more interesting I suppose. But the story is the CEO of Twitter basically said we can't do an external audit of Twitter's spam bots because you need internal data. Therefore Elon Musk's audit of bots won't be – he's basically saying his audit won't work. They're also apparently accusing Elon of violating his non-disclosure agreement by revealing that Twitter only surveyed 100 accounts to figure out how many bots they had on the platform, which is remarkably low. But I also think isn't the full picture.

What I imagine they did is it's 150 times. So they look at 100, they look at 100, they look at 100. But now they're accusing him of violating his NDA. Elon apparently is being reported trying to negotiate lower terms, like a lower price. Personally, I think Elon may have discovered fraud because we know that Twitter has misrepresented their numbers on two different occasions and two different reports. And we had the crazy swing in user accounts the week before they announced their bot numbers. So we'll talk about all that. We've got a bunch of other stories we're going to get into. And some of them are going to be – well, I'll just say this one.

I'm trending on Twitter because I made a tweet about abortion. Because I had a conversation with a friend in New York about abortion, and he didn't know what was in the law. And so I tweeted something that was like incendiary and everybody got mad. So we'll talk about that. Plus, we've got to talk about what happened in Buffalo because, well, for one, it's a tragedy. It's horrifying, and we should definitely be talking about the breaking news. But I also want to talk about there's been other mass shootings too. We've got Starbucks.

They're going to be paying for abortion and gender change surgeries for their staffers. So a lot going on today, and I'm sure a whole lot more. And joining us to discuss all of this is Matt Bender. Hello, everybody. Pleasure to be here. Looking forward to talking. Absolutely. Matt, who are you? Who am I? Well, for a long time, people, and probably still, because I'm on there every week, I'm on the Majority Report with Sam Seder. I know you're a big fan, Tim. Also, I have a show called Doomed with matt bender that covers the far right white supremacists conspiracy theories

like q anon and i have a show about crypto that takes it on from a leftist perspective called scam economy we are going to have so many disagreements it's going to be great it's going to be fun so we'll definitely talk about that. Matt, thanks for coming. No problem. We have a long history. And I don't think you realize because you've previously spoken about your long history with the majority report with Sam Seder. Wow. One thing. You said it was the first media show to mention.

That's a pretty big deal. I mean, you don't forget that. That's right. Sam was your first, whether you like it or not. That's true. Yeah, he said uh what did he say did he he said i was okay i think right he said henry was great this other guy's pretty good and it was and he played a clip where i was standing up live streaming the occupiers

taking the the orange net oh right i remember that yes and to be clear that was sam's opinion in 2011 i want people to want people to make sure that there's not like sam afterwards like he thought tim was just second rate even then nope nope i get to play that every time In 2011. I want people to make sure that it's not like Sam afterwards. Like he thought Tim was just second rate even then. Nope, nope. I get to play that every time and be like, now is it 2022? Right. And then, you know, I don't think you knew this until I came on and told you, but when you came on the majority report, I was the producer at the time who reached out to you and said, hey, Tim, you should come on the show. Crazy.

Yeah. Well, here you are, man. Yeah, here we are. This is going to be a good conversation. We have a lot to discuss. 11 years later. 11 years later. We're old.

Occupy Wall Street. We're old. You know what's crazy? Yeah, you guys are old. How old are you? 27. 27 is young. How old are you?

I'm 35. Oh, okay. We're like the same age. Yeah. The crazy thing is, during Occupy Wall Street, it was like just 12 or so years after the battle in Seattle,

which I wasn't at because i was too young right yes and now i'm like 11 years on from occupy it's a crazy feeling yeah but let's we got a lot to talk about we also got seamus my name is seamus coglin i create animated educational and satirical political cartoons on a channel called freedom tunes y'all should go over there check it out and we also have an announcement to make about the platform tonight i'm i'm sure i'll do it later. I don't want to derail the entire show with this exciting announcement. We won't really be able to get into any interesting conversations if I do

so, but stay tuned and thank you so much for stopping by the show. And I am also here since Ian is out for the full week. We're going to miss him. He is traveling and he's going to be having a great time. Hopefully. I'm hoping he does. Traveling cross-country is not always super fun, but hopefully this is good for him.

And yeah, let's read our sponsor. There were people who were saying it, like it was funny last week, they were like, Ian needs a vacation. So like not in a negative way, they were like, this guy's been on the show like nonstop, never had like, you know, very... And then I was like,

that's really interesting that they're saying that because like Ian was planning a vacation. Weird timing, yeah. And of course he took off as I come on. I know. You know, people keep telling me to take a vacation too, and I'm like never on, you know? It seems like your audience really cares about me.

Head over to TimCast.com. Become a member to support our work. As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments from the show Monday through Thursday at 8 p.m., so we'll have one of those going up tonight, and you're also helping keep our journalists employed. So smash that Like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show if you really do like it. Now, let's read this first story. The most important story from Fox Business.

Elon Musk sends poop emoji to Twitter CEO in response to thread on spam and fake accounts. Twitter has estimated that spam and fake accounts make up less than 5% of the social media platform's users. Okay, I had to lead with the poop emoji one. But the real story is that Elon Musk may actually, a deal at a lower price is not out of the question. There's a lot to break down in this story.

But basically, Elon Musk tweeted out a story from May 2nd where Twitter filed a report saying their users was around five, 5% of their users were spam or bots. Elon Musk, the deal was on hold until he could verify that. Today, the CEO said, you can't verify it because we have internal data on who people actually are, and it's private that we can't share. That's an interesting point. Elon mentioned that he would take a random sampling of 100 users. And then he got accused of like, that's a ridiculous sample size. You can't use that. So then he revealed, actually, this is Twitter. That's the number they use. Then Twitter apparently called him, or so he says, and accused him of violating his NDA. Things are getting crazy. I'm not entirely convinced the

deal will go through. My personal opinion is that Elon Musk is intending to expose algorithmic manipulation and potential fraud as it pertains to bots. Two things we ended up learning since this deal was going through. One, Twitter misrepresented its user accounts by I think a couple million on more than one occasion. Even the Verge questioned how could that have happened. And then we saw the strange shift where people associated with the right, libertarians, started gaining tons of followers, particularly people who are associated with like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Matt Gaetz gained a ton. But then we saw Barack Obama lose a bit. We saw Katy Perry lose a bit. If you were associated with the mainstream or the left, you were losing followers.

Now, to me, my theory is algorithmic manipulation, but I'm curious what your guys' thoughts are. I don't know. Matt? I mean, I think when it comes to that, I think people were just reacting to the news of Elon Musk. I think people heard what Elon Musk was planning to do in terms of bringing back Ben users, specifically one, Donald Trump. And I think you had a number of people who lean left or maybe apolitical but just don't like Donald Trump or people of that political affiliation. And they deactivated their account. I'm not even saying they left for good.

They just deactivated it as a protest. And conservatives definitely came back because they heard Elon Musk. And you saw this a lot. Conservatives actually think, and I can't say all, but the ones that you see on Twitter randomly like – you saw all these big conservative like influencers come on and go like, oh, I'm back because of Elon Musk. And it's like, why are you lying to your followers? That's not true. You're not back because of Elon Musk because Elon Musk didn't do anything.

He doesn't own Twitter yet. Who came back? Well, you had Tucker Carlson act like he came back because – No, he was suspended I think. Yeah, he was suspended and he acted like – he could have unsuspended himself at any time. He had to delete a single tweet. He chose on the day that Elon Musk announced he was going to purchase. All that news came out about Elon Musk purchasing Twitter.

He decided on that day to tweet that, I'm back. There were a few others who said that, too. I can look them up in a second if you want. For sure. I'm familiar with it. Yeah. And it's like, why are you? Because they know. Like, Tucker Carlson knows because he did what charlie crook's

another one um they he said he was back he he said he was back on twitter he had to delete a tweet oh right right right right because they they all had tweeted something that goes against twitter's policy but hold on so so right so did they delete the tweets or are they reinstated no they deleted the tweets are you you know that for sure i know that for sure. Do you know who the redheaded libertarian is? I'm not familiar with the redheaded libertarian. She's my go-to example of this one. She was suspended in January of 2021 for no reason. Right.

Like she didn't break any rules. They didn't tell her why she was suspended, but she got reinstated the following day. Sure. There were a whole bunch of people that we saw who were saying things like, I was suspended until now. We had people chatting us like, I haven't been on Twitter because I've been banned. Let me check. Whoa, my account's back. Well, do they know that it was back before that? For all they know, that suspension could have lifted in the weeks, months before. It's possible. It's anecdotal. But we do know that those big influencers who could have deleted, they weren't

suspended and had nothing they could do to get back on. They specifically were told delete this offending uh the policy that offends our uh the tweet that offends our policy excuse me delete that and you can come back on that's the rule for certain uh content that goes against their policy it's not a full-blown suspension and they could have done it anytime chose not to and the day elon musk and you know the news broke uh he based they basically came back and decided you know i i don't think you can say you know that Tucker deleted the tweet. The tweet's not there anymore. Maybe they deleted it.

No, they don't do that. They don't do that for that occasion. I would agree, too. It does sound like they deleted the tweet. They definitely deleted the tweet. And then came back. I mean maybe – but maybe it's like you're saying. People joined the platform because Elon was moving in.

So they were like, okay, I'll come back now. And they chose to. Yeah, they chose to maybe now decide to delete the tweet. Sure, that could have been one occasion. Here's the challenge I have with this idea. I mean, I think we've talked about it quite a bit. I think fraud. And the reason is, on the surface, that makes the most sense.

Twitter said people deactivating their accounts was organic. And I don't know if they commented on people signing up or joining. But when you take a look, I pulled up my Twitter numbers here. We can see that on April 25th, I gained 19,000. On April 27th, I gained 39,000. On the 28th, 47,000. It's crazy. But on Monday, the day that the news actually broke, I only gained 1,000.

It was 8 a.m. Right. Why did no one sign up on the day of? Why did they wait 24 hours after the first? I've got no idea. I mean, there's something certainly interesting going on at Twitter right now, and I don't think anyone could really explain it. Why did Katy Perry lose 200,000 followers? Well, I'm sure she has a user base that's mainly young, millennial, Gen Z, and we know from a – they're not big fans of Donald Trump.

Why the following Monday did Twitter put out its report on its total numbers of bots and spam? The week before we have this weird thing happen a day after the sale is announced. So, you know, here's my train of thought. I don't think you're wrong. I think what I see as being more probable is Monday at 8 a.m. They announced they're in the final discussion. Nothing happens. It was at 2.53 p.m i think they officially announced

that elon 22 maybe had officially secured the deal that night something changed so the next morning massive growth of followers tons of people you know like aside from tucker and other people who are like on suspension to remove a tweet there were people were saying that they were banned and the example that I go to, and again, it's anecdotal. It's not more than that. The redheaded libertarian who had created a new account was banned

and we don't know why. All of a sudden getting reinstated a year later, but 24 hours after the fact. The drop off in followers was the same thing, 24 hours after. So I'd imagine that the morning they announced Elon Musk is going to buy the platform, people would have started signing up and coming back, right?

Maybe. I mean I really – I don't think either of us could really speak to this. We just only speculate. I mean because there could have been things happening behind the scenes at Twitter. There could be external factors where third parties decided to literally manipulate it so that people like you and me would sit here and pontificate about what could possibly have happened. I mean we just don't know. That's one of the issues. And I think in terms of this particular story, I think the bigger thing here is Elon Musk

knew this information. He announced that Reuters – he shared that Reuters story about the 10 percent, less than 10 percent of – less than 5 percent. Was it 5? I'm pretty sure it was 10. 5. It might be 5. OK. Whatever the percentage was here you go i got axios well under five percent okay so he had that information that under five percent uh were spam uh but the reuter story

he shared that's from the twitter filing that he had already in the prior week or two when he announced he was going to buy Twitter, he knew this. He had their filing before they filed it? No, he knew the information. He was let in, obviously, on what he had to make a decision on whether to buy the company or not. So they would let them know what their projections are or what their finances are. Where did you hear that? Well, it's part of the deal. That's where it's from.

It's in the deal itself. It says that we gave Elon information on these things. He had a bunch of information. That's how he makes the determination to buy the company around. Sounds like he didn't have that information, and that's why he's raising an issue about it. I mean, perhaps. I mean, it's weird that he would go about doing this. Because me personally, I thought a lot of people were worried that Elon Musk would change Twitter and that's why people left and that's why there was all this.

I'm not worried about Twitter in terms of Elon Musk doing horrible things to content moderation. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. I think he's just mostly a hype man. He likes the attention. He likes to say a lot of things and not deliver. I think the biggest threat to Twitter when it comes to Elon Musk is he seems to not understand social media.

He doesn't understand the business of social media at all. If you look at his ideas to generate revenue, he wants users to pay to use Twitter. It's not going to happen. Well, I think he said high-profile users. So individuals using Twitter would not have to pay for it, but if you were a larger brand or a government, you would have to pay some kind of fee.

Well, I would definitely do that. I mean maybe you would, but there's also a lot of companies that just wouldn't. Basic users who would be influential. Like the idea that everyone who's got a blue checkmark or anyone who's got a lot of followers is automatically someone of means or something like that. Three bucks per month. I mean – Three dollars. People wouldn't pay. People wouldn that. Three bucks per month. I mean, people wouldn't pay.

People wouldn't. I think they would. I mean, what he's talking about is a suite of tools and access to fix problems and to help the high-profile customers. I think he's right. I think if you look at most digital services, they offer a, hey, if you pay this premium package, we'll give you access to these backend tools, these analytics and things like that. We pay for a bunch of Google tools. I have multiple Google reps for all the different stuff we use.

We have nothing like that for Twitter. I've even bought Twitter ads and there's like no one to talk to. Right, because Twitter users don't necessarily react to Twitter ads. It's not the same business model. Oh, they do. They do. I got a million hits on my song by buying an ad for it. For real. But there's all sorts of

different types of advertisements. I mean, just look at Twitter's revenue. It's nowhere near the amount that Facebook or Google makes. It's just not the same audience. But you're making the case for Elon. The company's being run really bad. Oh, no. No doubt about it. Twitter. I was talking about this with someone earlier. In terms of

the big tech companies, Twitter was the most susceptible to something like this um you know elon can't afford google exactly or elon can't afford facebook he can't afford you know any apple amazon microsoft they're well beyond the amount he could he could barely even do twitter he needs to bring a whole bunch of people on board uh and he'd sell he needs to sell out tesla stock um but but it was the it's the one um platform that's in this realm that has the same sort of cachet as those other platforms like when you think of the big tech platforms you throw twitter in there even though they're nowhere near as big when you look behind the curtain they're the most important though in a sense in a sense it's the depending on what your

niche is depending what your industry is in terms of media and news for sure but i'm sure if you talk to people outside those industries again we're in this bubble here so to us we probably i mean i use twitter more than anything else too yeah um we're definitely in a bubble i think that's a problem with a lot of things going on people are in a bubble and they don't realize that they're basically you know just taking information as they see it through their own lens. And there's whole other worlds on other platforms. Even on Twitter, there's whole other worlds that you probably don't even know who Tim Pool is, period. Oh, for sure.

Yeah. I've tracked the – there's a really cool mapping thing they do. They've made multiple where it shows you like the different universes on Twitter and how they can connect, and some don't. There's a cluster of people, it's really small, that has zero connection to the rest of the platform in any way. It's the weirdest thing. I've seen one where there was a couple of users, and I'm just like, what are they talking about? We need to figure out what they're doing over there.

What are they doing over there by themselves? I think, though, it's the most important because it's the town square. Facebook isn't. Facebook is... Oh, that's what Twitter brands itself as for sure right so so twitter is you know news stories are set they got you tim no they do no they for sure um i mean i started on twitter because of occupying it was a way to get news out really quick and because people who do news and politics use it it's become influential in the space of news and politics yeah and because it is that's why you don't want to libs of tiktok is setting policy oh inadvertently now cool no for

sure i mean they repost these videos and all of a sudden it's impacting laws in other states so twitter facebook doesn't do that right youtube i mean they'll do it a little bit because they're information platforms that have influence but twitter man i mean so so many have argued this i mean people people at corporate press have even facebook does disseminate information to people who'd be more likely to um believe in something they read online based on you know uh it being falsified or you know not factual um simply because they seem to be the more common everyday uh user in terms of like – I think they're older. Your parents are on Facebook.

Family members use Facebook for all sorts of different reasons. And people share things on Facebook that they just sort of passively read or take in and they just share to people that follow them on Facebook. Well, and I think you kind of hit the nail on the head there when you discussed family specifically. A huge part of why people use Facebook, based on my own experience and the reason people use Instagram, is because they're keeping in touch with people around them. Whereas with platforms like Twitter and YouTube, yeah, they're also social media platforms. But they're much more about seeking information from complete strangers or people who you've come to trust over the years because you like their, you know, angle on things. Sure.

Yeah. Let's talk about the story we got from Project Veritas that broke just a moment ago. We have this from Project Veritas. I tweeted out, Breaking from Veritas, Twitter employee confirms bias at Twitter. And I'll give you my opinion. Seems I was right. Because conservatives tolerate leftist speech and leftists won't tolerate the right.

Twitter opts to censor the right as balance. So I'll play a bit of this and you can hear from himself. What do you love? Capitalism. We weren't really operating on capitalism or race. So it's like we're all like, call me a s***. Ideologically, it does not make sense because we're actually censoring the right, not the left. Because everyone on the right wing will be like, bro, it's okay to say, just gotta tolerate it. The left will be like, no, I'm not gonna tolerate it. I need it censored.

Or else I'm not gonna be in the platform. So it does go to the right. It's true. There is a bias. I don't know if the two parties can to be in the platform. So it does look right. It's true. There is bias. I don't know if the two parties can truly coexist on one platform. What do your colleagues say about it? They hate it. Oh my God.

I'm at least like okay with it, but some of my colleagues are like super left, left, left, left, left, left. What do they say? They're like, this will be my last day if it happens. Has much changed since? So I'll pause it there. I think we all know the stories about the political leanings of people at Twitter's stance. If Elon gets hired, they're like, we're out.

But for me, when I saw this, what I found interesting was what I've said before is it's a business decision. You got to take a look at it from Twitter's perspective. People like Ben Shapiro are memed for saying, debate me. Right. They, the right wants to own the libs. They want to be on Twitter. They want to argue with liberals. So they like seeing these tweets. Libs of TikTok is a really good example. Libs of TikTok reposts the things the left says like, see, Hey, look at this on the left. However, they're the ones that are flagging. They're the ones saying these people should be banned. Uh, you mentioned earlier that, uh, some of these people had, they're the ones that are flagging. They're the ones saying these people should be banned. You mentioned earlier that some of these people had violated the rules and that they had been suspended. Yeah, sure.

They could come back. So my point a couple weeks ago was if Twitter is confronted with this from a business perspective, they're going to say the right doesn't care if the left is saying things as much. The left does care if the right is saying things as much. The left does care if the right is saying things. So purely from a business perspective, well, we'll ban as many on the right as we can without disrupting as many users as possible. And then we don't got to ban the left because the right's not going to do anything about it anyway. Well, I mean, Twitter has a very clear, well, first of all, I just want to say that Libs

of TikTok does a little bit more than just reposting what leftists say on TikTok. We could get into that maybe in a little bit. But on this topic, you know, Twitter has a pretty clear set of rules and guidelines on their website. And it seems like maybe just right-wing accounts break those policies more so than left-wing accounts.

I know plenty of people who got banned or suspended from Twitter for just literally saying like, you know, fuck you or, you know, something like that. And they get the, you know, this is not part of the Twitter policy. You're suspended for – I know people who got suspended, not even just to delete the tweet and come back. People who got suspended outright had to start new accounts for something like that.

Are you familiar with Learn to Code? Yes. So the editor-in-chief of the Daily Caller was commenting on the phenomenon and got suspended for it. So there were tons of people. And I think this may be what we're seeing come back with the big surge in right-wing users, at least partly. We also have to be careful with this video here. Project Veritas has a long history of disseminating edited footage. Well, I mean, everybody posts edited footage. No, I mean, edited footage that – I mean, they got sued by people who lost their job.

They're probably his – James O'Keefe. Acorn. When Acorn was closed down because James O'Keefe released that pimp video, if you recall that, he got sued and he lost because there was more video to it. And everything he said that this woman didn't there was more video to it and everything he said that this woman didn't you know didn't do she actually went ahead and did she he had to pay her he had to pay i think he settled that i don't think he lost but you can call it a loss in in terms of if you're settling well has he has he lost anything since he formed project veritas um maybe we have to check no the answer is no he hasn't all right maybe he hasn't and so uh so

you know like we've had james on the show we talked to him about No, the answer is no, he hasn't. All right, maybe he hasn't. So, you know, like we've had James on the show. We've talked to him about it. He said settling was the biggest mistake he made because they weren't wrong. But I don't want to put words in his mouth because I can't speak to this. This was before he formed Veritas. Since Veritas has been around, they've not lost. I'm pretty sure they've not lost a single lawsuit. In fact, they've won over and over and over again.

Yeah, and he has a whole wall of all the news organizations who have backed down and rescinded everything. So I'm pretty sure he's not lost anything. Yeah. And I thought that lawsuit was not necessarily just about them claiming they were misrepresented. A lot of it had to do with California's two party consent laws with respect to recording somebody. Was that it? Yeah. California's two party consent. Look, I'm not I think my issue with the Veritas stuff and the arguments against them easily exemplified by I think it was Channel 4 in the UK

did the exact same thing Veritas does and it was just heaps of praise all across the media. A deceptive, like they lied to the targets, they go in and they say like, here's who we are and it's not true and then they secretly record them and then they publish it on the news. And it was praised by all the big mainstream publications.

That's exactly what Veritas does. So if you do undercover reporting, then, I mean, I don't see what the issue is. In the settlement, James O'Keefe claimed he was unaware that the woman who was suing him literally did everything that he claimed that she didn't uh she called the police the second he came in and he she warned uh them about what was going on and what she was experiencing and i mean that was the that was the main when this happened this was in uh 2013 and was that project veritas or james o'keefe uh i guess it was james o'keefe i mean james o'keefe is project veritas have you so look let's let's just say uh James O'Keefe 10 years ago did a bad story. No, but he also did that thing where there was that person who was dropping off ballots in, I think it was Minnesota.

And the person came out and said that he completely distorted that. They're on video doing it. No, but that's legal. That's okay to They're on video doing it. But that's legal. That's okay to do what he was doing. No, it's not. It is. You could drop off ballots. That's what happened.

Oh, man. We got to pull up all the sources. Yeah, let's pull them up. He had a car full of ballots and said he was – what did he say? He was getting paid to drop them off? I mean that's illegal. Well, let me look it up. Yeah, yeah.

Because you said that there was a – But I'll put it this way. We'll pull that up because I want to make sure we have it all correct and everything. I know that there were accusations against James over that one. But my issue is just like how many stories has Project Veritas put out? How many real substantive issues have people criticized him over? And then I'll say, first of all, I'll put it this way. I'm pretty sure that was illegal because we covered that extensively.

And we went through all the laws and stuff. We can, I don't know if Seamus wants to look it up. You can look it up too, and we'll make sure we get the facts right. But man, I don't understand why all of this is directed at a handful of stories Veritas does when you have every other day fake news coming out of The Washington Post, out of The New York Times, out of CNN. Huge stories, too, that were years-long spans of lies and manipulations, some that resulted in major lawsuits, too. Like, you know, we still use CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times despite the Covington kids' lawsuits that they're all being sued over and losing. Because we recognize that news organizations get things wrong unless there's evidence to suggest something was not correct about it i don't

understand why we would not just hold the scrutiny of any organization uh oh absolutely that includes yeah every media yeah so when you know cnn or the new york times can come out and say sources say or people familiar with trump's thinking have confirmed. I'm just like, yo, the news, the news, like mainstream press rolls with those. And Veritas published a video. Now, by all means, you can say the video is deceptively edited if you don't believe it's true. But New York Times doesn't even put out who their sources are at the time. Well, I mean, that's basic journalism.

You could not trust corporate media if you'd like. So what if, but there are surely there are surely well-respected specific reporters and journalists who have a track record of good work what what if james o'keefe instead of revealing the video just said we have a source within twitter who has said this thing well james o'keefe is a known liar based on what we've previously heard about the settlements and stuff so i mean um you better You better be... Hold on. I got to tell you. Back that up. I mean, he paid a settlement, $100,000 to this woman, and he admitted that he lied about what she said on the video.

As long as you're saying that that's true and you're willing to stand behind it. I mean, he said it in his settlement. He said it in his settlement. I'm just saying that because James has basically sued every single person who has accused him, and he's won every single case. I mean, if he wants to dispute the fact that he paid this woman $100,000 because he said that he claimed that she didn't call the police when he came in with his pimp suit claiming what he claimed, and she did, and he said he didn't know, but he put the video out, didn't ask her, I guess, afterwards. Look, look, look. I can – we can say yes like it was wrong james did a bad thing but i mean i mean how does

that discredit the story what story the one the twitter story oh i'm saying is we don't know the whole the whole uh conversation that went on there i agree with that for sure um so we have to go by what it's also it's also like honestly a very like low bore. I mean so the accusation is that what? That leftists won't tolerate the right? Well, that's one of the – Okay. But I mean they're just basically – what are they doing? They're reporting a tweet for something that this right-winger said that would either A, not break Twitter policies so there would be no punishment let's

let's talk about the policy there would then be misgendering policy misgendering policy yep that's swedish policy yeah yeah absolutely and it's it's biased against conservatives how is it biased against conservatives conservatives don't agree with the concept of misgendering i mean not a single one right i mean it's basic respect if you ask me it doesn't matter if i'm not i'm not that's if you ask you coming from a left-wing perspective but it's not i'm not making a moral statement i'm saying conservatives don't agree with the concept of misgendering right that's a fact i mean maybe there are conservatives that don't i mean they do agree well but i mean do you think conservatives agree with the concept of misgendering i mean vast majority yeah sure you think they they

agree that misgendering is a thing no no They agree that they should have the right to misgender someone. Right. They don't believe it exists. You view it as they think they should be allowed to, but conservatives don't think it's a thing. Right. So you've got how many? 74 million Trump voters. I'd say the overwhelming majority are like either don't know what it even means or if you look at the staunch conservatives would outright say it's not possible.

Well, we have to be very specific here about I'm all for someone learning and understanding and using the wrong language. I mean I know plenty of people on the left. I do myself sometimes. I use the wrong pronoun or whatever for someone who does not identify as that gender. And if someone is coming at it in good faith and not meaning to harm somebody or be – Well, I don't want to deviate too much i mean i mean i mean the issue you brought up that there's conservatives who don't even know that's a thing now if one of those conservatives does that thing on twitter and then someone's just

like hey you're misgendering me and then they're just like oh i'm sorry or just or just dude i mean people say dude all the time and zuby got banned for it he got a suspension for saying okay dude well what in what context did he say i mean zuby's not someone who doesn't know what misgendering is he's someone who clearly he's saying dude in a in an informal context like we say okay dude i mean here's the point here's the point you're making moral statement i'm making more i'm not making a moral statement we know conservatives don't agree we know the left does twitter has a policy that the left agrees with the right doesn't therefore twitter has a policy biased against the right that's that's that's that's a simple fact statement i mean if you're some if you're

coming from if you're coming from the position that um if you don't agree that this is a thing i mean well then i mean twitter is saying it's a thing like it's their platform they're saying this is a thing on our platform you're misunderstanding how am i misunderstanding it does it's not i'm not making a moral statement okay i'm not saying twitter is right or wrong twitter is well within its rights to have whatever rules it wants. Conservatives disagree with the concept. Progressives agree with the policy. Twitter's rules suit the view of the left and not the right.

That's simply put. Twitter's deciding to make those rules. I mean, I don't know what else to say. We agree on that. Yeah, sure. Okay. So if conservatives don't agree with those rules, Twitter's rule set is biased against the conservative worldview. I mean, there's all sorts of rules I don't know what else to market. Absolutely, we agree on that. Yeah, sure. Okay, so if conservatives don't agree with those rules, Twitter's rule set

is biased against the conservative worldview. I mean, there's all sorts of rules I don't agree with, too, but that doesn't mean they're biased against my worldview. There's just what they decide to... I mean, the misgendering thing

is clearly cut. Obviously, if we want to nitpick, you can talk about the various right-wing factions and what they believe. I mean, if you don't agree that trans people exist when they clearly do,

then I don't know what to tell you. I don't know who said that on the right. Yeah, I mean, I mean, look, I don't believe in the concept of transgenderism. I don't believe there's a difference between gender and sex. And I would say that Tim is making a descriptive statement. He's not saying that it's good or bad that Twitter has this specific policy. He's just saying that on the issue of transgenderism, Twitter has clearly taken a side, and their side is that a person's gender identity is a concept which supersedes their biological identity. That is a decision they made as a platform,

which is a politically biased decision. I mean, they're basically saying trans people exist, though, because if you take that away, then what is... I mean, what are you... I'm not quite... I mean, I know what you're arguing, but you're basically saying it's biased against conservatives to admit that trans people exist by Twitter. That's not what they're doing.

They're not saying trans people exist. They're saying you are forced to acknowledge that you believe this identity is their identity, even if you don't agree with that or else you're not on the platform. Yeah, because that's what the misgendering policy is. They're not even saying that. They're saying you have to use this language or we will ban you. Okay. Conservatives say, I do not believe in the use of that language.

And it's overt. I mean, I would say 99 out of 100 conservatives would be like, I'm not going to use preferred pronouns. If Twitter's rules are in line with your worldview or a progressive worldview, they're biased against conservatives. I don't think we're arguing. I think we agree on that. I mean, I don't think it's biased against conservatives to be quite honest but we could go in circles on this or we could just you know it's up to you so you think conservatives are you're not making you're not making sense man i mean what do you mean if you

basically tell someone we know conservatives miss like don't use the concept of misgendering we we know conservatives will call a trans woman he, right? Yes. Therefore, Twitter's rules are not fitting what conservatives do and think on a daily basis. I mean, you could argue— It is like it's one plus one equals two. It's like just right there in front of you. I mean, you could argue that about anything, though. Like what? What do you mean like what?

Like you can't say the N-word on Twitter. And do conservatives want to say the N-word? Yeah. They don't. Oh, please. And do conservatives want to say the N-word? Yeah. They don't want to. Oh, please. They do. See, bro.

Not all conservatives, but the subsection of Twitter that does want to is certainly on the right. There are people who like using bad words on the right. There are people who like using bad words on the left. I'm not going to make a blanket statement that every leftist wants to advocate for Antifa going and killing people, but there are certainly Antifa that go around advocating for killing people, right? How many people have advocated for killing lives of TikTok? A large amount. We can pull up tweets.

How many people have advocated for serious physical harm to Andy Ngo? I'm not going to sit here and say everyone on the left wants to violently harm, you know, Andy Ngo. Oh, there are people who did it. There are good and bad people. The issue is if you go to some of the most prominent conservatives, like Ben Shapiro, he will say, I do not use preferred pronouns. He's got one of the top podcasts in the world.

And Twitter's rules conflict with one of the biggest podcasts in the world. You don't have to use someone's pronouns at all, though. I mean, you could easily talk about that individual by their name. I mean, but like I said, i'm not making a moral statement if ben shapiro wants to say he he's told he can't or he'll be banned well i mean that's just twitter's rules twitter's right twitter's rules fit the leftist worldview well i mean if a if a left-winger also wants to do that then they can't either right but the left tends to agree with that perspective it's the leftist worldview or it's a component i mean yes left people agree that trans people exist i mean i was arguing they don't exist why do you keep saying that because if you're not gonna if you're not gonna basically uh acknowledge someone's

gender identity then you're saying they're not trans people don't exist but what does that mean trans people don't exist i mean that someone's not trans what do you mean what so shamus can argue what do you say transgenderism doesn't exist or what? Yeah, I don't believe gender and sex are, I don't believe like in the concept of gender. It was developed, the coin was, the term was first coined by Dr. John Money, who was like a pedophile and sex pervert who abused children and created this idea that we can make this false distinguishing between a person's actual biological sex and the sex they should be treated as within society. I don't think it's a legitimate concept i believe and i agree that there are people who struggle with their identity i

think there are people who are deeply confused about their sexual identity i do not believe a man can ever become a woman or that a woman can ever become a man i don't yeah that's what you believe all right but i mean i don't know the information that you just said in terms of i could look it up but um uh you but people do suffer from gender dysphoria. That's a real thing. Absolutely it is. And everybody agrees those people exist. Yes.

So why do you keep saying trans people don't exist? Because you're saying that gender dysphoria exists. A real thing. Yeah, it's a real thing. But you're saying that the actual outcome, what they're looking to do to actually treat their gender dysphoria, it's not a real thing. Well, no, no, no, no, no, no. Yes, yes, yes. Trans people exist.

And I've met Trump supporting trans women. Sure. And hackers and leftists and right-wingers. Of course they exist. Of course gender dysphoria is real. They're trans women. They have preferred pronouns. Sure.

And whether or not you compel someone to use those words has nothing to do with saying they exist or not. If you refuse to use anyone's pronouns or just refuse to even call them by their name, I mean, I don't know what to say to you. I mean, if I called you Florbo, would that be denying your existence? If you called me Florbo?

Yeah, if I used a pronoun for you that wasn't your preferred pronoun, am I denying your existence? I mean, personally, it? Yeah, if I used a pronoun for you that wasn't your preferred pronoun, am I denying your existence? I mean, personally, it wouldn't bother me, but that's just me. But am I denying your existence? Are you denying my existence? Yeah.

I mean, people could argue it's disrespectful, for sure. But am I denying your existence? Well, because trans people don't acknowledge that their birth name or given name is what they, you know, that's not them. Do you, I don't know what to say. I mean you're saying they're claiming trans people don't exist. That's like a buzz phrase with no meaning.

You've conveyed no idea to anyone. What are you talking about? What idea are you trying to convey when you say conservatives say trans people don't exist? What is that supposed to mean? What do you mean what that's supposed to mean? Let's go back to the original thing that you were talking about, Twitter's policy. And you're saying it's purposefully

biased? I didn't say it's purposefully. No moral statement. Sure. It is a rule set that the left agrees to, the right doesn't, and therefore is biased against the conservative worldview. Okay, and if Twitter did not have that policy, then it would be biased against trans people. No, it would be unbiased. If Twitter had a policy which said, if Twitter had no policy on what pronouns you could use

for someone, that would not be biased. That would just be like the lack of a policy altogether. Yeah, the lack of policy could be biased. No, no, no, no. The inversion would be Twitter saying you are not allowed to use preferred pronouns, right? So once, the conservatives don't want to refer to trans women by she, her, right? Okay, they could just not refer to trans women that way.

But you'll get banned on Twitter. You do not have to go after a trans person. It's that simple. Here's my point. You can exist on Twitter without attacking a trans person by calling them by— But again, this is a left-wing framing that it's attacking someone to not use the pronouns that affirm this idea that there's something that they're not. The point is the rules.

If I started calling you she, for example, that would bother you. That would be completely incorrect because I'm not a woman. I'm a man. I've been a man my whole life. And even if I decided to identify as a woman, I still would not become a woman. But I would have the common – So it's a new point. But if you did, though, I would have the common respect to refer to you by your gender identity. So I absolutely believe that you are coming at this from a place of respect, but I don't think it's respectful to indulge something that's not true.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. We're deviating way too far. The point is Twitter's rules, overtly biased. If Twitter removed the rule, there would be no bias because there's no rule. If Twitter created a rule that said trans people are not allowed to use preferred pronouns, that would be biased in favor of conservatives. If Twitter also made a rule that said that, you know, you can now use the N-word, who do you think that affects? Who's that biased against? That's biased against people who – black people. Yes.

Right. Yes. But is there a policy saying you're like, the issue is- Correct him. The issue is Twitter, negative rights, positive rights, et cetera, et cetera. Twitter is saying, here's a list of things you can't do, and it tends to be things conservatives do, right? Okay.

I'm sorry that conservatives do things that tend to disrespect people. I mean- That's, I'm not making a moral judgment. Okay. If you want to say they're disrespecting people. I mean, that's... I'm not making a moral judgment. If you want to say they're disrespecting people, I don't care. I'm simply saying

Twitter's rule set favors the leftist approach. All right, and I disagree. But that's impossible. I'm not making an opinion statement. I'm making a fact statement. I just don't agree. I mean, we know from just how

these social media platforms, if we could take Twitter specifically, how they work. They tend to... The algorithm tends to platform content on the right all the time. Well, they platform everybody all the time. No, no, no. You get, they recommend right-wing content more often than not.

That's 100%. Who does? Any social media platform. Facebook, Twitter. You are wrong. Let me let me youtube's another one yeah let you uh let me let me try and pull up the uh see if i can find the article you know one of the challenges with doing these like we sit down and we talk about is we're always trying to you know figure out where we saw something and all that stuff so let me see if i can uh find Oh, does it want me to buy this?

Muckrack is trying to sell me the article. Let me see if I can try and find this article. It's by a researcher named Mark Ledwich. Twitter algorithms bias toward right-wing content. Says who? Twitter's own research. And what did they say and why did they say it? Twitter is publicly sharing research findings today.

This is from Protocol that show that the platform's algorithms amplify tweets from right-wing politicians and content from right-leaning news outlets more than people and content from the political left. There you go. I'm trying to pull up this Mark Ledwich thing. So I see this from the Washington Post. October 22, 2021, Twitter algorithms amplify conservative content more than that of the political left, researchers find. Who are the researchers? An internal evaluation of Twitter's recommendation algorithms concluded that they amplify right-leaning political content more than left-leaning content, company researchers announced Thursday, undercutting allegations by many conservatives who contend they are being censored on the platform.

Now, that statement is just confusing and factually incorrect. Twitter can promote conservatives, but doesn't mean conservatives. You know who should get to the bottom of this? Elon Musk. Why don't you ask him to find out more information about this study? Agreed. There you go. If conservatives are complaining about being censored,

the fact that Twitter promotes some conservatives doesn't mean conservatives aren't being censored. The fact that Twitter would promote more conservatives doesn't mean some conservatives aren't being censored. So it's a Washington Post point. But we'd have to... The research in months of the making part of twitter's promise to evaluate evaluate the underpinnings blah blah i'm trying to see what the meat of what they're actually saying is and i don't seem to it doesn't seem to be in the article they said they analyzed millions

of 2020 tweets by elected officials in seven countries canada france germany oh okay so it's not an american thing as well as post posts that... Oh, come on. All right, I can debunk this in two seconds for you. Okay, go ahead. All right, from the New York Times, what happens to America's political center of gravity? As you can see, the right-leaning platforms, the right-leaning political parties in Europe are to the left of the Republican Party.

So when you say Twitter is amplifying right-wing content, it's like, okay, okay, in America, yes or no? The answer is no. Because the parties that were getting amplified European parties are to the left of the Republican Party. I mean, so you so it's to the right of you. That's a fair point. It's to the left of the American conservative. Well, that's a major statement that you have to probably check with the researchers who put together this study um well they specific well i'm showing you right here you use the new york time you you specifically yourself i mean um have what 1.2 million twitter followers yeah and what what was my what's my political affiliation your political affiliation right we should talk about that right um yeah i mean i don't think you are exactly what you claim you are what am i um

you know i would say you're a pretty much conservative what makes me conservative what makes you uh a liberal uh well traditional liberals in this country uh specifically social liberal uh is where i've always been voted for obama in 2008 a lot of people voted for obama in 2008 and then moved over to trump we've established that so i voted for trump in 2020 yeah there you go right so uh traditional liberals all those liberals who voted for trump nine million in this country that's right i wouldn't consider them liberal and substantially more uh donald trump is talking about democrats not liberals no they're liberal uh donald trump is a new york a new york liberal like donald trump unfurled an lgbt flag on the rnc stage and got republicans to clap for it oh sure okay so uh i'm pro-choice uh well we could talk about that yeah i'm pro-progressive tax uh i'm pro-green new deal are you oh yes really

absolutely really i don't think you watch the show i know i have watched the show i've seen you completely come out and get really mad at uh alexandre ocasio-cortez for some of the things in the green new deal do you mean like free college for black people what did you read the no i did but that's that that that's what bothers you uh what bothers me is that when i advocate for environmental policy having worked for several environmental and i don't think and also i don't think the policy says free college for black people no no it's it's it's free college it's free health care for marginalized and oppressed communities. What does that have to do with wind turbines? What are you talking about?

It has everything to do with the environmental situation we're going to be in. No, that's race policy. That's identitarianism. No, it's not. What do you think happens when climate change affects the United States of America? Who do you think is going to be the most affected by it? Who's not going to be able, like Ben Shapiro said, who's not going to be able to just get up, sell house that's going sailing out to the sea and going underwater like ben

shapiro said um who's going to be able to uh easily get themselves out of a situation that sees their neighborhood getting flooded their neighbor they're you know they're going to lose what they currently have it's not going to be the wealthy it's not going to be people who are in comfortable situation we just get up and move it's going to be people they currently have. It's not going to be the wealthy. It's not going to be people who are in a comfortable situation who just get up and move. It's going to be people who don't have means. So when we lift people out of poverty, we'll be able to better address climate change issues when they arise. Just to go back real quick, I did find the data showing that YouTube overwhelmingly sends content to the left and not the right. You have to send this to me because this goes against

every piece of research I've ever read about YouTube. I will say outright, one of the challenges with any kind of political debate is that everyone's going to find their sources. Where's your source from? This is firstmonday.org. This is an academic named Mark Ledwich who worked with a series of other academics.

They've mapped out. They got me as anti-SJW here with Sargon of Akkad. And what they did was they grouped everything by a whole bunch of different channels. There's like white identitarian. There's partisan right. There's conspiracy. There's social justice. There's center left, mainstream media.

And then they created parents for what typically socially falls into a left or right category. And then they created this recommendation trend map showing you partisan left content typically recommends partisan left content. Center content typically recommends partisan, I'm sorry, typically recommends center content. However, when we're talking about who's getting recommended the most, from the center, you're more likely twice or three times as likely to get partisan left content than partisan right content. So if you go-

What do they consider left-wing content? Socialists, social justice, partisan left. What is that? What are we talking about here though? Because there's right-wingers and there's all sorts of people who view NBC and CNN

and other corporate media- No, that says center left, mainstream media. Okay, well that's center left. Mainstream media. Okay. Center slash left, mainstream media. Okay, well, that's center left mainstream media. Okay. Center slash left mainstream media. Oh, it's its own category is what you're saying.

So they mean like your TV networks, the news they report, like overwhelmingly anti-Trump, for instance, comedy specials and things like that. If you go on YouTube and you watch Jimmy Kimmel, you are the most likely to just see more Jimmy Kimmel. But when it comes to the political direction information flows, as you can see from Mark Light, which is research, and there's a couple other researchers, sorry if I'm not

reading their names. I mean, it looks like three or four to one, you're more likely to get partisan left-wing content than right-wing content. Well, that goes against every research. Here's one, for example. Now, check this out. Check this out. Also, if you are watching partisan right-wing content than right-wing content. Well, that goes against every research. Here's one, for example. Now, check this out. Check this out. Also, if you are watching partisan right-wing content, you are more likely to be recommended center or mainstream content than if you were on the left for the same number. It seems somewhat comparable, but considering the partisan left receives 99.5 million daily impressions to the partisan right 68.6, it's a disproportionate amount of recommendations in favor of partisan left.

All right. Well, I need to see that study in front of me because I could easily just pull up another one that just says more than 330,000 videos and nearly 350 YouTube channels were analyzed and manually classified, labeled as either media or what we think of as factual news, alt-right, intellectual, dark, red, or alt-right. And then it found that YouTube's algorithm funnels people to alt-right videos. But by how much? I mean, it does. That's a fact statement. Sure. It absolutely does.

Now, Twitter diminished alt-right channels and banned most of them. They cut them all off from the recommendation algorithm. So the time period in which YouTube did that study would be important. But also, yeah, absolutely, YouTube recommends everything. YouTube does recommend alt-right content for sure. They banned a lot of it. The issue is, and in large amounts,

if a regular person goes on YouTube and watches Jimmy Kimmel, are they more likely to fall into a left or right-wing rabbit hole? The data shows the left. All right. Yeah. I mean, that's true.

But I mean, look, look, look. But I mean, how often is someone who's watching Jimmy Kimmel going and looking for more political videos? I'm assuming they're going to be looking for entertainment content. Right. Which is why the overwhelming majority. So if you look at the left on this chart, for those that are watching, can you pull it up? So if you look on the left, you can see there's a purple bar. On the right is another purple bar.

The purple going straight across, that represents the overwhelming majority of people who watch center or left mainstream media will only be recommended center or left mainstream media. When you look on the left, you see this line going down. That represents how many people from a mainstream media video will go to a partisan left video. As you can see, the line representing the data is substantially larger going to the left than the right. When you look at from a partisan right-wing video to the center, the line is comparable from the partisan left to the center, meaning partisan right gets two-thirds, gets 68% of what the left gets in terms of views,

but has an equal amount of people being recommended away from partisan right-wing content showing the left is favored, whether inadvertently or on purpose on YouTube. So we can talk about Twitter. We can talk about this stuff. And again, I will stress to everybody who's watching or listening,

we've had conversations. We had a lot eliahuan and he pulled up pew which said most people are pro-choice and then i pulled up gallup which said most people want restrictions on abortion you're always going to find some data and it's and it's hard to know what's true but everybody has their well there is an issue i just came up i just found about this specific study that you're talking about this is is the one with Mark Ledwich, right? Okay. Basically, let me pull up exactly what we got here. Okay. To examine what YouTube's algorithm recommends to viewers, Ledwich and Zaitsev went through those channels' videos and scraped each one's recommendation data. So they were able to see what YouTube offered in the

up next box to people watching each video. However, Ledwich and Zaitsev crucially did this while not logged into a YouTube account because YouTube had no personalization data to go off of. Each box of up next recommendations that served Ledwich and Zaitsev was a generalized blank slate collection of videos. The algorithm is literally incapable of introducing an anonymous logged out user to increasingly radical content. This is from Tube Filter. How many of YouTube's viewers are logged in and have accounts? We should check that out too.

So the issue is this research I'm talking about has nothing to do with it. I mean it's literally the average person. Will they be fed left-wing or right-wing content? And that doesn't disprove anything I said. So basically – Nor does it provide any evidence in the contrary. I mean, it looks like if that you're logged in, that based on user data and recommendation data, then it does seem like they funnel to people

to more right-wing content based on other studies. What's your source, though? The study I brought before. What study? I mentioned it before. You know, one of the issues, too, is we're going to run into this, and I don't think we'll have an answer for this,

is who's doing the study. There was a study issues, too, is we're going to run into this, and I don't think we'll have an answer for this, is who's doing the study. There was a study that, like, will say something not true about me or not true about you if they're trying to get whatever outcome they want. This is the big challenge with trying to figure out data in this regards. There was a study that came out that claimed I was, like, ANCAP far right or something something, which is just like – I don't even know how they come up with that. I mean come on. If someone wants to accuse me of being a conservative based on modern tribalism, we'll have an argument. But ANCAP right wing, I was just like – so I can certainly – Wait.

Hold on. Hold on. I just came out – because I looked up the author of the study, Mark Ledwich. Yeah. I mean he has a – it looks like he's a q anon defender i don't i don't i don't i mean it seems like i mean i wouldn't trust someone who believes in a conspiracy theory like q anon honestly what about russiagate um yeah what about russiagate why what does russiagate have to do with it what does q anon have to do with what we're talking about the author of the

study you're citing seems to be a q anon believer and and what about the studies you want to reference look whoa if i reference the study that uh reference the study give me the name we'll pull up their q anon bs come on what are you talking about i mean you're right you're right to study you got you know here's the guy's name i don't know you reference the study sure if you want me to pull up their names and find you and want me to pull up their twitter accounts and find the stupid things they've posted this look q anon is not just like posting something stupid. QAnon is a whole belief set. People's whole worldviews are based on this.

What did he defend? What did he defend? Let's bring it up right now. I'll bring up the whole long medium blog post here. Let's see. We got in the past few months, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been waging a war against QAnon, a leviath of a conspiracy theory that explains, among other things, that there's a deep state cabal of Jewish, Satanist, globalist, democratic elites in government, business, and the media

secretly controlling the world and running a global sex trafficking ring. Most recently, QAnon fans have claimed that COVID-19 is a hoax and that the U.S. election was rigged against Donald Trump. Social media giants recognizing these conspiracies were gobbling up a lot of engagement

on their sites, took action in censoring them. And then he goes on to... Where did he defend them? So it doesn't sound like he believes in it at all. He referred to it as a conspiracy theory.

And then he also said... Well, yeah, QAnon... No, no, no. Where did he defend them? Come on, pull that up. Sure. Where did he defend these guys i don't think he did well i'm looking through it's a long piece yeah he didn't he didn't defend them mark ledwich oh here we go here we go q anon believers have already demonstrated their ability to do this very well talking about um basically uh getting content out there and uh you talking about basically getting content out there

and getting their content out there even when they're already banned from Facebook and YouTube. How is that defending? Hold on. When they hijacked the hashtags, save the children and save our children, a fundraiser for anti-trafficking charity. I mean, that's not what those two things were for.

So you're saying he's wrong? He's wrong about it. Those were not fundraisers for anti-trafficking. Come on, come on, what? You said he defended QAnon, and then you read an academic piece where he talked about them, not in favor of them. No, no, no. I just told you how he called the hashtag, the slogans they use online. He called them a fundraiser for anti-trafficking charity.

No, didn't he say they hijacked a hashtag which was for an anti-trafficking charity. And what. And I think. Didn't he say they hijacked a hashtag. Which was for an anti-trafficking charity. Like they. Or charity. Like they stole it from. Right. They stole it from them. That's not what I.

How I'm reading this. But maybe it is. Let me read it again. I. It seems. He's not a defender of QAnon dude. I mean. I've talked to this guy.

He's not even political. Okay. He's like. If you talk to him. Then that means something. You could give a. Well that's why. I talked to him. Because when he did the research a more that's why i talked to him because when he did the research and pulled it up i asked him for comments and to clarify clarify and and and that's what we talked about so look i i will absolutely concede the issue is like i mentioned we had a lot on he's cool dude and he

referenced when it came to abortion pew research data and i was like well that conflicts with what i read and i pull up gallup and Gallup had a different phrasing, which was slightly different. And then I was like, you know what, man? The challenge is everybody's fighting over politics and trying to win, and you're going to get researchers who try and argue both sides. So if I show you a researcher who says the left gets favored, you're going to be like, what?

How can that be? I've read research saying the otherwise. And I'll say the exact same thing to you, and then ultimately people are trying to figure out who's telling the truth, and it's damn near impossible. So that's a reality. Let's move on. I did mention a major flaw with that study, though.

I mean, that is a flaw to consider. That was the point I was making, though. Right. So it's not the point you wanted it to be, but my point was if a regular person goes on YouTube, are they going to be fed in which direction? And the data shows the average person is fed to the left. Now, if you're talking about logged in users, we need to know how many of the average person who watches YouTube is logged in. It's actually relatively

low. There's, I think, you know what, a billion views per month. No, no, no. It's more than that. It's like a hundred billion or something like that. Most people aren't logged in. Most people don't log in. So it's like when their cookies or whatever are in there, what are they being recommended? If you want to argue that logging in changes things, for sure, let's do an analysis on that. Maybe there's something to be seen. But what percentage of people is that relative to the average person? Let's move on from this. Let's talk about abortion.

Sure. Because we have this story in the news. Well, we have this story. We'll talk about Starbucks. And then we'll go into my tweet so we can talk about the meat and potatoes here. Starbucks will cover travel expenses for employees, abortion and gender change treatments. Starbucks has announced that they will be covering eligible travel costs for employees and their family members to get abortions or gender change treatments if the services are not available within 100 miles of where they live. Quote, in 2018, Starbucks broadened its health insurance options for transgender partners to not only include gender assignment surgery, which had been covered since 2013, but also

a host of procedures that were previously considered cosmetic, such as breast reduction and augmentation surgery, facial feminization, hair transplants, and more, the company said in a press release. So this is, Tesla did the same thing, actually. Tesla announced that if their employees need an abortion, they'll cover the costs. I think Amazon did this as well. But let's talk about, this is the news story to kick off what I actually want to get into, so forgive me for the ridiculous segue.

But I have a tweet here. Sure. I said, what happens if a woman is on the way to get an abortion at eight months, but goes into labor in the lobby of the abortion clinic and accidentally delivers the baby before it could be terminated. So let me explain the backstory as to why I tweeted this. I was having dinner with a friend in New York

and they said that they were pro-choice. And I said, do you agree with abortion after viability? Viability, of course, is defined as the point at which the baby can survive on its own. He said, well, no, of course not, right? But like in the first trimester, in the first several weeks, like it's the mother's decision. The government doesn't have a right. And I said, okay, okay. But you say pro-choice, right? So do you think that if like, would you favor the Democrats' position? And he assumed, yes, I would. I think the Republicans want to ban it and all

that stuff. And I was like, yeah, they do. But the Democrats tried passing a bill that would legalize in many states termination of the baby at up to nine months, up to the point of birth. In Colorado, they've already legalized it. Kathy Tran in Virginia tried passing a bill. Ralph Northam famously talked about it. So the bill proposed by Democrats that was recently voted down does include a provision, H.R. 3755, that says in Section 3, paragraph, I'm sorry, Section 4, paragraph 9, Section 4, of course, starts by saying a patient has a corresponding right to receive such services without any of the following limitations or requirements. Section 9 says a prohibition on abortion

after fetal viability when in the good faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health.

I showed this article to my friend and said, I have a question. If the baby is viable, why kill it? And he said, well, you wouldn't. And I said, what would you do? He's like, I don't know. I said, OK. And he was like, no, maybe they're saying just end the pregnancy. And I was like, right, right, right. But that's not induced labor is not abortion,

is it? Maybe, maybe. Is that what you're saying? Because if you're saying induced labor or c-section is abortion, I think we are in agreement here. You can end the pregnancy, but preserve the life of the baby the definition of abortion according to miriam webster though is the termination of a pregnancy you know following or directly related relating to the death of the baby after the fact so i don't understand why they would have to create a law and try to pass it that would legalize abortion at all if a woman is eight months pregnant and the doctor says, if you continue this pregnancy,

you will die. Well, then they deliver the baby. They have to remove the baby, right? Why kill the baby in the process when you can just remove it? Can you read that for me one more time? So the important first section of section 4A, general rule,

a healthcare provider has a statutory right under this act to provide abortion services and may provide abortion services and that provider's patient has a corresponding right to receive such services without any of the following limitations or requirements section 9 reads a prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when in the good faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider continuation of the pregnancy would pose Sure. Okay. In terms of, and it even says, in the good faith, what was it? Good faith. Good faith medical decision of the doctor.

Right. If you're carrying a baby up to eight months, I mean, you want that baby. If it's a situation where it's the mother's health um then i mean they wanted the baby well so if if the woman's at eight months pregnant so i tweeted this right and well that's a bit different from what you tweeted a woman is at eight months pregnant eight months so i'm saying the reason i tweeted that is because if a woman is at eight months pregnant and she decides to terminate the pregnancy aborting the baby no you don't you know at eight months pregnant and she decides to terminate the pregnancy,

aborting the baby and killing it. No, no, no. At eight months pregnant, you don't decide to terminate. You have to terminate because of medical reasons. Something's going on. So it's not a woman's decision. What are you talking about? Is it a woman's decision to terminate the pregnancy or not? I mean, for her own health, I mean, it's between her and her doctor, right?

Are you saying it's not her decision? What are you... I said if a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy. It's not like she's up and decided to go... I didn't say she's up and decided. I'm saying if a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy... Because of medical issues. For any reason.

Yeah, okay. But I think you have to add because of medical reasons. No, no, because it's important to be very specific that people are not carrying a fetus for eight months and then just going, No, that don't know. That's not happening. There's already restrictions that say at that moment.

You know about Gosnell, right? Women were getting elective abortions at nine months. But we don't need to argue edge cases. Let me go back to my point. I want to make a point here because health of the mother. No, no, no, no, no, no. Hold on, hold on. I'm sorry, man.

I'm sorry, man. I don't want to deviate from the point because I have a sincere question based on the law. An abortion is legally defined as terminating a pregnancy of or relating to ending the baby's life. The baby dies in the process, right? If you're saying – okay. Well, abortions also happen when the baby has already died. There's been a miscarriage. Of course. Yeah, right. So so let me this is I read you the law. It would legalize a woman for for the reasons of health and good faith to terminate the baby up to nine months because of its viability. Viability extends from 21 weeks until the point of birth. So this

bill would allow, it would actually legalize in many states, a baby just before birth being killed. Like, aborted, right? For medical reasons. What medical reasons? Well, if a mother's life is in danger or

if there's something wrong with the fetus. So it's talking about the patient's life. We're not talking about the fet if there's something wrong with the fetus. Well, so it's talking about the patient's life. We're not talking about the fetus. Something's wrong with the fetus. I get it. Like the baby's already dead. The baby's already dead.

Right. Here's my question. No one's carrying a baby for eight months and then has to go. That's not an argument. If the doctor is saying no one does a thing is not real because some people did and some people don't. And we're not talking about it. We're talking about the law. The law says if a woman is pregnant, and for any reason,

do you believe that for any reason a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy? Me personally, yes. I believe it's a woman's body. Up to nine months. What's that? Up to nine months. So you think a woman who's pregnant with a baby at nine months, she can say, snip its neck.

I mean, we have laws that basically say they can't just up-snip and snack. I mean, that's a really weird way to put it. Do you know how they perform abortions on late term? Yes. Where they send the forceps in and cut the spinal column? You think that's okay for a baby who is eight months and two weeks in a woman's womb? But no one is just electively doing that. You just said you're not going to talk about edge cases,

and then you're going around talking about edge cases. When you said no one does that, I'm going to give you an example of it happening. I'm not trying to argue that you are. So the issue is it does happen. I'm not talking about... Should it be legal? You said yes, right?

Here's my question. Let me ask you the question, and please. If the woman is told by a doctor, if you continue with the pregnancy, you will die. Right. Should they kill the baby? At eight months? Yes. If the mother is told

that she will die, and there's no way at eight months, we're talking eight months, this woman wants the baby. They'll do whatever they can to save the baby. That's not what the law says. The law allows for the termination of the baby. It says the doctors and the doctor... I'm not arguing the woman's not sick. If a woman is sick at eightination of the baby. It says the good faith, it says the doctors, you know,

and the doctor... I'm not arguing the woman's not sick. If a woman is sick at eight months, the baby is viable. It says after fetal viability. And the doctor says, if you continue with the pregnancy, your health is at risk. Do you believe it should be legal

at that point to kill the baby? But that's not happening. You're talking about... I'm not asking, I'm saying, yes or no, do you think it should be legal? They're trying to legalize it. It doesn't matter if it's happening. They're trying to legalize it.

Yes or no? They're trying to legalize the fact that women at eight months pregnant could find out something is horribly wrong with the fetus, where it will die as soon as it's born, be in pain, have tragic... Can you answer the question or not?

I'm answering the question to you right now. No, no, no, no. Because you're saying something I agree with you on and no one disagrees with you on. Everyone wants to preserve the health of the mother. Sure. Why kill the baby in the process? They're not killing the baby in the process.

Why legalize the killing of the baby in the process? They're not legalizing it. Yes, they are. Read the law. I read it to you how many times. After fetal viability, the baby can survive on its own. They can perform an abortion if the mother's health is at risk. Why kill the baby?

Why not include in that all efforts must be made to save the baby's life? It's right there when it says the exact wording. I don't have it in front of me because I have my... What the doctor said, the good faith efforts of the doctor. The doctor's looking out for... For the patient, not the baby. Abortion is the termination of the baby. If it wasn't about legalizing the

killing of the baby, they would say perform a C-section or induce labor. What this is right here, it says they cannot prohibit abortion. Late-term abortion is a practice with legal definitions where the baby is killed, its limbs are removed, and it's sucked out. If the baby is viable, why not just induce labor or perform a C-section? In fact, when Hassan quoted my tweet, that's what his followers said. Apparently, they disagree with you. I mean, if they can do that, they would do that at eight months for sure. Then why legalize?

I just explained to you because it needs to happen sometimes. For the health of the mother or for the child? Killing the baby. Yes. It needs to happen sometimes for the health of the mother or for the child. Killing the baby. Yes. It needs to happen. If there's something terribly, horribly wrong with the child, would you agree then? And immediately die or be in horrible pain for hours before dying anyway.

Would you agree with a provision added to this bill saying, all efforts must be made to preserve the life of any baby after viability? I mean, you're asking for exactly what's there. But if that makes you happy, then I mean, sure, why not? bill saying all efforts must be made to preserve the life of any baby after viability. I mean, you're asking for exactly what's there. But if that makes you happy, then I mean, sure, why not? But that's not what's there. So we agree. We completely agree 100%.

I mean, except for you saying a woman should decide on late term abortion. I don't agree with that. OK. But so we agree this bill should have an extended provision to protect the life of a child. I mean, I think it's there. I think it's there. That's my opinion. I think it says it right there. Which part do you think says it must protect the life of a child. I mean, I think it's there. I think it's there. That's my opinion. I think it says it right there. Which part do you think says it must preserve the life of a baby?

We've already went over this a hundred times. It says right in the, you think a doctor is not looking out for both the mother and the child? They are. I think oftentimes the doctor's looking out. They're not really looking out for either. I think in many cases they're trying to make money. So partial, I have numbers for you. I have numbers for you partial birth abortionist john mcmahon says the

primary reason given for those requesting a late-term abortion is depression uh the gutmacher institute which is a pro-choice think tank said that they surveyed women obtaining late-term abortions they found that only about one percent of second and third trimester abortions are performed for fetal anomalies which is another way of saying like eugenics, there's a disability, so we kill them. One third of the women said that they misjudged how far along they were. One fourth said they found it hard to arrange an earlier abortion. 14% that they were afraid to tell their parents or their partner. And the rest gave reasons such as taking their time to decide or waiting for a change in

their relationship status. I will also add the CDC defines abortion as a termination of a pregnancy that does not result in live birth. So my question is, why do the Democrats try to legalize the killing of a viable baby without any protections? I mean, I don't know what you're saying. I mean, I'm telling you right there. It says right there exactly what... But you're in favor

of late-term abortion. I think it's up to a mother, a woman, and her doctor. So I actually agree with the initial Roe v. Wade. I guess, I mean, have you read Roe v. Wade? Of course, yeah. So you know about the limitations on second— The trimester, yeah.

So you know about the limitations? Of course, yes. So do you agree with that? What do you mean? That's the law of the land for now. So you just told me that you think a woman should be able to choose to terminate the baby at nine months. No, I said the decision of what happens to a pregnant woman is up to her and her doctor. That's all I'm telling you.

Let me ask you a question. If there was a baby on a table and someone grabbed a pair of bolt cutters and put it to its neck, would you stop them? You're talking about a live person, right? I'm talking about a baby just born, right on the spot. That's a person. What if the baby was coming out of the woman and then they snip it, snap it? But no one's doing that.

Gosnell did it. Don't give me an absolute and then tell me not to make an edge point. Don't say no one did it when someone did it. The point is, I'm asking you moral questions on where your position is so I can understand why you would support these positions because I don't understand. So, if the baby was delivered, you're saying it can't be killed.

Now, do you understand my tweet? If the woman was intending to abort the baby at eight months and went into an early labor while she was going to the abortion clinic and the baby was born right there in the lobby, could she not kill it now? Well, if she had the baby was born right there in the lobby could she not kill it now well if she had the baby as she was going to get her eight month abortion there's something horribly wrong with that baby i hope it's not in pain because they were she was going to answer the question i just i'm talking about i said can okay oh can she if the baby is born no because that's a person so what if so now let's move backwards the baby is a person the moment it's born right is that what you're saying yes what if the baby is halfway out halfway like so do you

know they do late-term abortions at the point of birth partial birth abortions the baby is coming out and they kill it as it comes out okay that's literally what they do. Bro, I believe women have the right to choose within the first trimester and partly into the second trimester because the government can't mandate someone else give their body to someone else. The challenge I have as a traditional liberal and social liberal is when you start introducing the rights of secondary persons to the equation like Roe v. Wade actually stated. The privacy rights of the baby enter at the point of viability. These questions are difficult to answer.

So my position has always been safe, legal, rare, first trimester discretion of the woman, even though I really don't like the idea of abortion as contraception. So you like where it is right now? That's a hard thing to say considering all the states have different laws. No, I think it's a very easy thing to say considering all the states have different laws no i think it's a very easy thing to say because you said safe legal and rare right which states i don't like where it's not because colorado legalized nine month partial birth abortion kathy trend in virginia tried doing the same i don't know where they went on that and ralph

northam actually said the baby would be delivered and then they would decide we have a discussion that's not what he said he He said they would have a discussion. He was talking about if – there's context right before where he said that if there was something horribly wrong with the baby, like the baby is born in a vegetative state and is not going to live a life that – it's not going to live. I didn't say that. He didn't say that. He said –

But you didn't say that. He did either. So for one, we've played the video multiple times. What he said was this typically – so he's asked by the presenter. Kathy Tran presented a bill that would legalize abortion up to the point of birth. He said typically this happens in instances of severe disability or deformity. And I will tell you what would happen. The baby would be delivered.

It would be resuscitated if that's what they decided. It would be made comfortable. And then a discussion would happen. So my issue there is, I disagree. I mean, if a baby is alive, I think every effort must be made to try and save its life. I think if a homeless person is bleeding and they fall onto the stairs of a hospital, the hospital absolutely must save that person's life. The same thing as a baby that's born with deformities or otherwise. I don't think you can see a person and be like, they're dying,

we should kill them, whether it's a baby or otherwise. So the issue here is, I'm pro-choice. What was your feelings on the Terry Chabot case? Oh, I don't have strong opinions

on that one. I mean, for one, I don't. You just don't care. I didn't say I don't care. It's a difficult moral question I don't have the answers to. Okay, so who did you think, who do you more lean towards care. I didn't say I don't care. It's a difficult moral question I don't have the answers to. Okay, so who do you more lean towards there?

I'd probably say we would lean towards preserving the life of Terri Chabot. Even though that's not what she wanted? Well, if that was the case, yeah, I don't know enough about it. If she signed a do not resist state, I'd say... No, she literally told her husband that she did not want to be left in a vegetative state. Then that's her right with signing a DNR. Absolutely. But this was according to her husband, and there was no formal paperwork, and her parents said, we will take care of her.

Then you can't do it. Yeah. If she had a DNR, I respect the DNR. It's her life. It's her choice. Without a legal do not resuscitate, then you have to defer the next of kin. As for abortions. The husband would be that.

Well, right. I mean, I'm not the boss of people. I'm not the king. No, no, no, no, no, no. Well, right. I mean, I'm not the boss of people. I'm not the king. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Because the thing that James just said and then you agreed with was that if she is in a vegetative state and the husband says that I was told by her that that's it, and then he brought up how there's no proof of that. The parents wanted her alive. They said they would take care of her.

They're not the next of kin, though. The husband is. The husband has the ultimate decision of her care. Right. Yes. I agree. That's not – Well, I'm adding the context because he said if she signed paperwork.

And so I'm pointing out that that was not the situation. Okay. Yeah. All right. Just making sure. Just being 100% clear here. So social liberals is a reference to – So do you think that in the case of a child's health,

and they're not adults, so they can't make decisions for themselves, do you think the parent can make that decision for a child's health? Yes, absolutely. Okay, so if a baby is born in a vegetative state, can the parent decide to put it out of its misery and not let it just die a slow agonizing death and say i am the next of kin this is not how this life should be we should just end that life and life support no you don't think that's no the baby wasn't involved in a traumatic injury right so

there's there's there's questions they were they were they were they were born with a a life altering could not even probably't, perhaps won't live. And you're saying it's okay for them to be in a vegetative state for who knows how long. They likely will die in a few months, maybe even make it a year just in the hospital. You're saying that... Anything you want to it, I think there's a difference between someone who suffered a So you don't think parents have the right to do what's best for their children? Well, let's just think...

Who said that? You just said that! No, let's just think the baby isn't the parents have the right to do what's best for their children? Well, let's just think. Who said that? You just said that. No, let's just think. The baby isn't the best for the baby. Yes, that is. It's a parent's decision. If the baby is in a vegetative state and will never have any quality of life, the humane, caring, loving thing for a parent to do.

Now who's arguing edge cases? What are you talking about? I said now who's arguing edge cases. No, because you brought up the Ralph Northam thing. I gave you my answer. The answer is no. You brought up the Ralph Northam thing. I gave you my answer. You brought up the Ralph Northam thing. I gave you the answer. So you don't think that –

I clearly don't agree with the idea that a baby is born with deformity. You kill it. I clearly have legal questions about an individual who suffers from this. We're not talking about with like a limp arm or something. We're talking about a quality of life disability where they will never be able to have any quality of life. Right, right, right. I can say the same thing over and over again. I believe that we should not allow doctors to kill a baby regardless.

I think every effort should be made to preserve the life of the baby. Okay, so you don't think that people should have a right to die with dignity at all basically? Kathy Newman, we're not talking about that. If a woman suffers... I think it all really wraps up together. If a woman like Terri Chavo suffers a stroke, a disease, she's older and later in life,

and she has the ability to make a cognitive decision, or her next of kin does, and it's the issue of, do we pull her off life support, that's different from a newborn baby, in a different legal context. No, the legal context is the parents have the full right to do what's best for their child. This is a conservative position too, by the way, in terms of parents having the right to – How many times am I going to tell you I'm a liberal?

Okay. So let me make a point. Okay. The issue – well, go ahead. Well, because we have to distinguish between two things. There are situations where a person is injured to the point where they require extraordinary measures in order to stay alive. So we're not talking about food, water, basic treatment. We're talking about things like being hooked up to an insane amount of machines,

things that are incredibly burdensome. There is a difference between a person in that situation who's saying, without all of these unnatural means, I would die, so pull the plug, and saying, this person's alive, but they they're suffering so we're going to kill them there's a difference between pulling the plug in a life support situation where that person requires extraordinary means to stay alive and a person who is alive and is sustained but you're deciding to go out of your way to kill them those are two different situations yeah that's a good point but he's but also i think the point you're making, too,

is if the baby was in a situation where it was dying. Let's say the baby's born with a hole in its heart, which happens, and it's bleeding too fast for them to try and surgically repair it. My answer is repair it. Let's say the baby's born without a brain. It's happened before. I do not... I think the issue is... I'll tell you why I take the pro-choice stance,

the traditional liberal one, not the modern liberal one. I don't believe the government has a right to dictate a person, give their body or blood to another person. And there are questions of privacy and there are questions of government overreach. However, when another person enters the equation, you have one person sharing two bodies. That's why I'm like – so second and third trimester abortions are where things get risky. Now, when it comes to a baby being born, the question is the legal permission to kill a baby. I say the answer is no. Every effort must be made to save the life of the baby. In the instance of Terri Chavo, every effort was made to save her, but she was dwindling.

So it's a question of… What is the effort to save the life of a baby born without a brain? Actually, none. So the baby that was born without a brain, just the cerebellum, I think. I don't know if you know the story. The involuntary functions all functioned completely fine. And general stimuli happened. So the baby was able to eat, was able to basically live and grow, but not articulate thoughts or learn math or things like that. The bigger issue is not a singular case. The issue I have with the Terry Shavell case

is the legal protections of the individual. Terry Shavell, in this instance, has had an opportunity to file a DNR or not. Without a do not resuscitate, it falls to the next of kin. A baby hasn't had that opportunity. We don't know. So we just say,

preserve the life to the best of our abilities. There are many circumstances where babies were born in a state that a doctor has said it's not viable, and the baby's actually lived. There are many people who actually survived attempts at abortion. There are many people who were born and the doctor didn't believe it was possible. There are many people who were born where the doctor said, you will die if you have this baby. In fact, a good friend of mine was bedridden, I think the entirety of her pregnancy, because the doctor said, we have no choice.

And she said, I will lie still on a bed for nine months to have this baby. And the doctor was like, you can't do it. And she had the baby and the kids healthy and alive and living in the room.

And she made that choice. Absolutely. Not everyone can stay in a bed for nine months straight. That's amazing. So my issue is... If only this country did something for mothers, they could all be in that same position. So the reason I disagree with late-term abortion, especially, I mean, partial birth abortion is out of the question, is that when a secondary individual's rights are brought into question, you don't have an easy way to say one person's rights trump another.

In which case, I think late-term abortions are wrong. I think the killing of a baby, the terminating of a pregnancy, as the CDC defines it, as the Democrats propose it, would be wrong. And for some reason, Seamus over here, who's pro-life, who disagrees with me, Lydia, who disagrees with my position, have a much more reasonable position to where I'm at than the left does. So for me, let me explain it. Social liberal my whole life. I believe there were there should have been efforts to alleviate inequality among marginalized races growing up in Chicago and experiencing it. And I believe that freedom of speech was very, very important. And we must protect the civil rights of all people. And you know, my family

typically was in the position of first trimester. It's begrudgingly okay, we don't like it. But we recognize the extent to which we're willing government to allow to have a say in certain matters when it comes to a person's life. But when it comes to the issue of a viable baby, then killing it would be egregious and wrong. Now, that position doesn't exist among the modern left in terms of the political space. I can talk to a Democrat like my friend who will tell me that's their belief. And I'll say, but that's not what the Democrats are trying to pass. According to the CDC, abortion would end the life of the baby. And the Democrats passed a bill that had a blanket open. The life of the baby can be ended

if the mother's health is in question. But if the mother's health is in question, it doesn't explain why you would end the life of the baby when you could just induce labor or perform a C-section. And that's what happens when that situation is possible. That's not abortion. Wait, what? Let me start again. Go ahead. The CDC defines abortion as a procedure intended to terminate a suspected or known ongoing intrauterine pregnancy that is, ending a pregnancy with no live birth after viability if the pregnant patient's life is in jeopardy. So where are you? I'm a little bit – the reason I think there's some confusion here is because I'm confused what your position is. What is the Tim Pool position on this?

Because you said safe, legal, and rare. Well, I've absolutely defined it several times. Let me do it again for you. Okay. Within the first trimester. Do you think it's not safe, legal, and rare now? I don't know what that means. What does that mean?

I don't know. That's what you've been saying, that it needs to be safe, legal, and rare. So what do you consider to be safe, legal, and rare? Without bringing up anything in other states, give me what you consider a safe abortion, a legal abortion, and what rare means in the term of abortion. So safe, legal, and rare is a political catchphrase from the 90s. That you use a lot, yes. Right, right.

Because it represents the position of we don't like abortion. We think it's wrong. Right? But it's not. It's not wrong. Yes, it is. It's not wrong. Traditional liberals.

If abortion saves a woman's life, then it's not wrong yes it is it's not wrong traditional liberal if abortion saves a woman's life then it's not wrong it's a medical but that's it's a triumph of medicine to save a woman's life i'm sorry james let me try and answer so uh in the 90s we said safe illegal and rare because it represented a position we had abortion as contraception is wrong what do you think do you think abortion as contraception is okay abortion is contraception like well that's why we need to have sex education because it's preferable to not do that. I don't disagree. Do you think abortion is contraception is wrong? Personally, I wouldn't do it because, I mean, I have two kids.

So, I mean, I've planned and, you know, these were two planned children. And these are two kids that I wanted to have. But is it wrong? Is it wrong? What? Abortion is contraception. No, I don't think it's wrong. In a perfect world, we would have sex education and this wouldn't happen.'s wrong it's not in a perfect world we would have sex education and this wouldn't and wouldn't happen but we don't have in a perfect world well so why why

would a perfect world i'm confused are you saying it's wrong or it's not wrong oh it's not wrong so so we don't need sex education it's fine no sex education is preferable i just said that right right but you're but irrespective of abortion is contraception because you don't think it's wrong i don't think it's wrong but it's preferable that it doesn't happen. Okay, okay, okay. I understand. I understand. So I think it's wrong.

But I don't think it should... I just... I don't like the idea that the government intervenes at a certain stage in the pregnancy, and so... But you still haven't answered my question about what safe, legal, and rare means to you. To you. Like, what does rare for you mean in the sense of abortion? Not abortion as contraception.

Okay. Which is 92% of abortions, elective abortions. Okay, we have, in terms of... What percentage is rape or incest? It's like 1%, I think. Right, right, right, right. It's small. It's 0.84, I think.

Yeah. So rare is people should not be going out, having sex, getting pregnant, and then being like, get an abortion. However, my position, because it comes from a libertarian stance, the government shouldn't be involved, means it's going to happen. I don't like it. I think it's wrong. But safe, legal, and rare means legal, means the government doesn't intervene. However, we're talking about –

I mean, by the sense of it being legal, the government has intervened because they've made it legal. No, the government doesn't make things legal. Things are either legal or—things already are legal or they're decriminalized or they're made illegal. The government doesn't make something legal for you. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, what happens in this country? Abortion becomes up to the states who can make it illegal, right? But states can already remove the restrictions in place. Okay, so you said they're making it illegal.

They can remove some restrictions. So to answer your question, as I've been trying to. You know we don't go by the trimester thing anymore, right? What do you mean? Roe v. Wade is the law of the land when it comes to abortion. But we don't go by first, second, and third trimester when it comes to abortion regulations. Right, right, right. Those are just easy ways to understand what I really mean. what KCV Planned Parenthood is, right? Yes. What is it? It's the 1992 provision

that removed the restrictions on trimester and raised the question of viability. I don't know what you're asking. Okay, and it also paved the way for more... I don't know the point you're trying to make. Restrictions. Right, okay. So we already allowed, in this country,

thanks to Roe v. Wade and KCB Planned Parenthood, a state can decide to put restrictions on abortion, even in the first trimester now, since 1992, KC. Right, right, right. And after viability, which is different for every woman, it's up to a doctor to decide when, through scanning and everything, they can then say, oh, once it's viable, the state can ban abortion completely at that point. Except for in the case of health of the mother. Right. Which makes no sense.

How does that make no sense? Why kill a baby if it's viable? No, no, no, no, no, no. You don't understand. Yeah. They can ban abortion except for when it needs to happen to protect the life and safety

and health of the mother. I mean, we already see this. We already see this. We already see this in this country. If the baby is viable and the pregnancy

needs to be ended, why kill the baby? We're talking, we're talking at like, could be like 20 weeks. You're right. Viability specifically. At 20 weeks and the baby's not viable. at like, it could be like 20 weeks. You're right. Viability specifically. At 20 weeks

and the baby's not viable. That's why I don't care for the trimester thing. My point is, if the baby is viable, life rights come into play. So for conservatives and pro-lifers,

life rights are in play from the day of conception. Well, you're looking at this like you're arguing with a pro-choice person. Because you're telling me that you realize that, right? When do you think abortion should should uh you know be legal like when when should

there be ban on abortion like what viability because at that point the baby can just be delivered that's not true all the time right so that's why i said it should be all attempts to save the life of the baby shall be made if the baby dies because it can't survive well you know that's that's that's that's difficult if the health of the mother is at risk and they make an attempt to save the six months the baby is barely viable the mother is told you're at risk for this condition

and we have to end the pregnancy I'm sorry every effort should be made to save the life of the baby but the baby might die and I recognize that it's unfortunate and I think that should be allowed the abortion should happen uh i'm sorry the abortion as legally defined shouldn't a

induced delivery via so what is your so what is your opinion about what's because we're talking about this now and you know i think obviously we have our opinions and we're agreeing on some things and disagreeing on others um what is what is your opinion on what's going on right now though like that's colorado removed all restrictions no i'm talking on what's going on right now, though? Colorado removed all restrictions. No, I'm talking about what's going to happen right now with the Supreme Court. Yeah, they're going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Okay. Red states are going to enact trigger laws, and they're going to outright ban abortion across the board. Yes. I disagree with that. Okay, good. I think, especially when the conservatives argue rape and incest, it seems to be a conflicted

argument where they say, in the instance of rape and incest, we'll allow that exception. And I'm like, I can understand that point from a libertarian perspective, but not from a moral position on when life begins. Because, I mean, Seamus. No exceptions. Yeah, there's a couple things I want to jump into here. So you mentioned situations where a mother has to have an abortion because her life is at risk.

And there are doctors I've spoken to, there are even notes and petitions signed by literal hundreds of doctors who say that is an inaccurate description, that is not what happens, there is no such thing as a medically necessary abortion. There are procedures that might need to be performed on a woman who is pregnant, which can cause her to miscarry, but that is not the same as an abortion. Abortion is when you go in there with the direct intent to end the life of an unborn child. If there's an operation, I just want to say, if there's an operation that has to be performed in order to save the life of the mother, but it poses a risk to the unborn child and increases the probability that they will die, that there will be a miscarriage,

that is not an abortion. That is an attempt at a medical procedure that has an unintended consequence. That is the CDC's definition of abortion. Yeah. So I think that's important because when I tweeted that thing about abortion at eight months, Hassan's followers said, you're an idiot. They would perform a C-section or induced labor. But the CDC doesn't define induced labor or C-section as that.

It says not resulting in a live birth. What I'm confused about here, and we could talk about this can i feel like we've already covered this so i mean if you want to just go over the buffalo thing but but but what i'm what i'm concerned about here in terms of like um talking with you about this is you know for the past couple of weeks i've noticed you've been talking a lot about this issue it's been a big issue since roe v wade but your focus seems to have been on these sort of edge cases that bolster the anti-choice position. Like you're not here sitting here and talking about how horrible it is

about all the women who will miscarry and go through all sorts of illegal issues in these red states. You're not sitting here talking about state – Can they move? Do you know how hard that is for people? Not everyone is – no, it's not just yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a major factor in people's lives. No, I know it's hard.

Yeah. But you've also not heard me say apparently that when I tell conservatives, if you want to live in these areas where your kids are in these schools, you need to get up and move and it might be hard. I mean my position on this is – What do schools have to do with what we're talking about right now? Like we're talking about – So I'm explaining to you what you misunderstand no but let me let me answer your question okay when you're like why aren't why aren't you telling women the same thing i say the same thing to conservatives like my position on personal

responsibility is the same across the board regardless of what the issue is no it's not it's not because you're phil you've been've been focusing on the past two weeks or three weeks, however long it's been. You've been focusing on talking about these edge case scenarios where like, oh, you bring up Ralph Northam. He's not even relevant anymore. This is three years ago. Now he's not even in power. Is Kathy Tran? Excuse me?

Is Kathy Tran still? Maybe she is. I don't know. But that bill is not up for anything. So they're trying to pass these bills that I don't like, right? Well, they're not going to be able to. So is it because maybe I spoke up against it and helped contributed to pushback from people who

disagree with it? Is that true? Did you do that? Considering that I've been speaking about that issue for a long enough period of time, and we live next to Loudoun County, and people in Virginia are fans of the show, and I see them, I think we did. I think the fact that I said these psychopaths are trying to pass a bill where the woman

actually said at the point of birth you could kill the baby, I think that absolutely contributes to people being like, vote her out, get her out. Now, I don't know if she's still in office, but Northam for sure. The Ralph Northam thing, absolutely. Matt Walsh came down here 20 minutes away. Sure, okay. So that's why I talk about it. I mean, Tim Pool's got power, okay.

So why aren't you using the same power to fight what we're talking about right now? Fight what? What's going to happen to a woman's right? I will not stand next to a man

who told me to my face he is okay with killing a baby at nine months. If I had to make the choice between banning abortion across the board or standing next to people who would advocate for nine month abortion. I will stand next to the people who are saying ban it across the board, period.

You need to understand how psychotic the left in Colorado sounds when they say terminate the life of the baby at viability to the overwhelming majority of this country that think that's wrong. 70% of this country is pro-choice and believes there should be restrictions. And there are right now. You should be advocating right now. And Colorado is removing them. You should be advocating right now for exactly what we have. So you disagree with Roe v. Wade. I don't disagree with it.

But you do. In what capacity? Because how does Colorado... How is Colorado allowed to have those restrictions under Roe v. Wade? No, I'll agree with you to a certain... I mean, you have to. No, you have to. If Colorado...

I'll agree with you. You just got super angry at me. Now I'm doing the same to you and I got to slow down? If you... I made one point. You made... I'm trying to address one point. Okay, go ahead.

If I say one thing... You said... You said exactly what I just said. I would actually say I would probably lean at this point more towards rights falling to the individual states. Okay, so you're happy Roe v. Wade is going down. I wouldn't say happy.

That's a bit of an overstatement. I mean, you are now on the record saying you prefer Roe v. Wade not being the law of the land. I think the issue is more so – I mean it's pretty simple. I think this is an easy answer. Do you want to answer or do you want to keep talking? I want you to answer it definitively.

Right. So I'm a moderate, right? I have – I thought you were a liberal. Moderates can be liberals. Okay. Good to know. Yeah.

So social liberal is a center left position on the political compass. That's typically where I've been my whole life. There are deep moral and ethical questions I don't have the answers to. At this point, considering the disruption in the United States and the extreme hyperpolarization, I would fall more towards on states' rights. And that's because – That's not a liberal position at all. I mean states' rights is firmly in right-wing libertarianism. It's not right-wing libertarian.

It's actually just general libertarian. So left libertarians also agree with decentralization of authority and power. Left libertarians do not agree with

decentralization of authority and power. Not in that same way. But go ahead. You think anarchists want a strong federal government? Anarchists and libertarians are not the same thing.

Left libertarians. Ancoms. You think they want a strong federal government? No. Anarchists and libertarians are not the same left libertarians and and and comms you think they want a strong federal government no anarchists and libertarians not the same thing do you know do you know what the political compass is yes i do do you know what anarchy means yes i know what does anarchy mean anarchy means uh the the absence of government no government anarchy means without authority yeah so you if you're an authoritarian you adhere to what that's the same thing what what I just said. No authority.

So you can be a left libertarian or a right libertarian. Civil liberties. We're talking about civil liberties? Yes. So if you're a left libertarian, you typically agree with like... But left libertarians agree

in civil liberties across the board. They don't want like one state saying civil liberties, these civil liberties are okay, but another state is saying those civil liberties are not okay. If the state enforces something, that's authoritarian.

Not necessarily. I'm not saying it's authoritarianism. I'm saying it's an authoritarian position. Oh, it comes from a position of power and authority. Right, right, right. So left libertarian, depending on which position you're at, would advocate for different ways of authority. Okay, if you want to have the political composition conversation, we could do that, but I want to go back to what we were just talking about.

Because I don't think you definitively said on the record what is your position on roe v wade do you prefer it for it for it yeah my my issue outside of roe v wade so your country is being ripped apart no no but you just said you just you just said before that you'd prefer it not to happen because you hated what was happening in colorado and that's not what i said that is what you't. I wish we could rewind this. People will be able to rewind this. That's what you said. Calm down.

Colorado is the extreme left position. If I were to say the states can make their own decision, Colorado is allowed to keep doing what they're doing. That's not restricting it. If I were to say the federal government should step in, it would stop Colorado from doing it. My position on Roe v. Wade, for the most part, is that I agree with it. My position on Roe v. Wade, for the most part, is that I agree with it.

My position on today's politics across the board is that the country is being gutted and ripped apart. And perhaps preventing conflict means pulling back on what states can do, weakening the federal government. Okay. I mean, that's not a position on abortion. It's a position on authority versus liberty. It means bad things will happen I don't like. But it also means I'm worried that the extreme polarization of Colorado or Virginia versus Oklahoma are deeply troubling and maybe pulling back federal authority can help alleviate some of the tension. I'm not saying it's a guaranteed answer. I don't know it's right. But my position on authority versus liberty is irrespective of abortion. My position on authority and liberty means bad things happen i don't like but i'm trying to stop people from killing each other if you have a total ban on

abortion the left goes nuts if you have unrestricted abortion the right goes nuts i'm actually what we have right now it seems to be you know you talk about compromise right i've heard you talk about compromise what we have right now is would be your perfect scenario right it's not because in many states they were moving all the restrictions and the democrats at the federal level just tried to allow the termination of a baby at nine months if they add a provision to it that says all efforts must be made to save the life of a baby and took out the term abortion and said a pregnancy can be ended that didn't but that didn't pass you have to worry about it they just tried to pass pass it. And it didn't pass. Do you know where I live?

Sure. West Virginia. I mean, I'm here right now. Do you know who my senator is? Joe Manchin. And who stopped the bill from passing? There you go. And why do you think I'm talking about it?

Because you're a big fan of Joe Manchin. Because Joe Manchin did something I like. I don't like Joe Manchin for the most part. What don't you like about him? I think he's an establishment shill. I think he just says what he thinks is going to play the best. And I don't think he's genuinely interested in fixing problems. What did you think about him killing Build Back Better?

You mean the infrastructure plan? No, the bill that had child tax credits, the extension of, what is it, the 3K federally. I mean, those are huge, amazing things. If you're a fan of doing the best for children in this country, those things were fantastic. So in 2008 into 2012 into 2016, I've always been in favor of social programs, and I've always advocated for such. My concern with them is that what happens with a lot of these social programs is let's say you get a wound on your arm is my analogy. People are homeless. Kids don't have food.

Your society has a wound. So we put a bandage on it. That's a government program. We're trying to mend that damage. The problem with the government is that 12 months later, instead of taking the bandage off and assessing the issue, sunsetting or otherwise, they reapply another bandage on top. Instead of using this weird anecdote, can you give me an actual example? They never reassess or end programs.

Like what program do you think should be ended? I'm not saying they should. I don't know. But that's what you just said. ended? I'm not saying they should. I don't understand. But that's what you just said. So what I'm saying is that – You said they should reassess programs and end them. That's what you just said. I know.

You're smiling, but you're not understanding what I'm saying. Okay? Okay. Physical corporations, private corporations can fail, right? Of course. Social programs can't. When have we or has there been a major reassessment of programs that have or have not worked? So I'll give you an example. You can look at the disaster that was Pruitt-Igoe, right? So I did a documentary on the public housing and how

instead of reassessing and solving the problem, it dissolved into racist violence and created some of the most worst racial tensions in this country in St. Louis. My issue with government programs is that they're good, but we need to make sure we have strong leadership and we don't just say sign the check, sign the check, sign the check, sign the check. My issue right now. What did you think of the child tax credit? Explain. Give me the details. Sure. Parents of children under the age of, I think it was six, would get $300 a month tax credit. And then over six, until I believe, I don't remember when the cutoff was. I know specifically six and two-year-olds because that's the age of my children.

And so every month I was able to receive, along with everybody else who has a child in that age range, $300 for the under six, $250 for the six-year-old. And for me personally, people might be shocked to know this if they know me as a blue check on Twitter. But just having a blue check on Twitter doesn't mean you're all that rich or wealthy.

Good thing. Yeah. Two points, though. Two points. Let me explain to you're all that rich or wealthy. Good thing. Yeah. Two points, though. Two points. Let me explain to you the child tax credit. I'm not done. So basically, you get that child tax credit. For me, for my family, it's a huge help.

We were paid for a number of child care things, schooling as well. Go ahead. Two points. One, child tax credits are incredible and really good things. If there's anything we want to do in this country is provide tax breaks to parents and do what we can to encourage people to have families. Second point is my criticism of Build Back Better

for the most part was the economy is imploding. So my perspective on a lot of these things has less to do with what a perfect society can and should do and more so like have you looked at the M1 money stock recently? No. Let me pull that up for you. Well, one thing, while you're doing that, you said before that you believe you had some power

based on where you are in terms of local politics. Well, I'm talking about as a resident of West Virginia, my advocacy plays a role in what people in West Virginia do. While you're on air right now, you should tell Joe Manchin that the child tax credit was a huge help to families across this country. Joe Manchin, the child tax credit was a huge help to families across this country. I'm really happy you're doing that. And you should advocate for it more often on your show.

We literally have. Good. I have to pull it up. But you realize that's also a deeply far-right position. I'm not saying it's only a far-right position. If you look at, I think, Romania, they do huge tax credits when you have kids. Yeah. Like conservatives are like, more babies, more babies, government, government tax credits.

Take a look at the M1 money stock. It's weird, though, that that's the case in Romania because here in this country, every Republican voted against it. But it's not just voting against that. Take a look at the M1 money stock. Do you know what this is, what it represents? Honestly, I'm not familiar with this. Does this look shocking, this spike? Sure.

Does it look shocking compared to going back to 1960 in terms of our money supply? Sure. Something weird is going on. And if you look beyond the major spike, this is the M1 money supply. It's a reference to money in circulation. In 2020, because of the pandemic, the rules were changed that allowed savings accounts to enter general money supply. It used to be that there were limitations on how much you could pull out of savings. This caused a massive spike in the money supply from $4 trillion up to $16 trillion eligible in the money supply.

But we can ignore that because it's a rule change, although I think it's substantial. You take a look at from May of 2020 until today, and you can see that the economy has expanded, or I should say that the money supply has expanded by over $4 trillion. One of the reasons, if not the biggest reason, why we're seeing such rapid inflation, which is gutting families, is because of the mass spending. I'd love to see a tax credit for families based on kids. I'd love to see people get huge benefits when they have kids. And I think it's one of the best ways to actually dish out tax credits.

Sure. And I just want to also add again that Republicans vote against those things all the time. They are the ones who are against that. I just want to make that clear. Like we should really – Yeah, I don't want Republicans. Good. Yeah, yeah.

Good. Yeah, yeah. Good. So when you look at the money supply and you realize that we are headed towards a credit cardiac arrest, stealing that line from Hugo Ferrant in Juice Wrapped News, we can't sustain this. We are in dire straits right here. Diesel fuel is facing shortages. Do you know what happens if diesel shortages hit? Oh, sure. It gets harder for trucks to deliver. No, no, no. It means they can't grow food.

Okay. What are you going to eat? Okay. Only after every trucker has run out of gas, after every factory has stopped producing and every farm stopped tilling will socialists realize you can't eat money. What do you think we should do about it? I think we've got to curtail the spending and raise interest rates. Okay.

One of the things they did was raise interest rates. You don't think we should raise taxes it i think we got to curtail the spending and raise interest rates okay one of the things they did was you don't think we should raise taxes on on who people on the wealthy who's the wealthy who's the wealthy no no like like right i'll say i'll say uh you know for me wealthy is probably much lower than most based on my own how much do wealthy people pay in taxes but um not enough what not enough tell me how much you want to tax them. Not enough. What's the number? Not enough. Probably what we've taxed them back in the FDR years. What is that? Probably something like 90-something percent.

But they didn't pay that in the FDR years. They skirted that. That's part of why they adjusted the tax code. Right. So 90% of what? Of their tax. I mean, of their income. How do rich people make money?

What do you mean, how do rich people make money? How do rich people make money? There's all sorts of different ways they make money. Some of them invest. Do you know what Jeff Bezos' income is? Oh, you're talking about because they have so much in stocks? No. Okay, then what are you talking about?

You said their income. Right. What's Jeff Bezos' income? Oh, I don't know if he's cashed any stocks this year. I don't know what his regular income is. I don't know. His income, his salaried income is 83 000 right his actual income doesn't surprise me they do that yeah sure a million bucks sure he makes a million dollars sure that's how much he

makes sure you want to tax the guy who makes a million dollars uh yeah for sure is that going to pay down four trillion dollars in in well are you saying are you saying that uh someone like that is never going to cash in any of their stock? He just lives off a million dollars a year? They do. I actually think we should tax the rich, by the way. I just think you don't know anything about it. What do you mean I don't know? I simply want to tax them more.

It's that simple. But where? What do you mean where? Like, tax them on what? Oh, capital gains. How much? I just told you. What?

90% of capital gains. Yeah. What will that do? What will that do? Bring them a lot of money. Why? What do you mean why? Why will it bring a lot of money? What will that do? Bring in a lot of money. Why? I mean, why? Why will it bring in a lot of money?

What does that mean? Why would that bring in a lot of money? I'm telling you. How would taxing someone's capital gains bring in money? Give me the mechanics. If someone sells, for example, Elon Musk sells a billion dollars in Tesla stock and we take 900 million of it. So if he doesn't sell the stock. He still has 100 hundred million dollars if he doesn't sell the stock what happens well sure then that happens yeah so then you're not taxing

anything well they do need to they do set they do i mean he just did though right yeah and then he paid more taxes than anyone else in history i i think we should we should tax the rich right in a variety of ways oh did youtube just crash there you go we just lost every super chat are you kidding me you know what i think it? We just lost every Super Chat? Are you kidding me? You know what I think it is? YouTube just deleted all of the Super Chats. You've got to be kidding me. Really?

Why did they do that? I'm going to swear. I don't think it can handle this level of Super Chat. Seriously? Wow, man. Oh, my gosh. I apologize to everybody because we pushed it longer than we normally do because I think it's worth a conversation to have. Wait, what happened? I still see see super chats in my replay of it.

I can only see some. I can only see like 10 of them. Well, we'll get to those. So here's the issue. What is that law about taxes going too high and people and then losing tax revenue? Yeah, so this is known as the Laffer Curve. And basically there are some left-wing people who will say the Lafferffer curve doesn't exist, but it's an uneducated take because every left-wing economist agrees it exists. The only disagreement between the left and the right

is where that parabola peaks and how high of a tax rate you can get away with, how that changes based on industry. But regardless of what tax rates have been, generally speaking, federal revenues have never exceeded 20% of GDP. So there's no real reason to believe we could ever have anything greater than that in federal revenue for a sustained period of time, regardless of what the tax rate is. I'm going to try and see if I can find an alternative way to pull up the super chats. Sorry. So usually we do super chats on the show. Well, normally we do. And we do at 930. But I was like, this is a good conversation. And well, let's what we should really talk about. It's kind of incredible. We haven't talked about it yet.

I don't think it should be cut into the second part of the show. I really think we should talk about what was the big story of the weekend, was this mass shooting. Let me answer the tax thing real quick so we don't get away from it. So what happens with taxes is when you raise the tax rate, you reduce trade volume. Reducing trade volume actually reduces the amount of money you make. I actually agree with taxing the rich.

I think we need to increase the tax brackets. I think they've not been increased in a long time. And it's not so much a percentage base. It's that if you're making $250, like right now I think the top bracket is $250 plus. So like somebody who makes $13 million a year in a salary is paying the same percentage as someone who makes $250,000. That's crazy. I certainly think we can raise the brackets so we space things out and we end up taxing the rich more. The majority of millionaires, I think, run what are called – what did the New York Times call it? I don't know what the New York Times called it.

Rich people, like the majority of the 1% are like auto dealers and like plumbing companies and construction companies. They're people who own small businesses with a few franchises who make more than a million dollars a year. And that's the top 0.1%. Then there's a small handful of billionaires, like in the couple hundred. But billionaires is based on net worth, which is very often like imaginary numbers. So if you raise capital gains, you reduce trade volume in the market. Reducing trade volume reduces your revenues.

It's the Laffer-Kirby's referring to. So just raising rates 90% doesn't change anything. It just disrupts the system and causes major hiccups. Although I said I agree with taxing the rich. I think the issue is, for me, when I made this point about abortion and then all of these people associated with the left were like, that's just, they would just do a C-section. They would just do a new labor. They don't know what the legal definition is.

They don't know the CDC definition. And they don't know what the Democrats tried to do. Instead of actually engaging honestly and legitimately saying, that's an interesting point the law is making there, they ignore it say i'm stupid or just don't even engage with the issue i don't know who you're specifically talking about but um i think i think we well i'm sitting here and i think we engage with it quite well yeah yeah um so we should we should unless you want to continue talking about i mean i think we should let's talk about the the shooter man yeah so he was a self-described authoritarian leftist who believed in the great replacement. Place him on the political map, wherever you think that makes sense. He claimed he was a populist as well.

He also claimed a number of other things. Like what? I can tell you right now. I'm pulling it up. Hold on. Let me grab my... While you're pulling it up, can you tell me the name of the mass shooter from Chicago? What mass shooter from Chicago?

The one who killed... From the same weekend? Wait. Chicago? Or are you from Chicago? The one who killed, was it, got killed. From the same weekend? Wait, Chicago? Or are you talking about the one in Milwaukee? Chicago. The 17 people who got shot the day before. No, there wasn't 17 people in Chicago who got shot. No, that was Milwaukee.

You're wrong. Can you look it up? Yeah, I can. I actually pulled it up before the show. Sure. Here's a police report from May 14th saturday 17 people were shot why didn't you know the name of this shooter wait would i can't see it i can't see it press release milwaukee friday may 13th milwaukee that's what i said you're right you got me i was wrong

i was wrong i thought it was chicago you're right it's milwaukee and i you were absolutely right i eat that one right sorry man i saw that video you posted earlier today you said it wasn't covered you know mainstream media didn't cover it, right? The Chicago one I was thinking of was I think three people got shot. Sorry. That's my bad. I own that one. Yeah, Chicago was four people who got shot.

I confused them. Okay, that's fine. No, that's – okay. I was wrong. But you said that the mainstream media didn't cover those stories, right? No, no. That's not what I said. What did you say?

I said, what's the name of the shooter from Milwaukee? I saw your video earlier today. Why isn't it a national conversation? No, that's not what i said what'd you say i said what's the name of the shooter and from milwaukee i want your video earlier today why isn't it a national conversation no that's not what you said yeah well i mean can you pull up the video not really you can't pull up your own video so if i'm if you want me to go through youtube and spend a minute to find the source and find the exact minute in the 20 minute segment where i said you could pull up the trend you pull up the subtitles and go right to it. I don't know how to do that. You don't know how to do that? I can tell you right now.

Okay. We spent time looking up data and stuff. Tell me what I said. You said that the mainstream media didn't cover it. Okay. I'll apologize and I'll clarify what I meant. Okay. It's not a national conversation.

Okay. You said that same exact thing about every one of the shootings you went through. And every single one I did a simple Google search of. And not only did I find local media reports, I found it on CNN, NBC News. I'm not arguing that. Okay, good. Because I pulled up those stories in my video. So just to clarify, if I was imprecise, I apologize.

What I mean to convey is why are we having a national story about this? I want to be clear, though, about why that matters. Because here we're doing independent media, right? And the point is that we criticize mainstream media all the time. And I do the same thing. I pull up mainstream media stories and I criticize how things are covered all the time. For example, I'm sure on this show you've covered the string of thefts, smash and grabs that are happening. And, for example, I don't know, San Francisco or something like that, like Rite Aid.

You probably say that's the reason why Rite Aid are closing. But we never cover the same fact. Walgreens said they were closing because of that. Right. I'm sure some places. We covered that one time when it announced that they were doing it. Right, right. But maybe reference it a couple more times.

Sure, maybe. And also mainstream media. This is not a Tim Pool issue. This is an entire media issue. The mainstream media has covered these stories ad nauseum over and over again. And if you look up the stats when it comes to – I'm sorry, man. I don't mean to interrupt you, but if we want to get at the core of my argument,

it's not that the media is not talking about it because I used mainstream news sources in my coverage. No, no, no. What I'm bringing up is why it's important that I expect better from you in terms of doing that. No, you made a mistake. You're even admitting you made a mistake. For the Milwaukee thing. Right, right. I know, and I was funny because I was so sure of myself and I was so wrong.

Right, right. It happens. It happens. It happens. It happens to everybody. But I'm bringing up what you said earlier in your video today where you, for each story, said that the mainstream media just didn't cover these things. Right, right.

So I'm going to clarify that. Yes.'ll i'll i know you're clarifying that i'm just bringing up why i think that's important right so i'll say as an independent media outlet your viewers are coming to you for news that they think is of higher quality than what they find in the mainstream correct it is that's that's the goal right it's the same for me it's the same for every other show that i watch on YouTube. It would help you if you read the law the Democrats are trying to pass if you're going to do that. What are you talking about? Well, how is it that I read the law the Democrats tried to pass and you didn't?

What are you talking about right now? Let's focus on what we're talking about right now. You're saying we're striving for a higher standard in news. Right. You're mischaracterizing my intention to make an argument I didn't make. No, no, no, no, no. I'm telling you why I think it's important that I didn't make. No, no, no, no, no. I'm telling you why I think it's important that I point to death.

That's all. That's all. Why are you taking it like an attack? I'm not attacking you at all. I'm talking to your viewers about why that's important that I did that. I think independent media should be held up to a higher standard. You and I, even on my own show, are going to criticize mainstream media's failures. I think a lot of times we just don't do that um i think a lot of times media and i've i've criticized the left on this too um we often say oh no we're just independent media it happens i made a mistake whatever

no if this was cnn who made that mistake you made or a mistake that i made on my show you were why i would not just go oh anderson cooper apologized it's no big deal no we would expect them to do better and we'd hold them accountable to that mistake. What would you expect them to do? What do you mean? Like if CNN got a story wrong. Well, what would you expect them to do? Apologize.

Apologize, right. Daily beats. Correct it, right? Correct it, right? Like the Daily Beats. Let's use them as an example. Correct. But see, here's the thing.

We're now two hours into this live stream. Two hours in. And we're supposed to do a members-only show. Yeah. And great super chats. I mean, I don't know. But you just deleted them all. I'm here all night.

I think you should probably make a video and let people know about that because they're not going to catch it two hours in. Know about what? That the mainstream media did, in fact, actually cover those shootings. I think you should make a video pointing out that you haphazardly labeled

a public figure QAnon supporter even though he wasn't. And then we're searching for evidence. No, no, no, no, no. We're going to punch him again on how important it is when Tim makes a mistake. I admit it to that. I admit it to that. He can't.

So are you going to make a video saying this guy whose name I besmirched on air by characterizing him as having views you didn't have? Sure, of course. Are you going to look into all of James O'Keefe's work and make sure that you didn't incorrectly label him something? Well, I specifically mentioned that case that he settled and admitted what he did wrong and even apologized for the harm he caused

the woman. That's all I did. I think you mentioned another one, the Minnesota one. All I said was that wasn't true. The way he laid out. You should pull up a source and confirm that. I did. I told you that what he was doing was completely legal. You didn't pull up a source and confirm that i did i told you that what he was doing was completely legal you didn't pull up a source though okay so here's here's here's my point right

i i agree we all make mistakes and nobody's perfect i'm just i wonder why it is that nobody read the law that the democrats just tried to pass like how come the demo like how come these how come you and hassan didn't read it did hassan read it i'm assuming he didn't. Maybe he did. What law are you talking about? Was it H3 – That didn't pass. HB 375? 755? 3755? The one we talked about before, that didn't pass.

Why didn't you read it when they were proposing it, 3755? Well, I haven't covered it. I don't do a daily show like you do. I don't cover every minutiae of the news. This bill was introduced in – when was it introduced? February. I just didn't cover it. It wasn't on my show it wasn't

topic of my show so the issue of roe v wade and the codification of abortion isn't a subject that you cover i don't cover every single issue on my show no in fact my show actually my personal show maybe sam covered on the majority report if we're talking about my do you think that in order to have i'm sorry it was september of 2021 when i i don't. I don't run a daily show that talks about politics in general. It's totally cool if you're not familiar with what I do. On my show, I specifically cover what's going on in the world of right-wing media conspiracy theories from a leftist perspective. Yeah. And reactionary groups is what I cover.

But here's my point. So this is not a topic I would usually cover on my show. Then why are you pining on it? Meanwhile, because you invited me on the show to talk about it. I know, but wouldn't your answers be like, you know, I didn't read the bill? I told you. That's why I had you read it to me multiple times. And once you explained it to me, then I told you my personal opinion.

I didn't tell you my opinion before you read it to me. Noted and accepted. So what point were we off on then? Let's get back on it. Because I did do a tangent. I pulled a tin pull and went on a tangent. Can we talk about –? Let's get back on it. Because I did do a tangent. I pulled a tin pull and went on a tangent. Can we talk about – let's go back to the shooting.

I'll address the news thing. Go ahead. My point is whenever there's an extremist, like the Rolling Stone says, the Buffalo shooter isn't a lone wolf. He's a mainstream Republican, which is just not true. He may have some uh he may share ideas but the joke is always like you know who did dog hitler had a dog you know things like that this guy believed in uh the great replacement which uh tucker carlson has also talked about referenced i wouldn't call great replacement um mainstream republican as as a as a point to say that anyone

who holds that view is a mainstream Republican. And that's, so the issue with the Rolling Stone is that they said he is, and it's because of like a single thing. But the issue is there's also many left-wing personalities,

identitarians, who have expressed similar ideas. This guy also claimed in his manifesto that he was authoritarian left. I don't think we can take his word for it. I think the dude's a psychopath. I think he's also extremely racist and extremely dangerous the issue i see with these things is why did this story become the national conversation it's political the other mass shootings don't i would say no i would say because they're not political no i would say it became a national news story because the shooter streamed his shooting on Twitch and released a long manifesto explaining a number of reasons why he claims he did what he did.

I think if any of those other – Identitarianism. I think if any – no, that's just basic facts in terms of we know more about – Right, right, right. I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying identitarianism was a huge component. He's a racist. That's part of it but i would also just state just even outside of that

just literally we know the clear motives of this shooter which maybe we do i don't think i don't know the motives of the shootings in chicago we don't talk about i mean no the ones you specifically brought up i mean we know the motives of those shootings yeah yeah we do that specific shooting uh i said the shootings in chicago but we're not talking about we have a tendency but we're not talking about the aggregate of shootings we're talking about specific shootings there's mass shootings every weekend in chicago sure okay but but i i'm i'm so this one's obviously my personal bias being from the city okay and i i feel that the corporate press and the modern mainstream left is racist obviously everybody accuses each other of being racist but i

think the core racism here is the issues surrounding the black community and gun violence in Chicago that is just completely ignored every step of the way. You can have a mass shooting curfew was enacted because minors were involved in a shootout. It's, of course, covered

in local media. I think there is a curfew being enacted. For minors. I'm wondering why the curfew being enacted. Yeah, they did. For minors, I'm wondering why the national story is always, I'm not really wondering, I get it,

it's political. And again, the Twitch thing, for sure, that makes it huge. My issue is, I don't like, for this story,

how the guy, you've got people on the right picking up his left-wing things and people on the left picking up his right-wing things and they're both just pointing at each other. If this guy, I'm willing to bet, his goal was to foment civil war. And that's why you get these weird manifestos. It's why they do it.

He streamed on Twitch, which is a more left wing platform. Like the goal was to put it in the face of people and then make points that either side could grab, just like with Christchurch. These are psychopaths, I think, want to just watch the world burn. My issue is, I wish we would have more conversations at a national level that were about the other shootings. You know what I mean? I think there are issues. That's the point I was

making in my video. So if it came off like I was saying, the media's not covering it. What I mean to say when I say the media is big mainstream outlets have not set a news cycle around the story like they did with this one. I mean right now, sure. Yeah. So I think that's a failing of the media. And it's why people were tweeting at me like, why aren't you talking about Buffalo?

People are tweeting all weekend. I'm not talking about Milwaukee. Also, the media basically reacts to the media reacts with coverage based on what an audience is interested in. Like if there was massive interest in one of those stories that they covered, again, they all covered those stories that you brought up and said that there was no coverage of. But it's like local outlets and like corporate press. We're talking about CNN and NBC News, CBS News, ABC News. I saw them all. Those are the most mainstream.

Are the primetime guys, they're not doing news cycle segments? Primetime guys? You're talking about cable news? Well, you said CNN, so I'm referencing it. No, I'm talking about CNN, like CNN.com. Yeah, yeah, yeah. News websites do the story. Right.

So why is it that we don't have a national conversation around these other instances? I mean, I'm pretty sure they've probably done, if you look at their history, I'm pretty sure I've seen at least one special on the issue. I think the issue is actually conservatives are all reactive. You know, so they wait for something to come out and then they start

quote tweeting people and it's just like, Kyle Rittenhouse was trending and it's just like, because people on the left started saying it and then the right side are responding to it

and that's how you get certain stories being elevated. Sure, okay. But let's talk about, oh, you mentioned what he classified his identity as, right? Yeah, he said he was an off-left populist or something. Former communist. Right, former, right.

But still in the left quadrant. Still in the left quadrant. I'm not going to take his word for it, mind you. Well, that's the thing, right? You can't take his word for it. But in your video, I mean, you constantly hedged back and forth on, he definitively said that.

And the media lied about it is my point. Like when they say he's a Republican and the dude says he's not, you can't just say he's the other guy. Well, what left-wing politicians are advocating for anything that he's mentioned in terms of immigration or anything like that? Do you mean like general identitarianism? No, no, no. I'm talking about specifically what this guy said, the reason why he did what he did. So do you know why? So first, I think the obvious answer is none. Well, I mean, technically the answer is all of them.

His motivation is that— Well, it's two different answers. Right. So I will clarify. Sure. When you have like all the presidential candidates on the Democrat stage raising their hands saying moratorium on border crossings and free health care for noncitizens, that is policies put forth that motivate him to do the things he's doing. So he claims. Not that I believe him, right?

This guy is clearly a lunatic. But yeah, so the policies that are being enacted by Democrats are the ones he takes issue with. Sure. Yeah. Okay. policies that are being acted by democrats are the ones he takes issue with sure yeah okay so but we should not kowtow to a madman's beliefs and rantings based on what he wants to see and put that burden on other people right no i don't think we would yeah we locked the guy up good yeah throw away the key um he said in his manifesto also that he you can call me an ethno-nationalist uh he said that if you called him a neo-nazi that would be fine and uh another area he said he

mocked leftists and said you're a bigot racist xenophobe nazi fascist as if we're calling him that yeah and he said okay and um and you know he also he's an identitarian he also um when it comes to leftism leftism results in a degenerate hateful society to non- also – He's an identitarian. He also, when it comes to leftism, leftism results in a degenerate, hateful society to non-whites. He's an identitarian. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. Leftism results in a degenerate, hateful society, period. And then he continues – and then he went on for something else where it said to non-whites on white lands, leave while you still can.

Those were two separate sentences. Yeah, yeah, yeah. First of all, he's a dangerous psychopath who should be locked up um you know how we deal with these preventing them in the future is is a serious challenge our country and i want to have but uh here's here's my go ahead yeah we're we're a fairly anti-identitarian show i mean like we're overtly anti-identitarian that's like the core like one of the core elements uh and so this is why i oppose the rise in identitarianism from the democrats and in schools and all that stuff. Because when you tell racial groups to form groups based on race, you get white identitarianism along with black identitarianism.

And then you get these psychopaths. This has been the concern that people like me and like Carl Benjamin, other anti-identitarian. Carl Benjamin? He's like staunchly anti-identitarian. So if you want to talk about those who are speaking out against it, there was a meme back in I think it was like 2016 or even sooner where it was talking about how what we would not, what we

refer to back then as like intersectionality was advocating for racial groups to join together. The only natural conclusion would be white racial groups agreeing and we don't want that. We don't want majoritarian-based racial violence. We don't want racial violence at all. So what we need to encourage is integration and diversity.

But when you have non-POC, POC events, when you have Seattle Library doing DEI, like non-POC and POC different rooms for libraries, you are telling all of the white people to go into a room. You actually had in the Sacramento Unified School District, they encouraged kids to form white racial identity groups. Are you arguing that

a library having a people of color space is something that we shouldn't do because of something like this? Let me ask you, to answer your question. Sure. If you tell non-white people to go in one room, who goes into

the other room? Wait, say this again. A hundred people walk to a library of all different races. One room says POC. One room says non-POC. All of the people who are not, who are people of color go into that room what is the race of the people that all gather together in the other room sure you're

going to say that it's white correct i'm not going to say that's what it is isn't it sure so when you have a room that says white you know that says non non-poc and poc you're telling all the white people to go into a room together. What do you think is going to happen when you get a bunch of white people together, start telling them that they're oppressors? You think this is happening in a... Who's calling anyone an oppressor? You're talking about something

that's happening in a library. That's not happening in everyday life. That's not happening in... We're not talking... We're not walking through the world doing this. What are you... I'm confused as to what your anecdote here is supposed to represent in a broader sense.

Let me give you... Let me see if I can find the exact source. So it's happening all over the place. It's happened in Dearborn. It's happened in Seattle. It's happened in Florida. It's happened in Sacramento to an extreme degree. So here we go. Let me just pull it up.

Racial affinity groups. This was from the anti-racist classroom, Sacramento City Unified School District, that argued that white students should form white racial affinity groups. Would you agree with that? White students should form white racial affinity groups? Yeah. No. So this is anti-racism, though? I mean, I don't agree with that.

So I think then we agree. My concern is that... What is a white racial affinity group? They tell all the white kids to go together. And let me read it for you. Make sure we get the full context. Racial affinity groups offer a structure of inquiry and can address many needs. They support us in exploring what has been forbidden, forgotten, and unhealed.

For example, in racial affinity groups, white people can discover together their group identity. They can cultivate racial solidarity and compassion and support each other in sitting with the discomfort, confusion, and numbness that often accompany white racial awakening. They can also discern white privilege and its impact without the aid of or dependence on people of color. Oh, that's a bit different than what I – White people who have formed racial affinity groups report that they recognize their collective commonality and shared history as well as the impact that their privilege has had on other races and on each racial affinity group member. Sure. And then it seems like if that's the case, then they would then go out into society and treat people of color in a way that they weren't treated before. Treat them better. Do you think that's what white people talk about when they talk about their shared history? How to treat people better?

Or do you think they talk about... If they're getting together in an anti-racist group, then yeah, I do. So if you took a bunch of white people and put them in a... Because I could tell you that the shooter is not going to an anti-racist affinity group. So this is anti-racist classroom, a program for schools. Yes. They're not going to the students and saying we're having, they're saying we're having white racial opinion.

You're not just letting them sit down and start talking about white power. You're sitting them down and you're guiding a discussion into what white privilege is. And what do you think happens when a group of young white kids sit down and talk about white history? What do you think they say to each other? Do you think they say

things like, man, we're awful? Or do you think they say things like other? What do you mean? They talk about what sort of... Do you think they say things like, man, we're awful? Or do you think they say things like, Lee Fairick's awesome? They probably don't say either of those things. Those are just general references. But I mean, those are the two ones you gave me. No one... Right, right, right. My point is, do you think they're speaking positively or negatively about their history?

Neither. They're just discussing it. Why does it have to be positive or negative? Are they talking about slavery? Are they talking about colonization? Talking about slavery or colonization? What are they talking about, do you think? Well, if this is in a classroom, it's being guided by a teacher, correct?

A white racial affinity group. I don't know if it actually says the teacher would be discussing it. I think it's telling the kids to form a group. If it gives them and if it gives them. It says they can cultivate. I would assume it's unled. Well, you can't assume that. We have to know.

I also don't think that if you get a whole bunch of white kids together, they start talking about Leif Erikson or they start talking about – they probably just start talking about – I'm not saying they're literally talking about Leif Erikson. Okay, but they – Don't be obtuse. Okay, without any sort of guidance, they're probably not talking about anything political at all. They're probably talking about what's going on in school. They're probably talking about what happened at the cafeteria

or whatever. Do you think they're wondering why it is they've been separated from the other kids of different races? Probably not because they would explain to them what the purpose

of the anti-racist classroom group is. Do you think any of these kids have friends who are not white? Probably, yeah. What do you think they ask about why they can't sit with their friends

in the affinity group? It's like a what? A 45-minute class or a 30-minute class, whatever? I don't know. It's not like they ask about why they can't sit with their friends in the affinity group? It's like a what? A 45-minute class or a 30-minute class, whatever? I don't know. It's not like they're not being segregated for life. It's a project. It's a class. So would you agree with racial segregation in schools in some capacity?

No, that's not what this is. But if only white kids are in this group and other kids aren't allowed in it, would that be racial segregation? This is a specific class to talk about white privilege. Right. So in some circumstances, would you allow for only white people to be in the classroom? That's not what this is. Okay. Okay.

Hold on. This is a white racial affinity group as it says, right? It says that it's an anti-racist classroom. I can't read it. It's too far from me. Unfortunately, I don't have the computer in front of me. So white people can discover their group identity. In the context, it specifically mentions

people of color. It specifically mentions multiple times white privilege. Sure, sure, sure. I'm not disagreeing. I mean, you know what white privilege is, right?

Right, right. So you agree with racial segregation? No, that's not what this is. Okay, well, hold on. It says without the dependence on people of color. Tim, I know what

you're trying to do. No, no, no. I'm not trying to do anything. You're trying to do something. What am I trying to do? The fact remains that a school created a program where only white kids would be allowed, and you're okay with it. Now, if you don't have the balls to say you're okay with it, fine.

Don't say it. Are you okay when a teacher tells the boys to line up on one side of the classroom and girls to line up on the other side of the classroom? Yes. Why wouldn't I be? Of course. So why wouldn't you be okay with this? Racism. It's not racism.

The other thing isn't sexism. Well, yeah, because we tell boys and girls to use different bathrooms. That's fine. It would not be fine to tell black kids and white kids to use different bathrooms. It's not a fair comparison. But that's not what we're doing here. We're not asking black kids or white kids to use separate bathrooms. No, but your point, you're trying to make it sound as if gender,

as if the difference between the sexes is comparable to the differences between racial groups. Telling a bunch of white kids to get together without other kids of other races is racist, and I'm not for it. But they're specifically discussing white privilege and anti-racism. I don't think you should be allowed in schools to say whites only. I think that's wrong. I don't care what the reason is. No one's saying that, though. You just jumped to something completely different.

Bro, it literally says without the aid of people of color. What do you think that means? Okay, you could be— Like, in Seattle, they said non-POC only. What do you think that means? Okay, you could be... In Seattle, they said non-POC only. What do you think that means? In California, they had a proposition to remove their civil rights provision from their own constitution,

allowing racial segregation. I'm literally... You're bringing up other things that are completely different now. We're talking about this one specific class that I don't find a problem with, to be quite honest. Okay, so only white kids are allowed, right?

In the context of this... Yes, only white kids are allowed, right? In the context of this, I think it's fine. An anti-race discussion with white people. We're not arguing. You're agreeing. And I'm assuming that in another classroom, people of color are sharing their shared experiences too as people of color. What is segregation? But we don't have to go back into

segregation. We're just talking about this one specific classroom. I'm against segregation in terms of a school for whites and a school for blacks but in terms of this one specific class i think it's fine i think it's fine if you don't like it that's fine too i think this is a really unproductive discussion we've had both of our opinions so this is on the record we're both probably i'm assuming you are we're both against segregation in terms of a school for blacks and the school for whites i am under the impression that this is from what you're telling me an anti-racist class a one-time class discussion on white privilege and i think it's fine it's that

simple i don't think we need to opine on this more if you do i don't know what else to say about it to be quite frank i'm giving you exactly how I feel. That's what you want, right? I'm telling you how I feel. Let me see if I can pull up the Seattle one. It's hard to get the precise language. Well, yeah, the virtual cafes at Dearborn, Michigan was a big story. Referring our commitments. Did you hear this story when they said that they were having digital chat rooms and they were for white and non-white only? I'm not familiar with this story. They call

it non-POC and POC only. See, I think that's wrong. And what's your racial background? My racial background? I'm white. I know you are mixed race. So for me, I think my perspective comes from... You're multiracial. I come from a family that dealt with segregation. And they told me exactly what you're agreeing with is exactly what they were scared of. And so I'm like desperately being like, this is crazy. You're like, it's fine. It's fine. It's fine.

And then I'm like looking back at the stories from my grandpa and my parents and they're like, this is the scariest thing we've seen in a long time. And then you just don't care. I didn't say I don't care. Well, no, no. I'm saying. I just said specifically to talk about white privilege and anti-racism. I think in that context it's fine. That specific context.

Yeah, I just – I think we disagree on that. It's the same argument they made and the same argument they make today. Wait, so schools were segregated back in like the 50s because they were separating – Separate but equal. They were separating the whites to talk about white privilege and anti-racism action. They were justifying the separation on some kind of physical or academic terms or like cultural terms. Like there was a justification for why it was okay this time, but it was never okay.

It was never okay to say one place for one race. It was never okay. Right. It's still not okay today. That's not what this is. It's just a simple class to discuss this issue. I don't see the problem with it, quite honestly. And think because is it is because you have white privilege oh yes of course i do so you're wrong and you're as you as a white man have white privilege and don't understand why

it's bad to tell i don't think that's what white privilege is i i actually have a problem with the word privilege because i think for people seems like you're one of them for a lot of people they view that word privilege as something that's being looked at them negatively and it's just not it's just not i view white privilege as there are things in my life that like here's an even better way of putting it if you are a white person and everything has gone wrong for you in terms of you know you're homeless and you can't get a job and you'll be the most unluckiest person on the face of the planet.

It likely did not happen to you because you were white. That's all it is. That's all it is. Whereas if you see a black homeless person who can't get a job, things have happened in their life, they've lost their home,

there's a good chance that their race, being black, had part to do in that, had part to do in that, had part to do in their situation. That's all that is. It's not a positive or negative. And if you understand that, if you understand that

there are certain things that have not happened to you because you're white, then you understand what black people or Latino people or Asian Americans go through that you just haven't had to go through.

It's not a negative or positive. It's just understanding how other people go through life. That's all it is. It's not a negative thing to understand you have white privilege. It's just not. We're going to jump to the super chats that weren't deleted. I apologize to everybody. I don't know why.

We've had way more super chats than this in the past, but it just all of a sudden went and they were gone. But my attitude – I'll give you one last thought on like but we also we also didn't we also didn't talk about the shooting though we just didn't talk about let's let's let's let's do that for the member segment i know we're making everybody stay a little bit late but uh we'll get that one up i feel like that's important stuff i mean i know you know but it's but we're like we're half an hour over already all right the last thing i want to say is um i feel like when you have a school that is predominantly run by wealthy uh elites you know sacramento san francisco tends to be california i think is like overwhelmingly white then they create a classroom where they say come on all the white kids are going to come in and we're going to talk about privilege. And they talk about how much privileged they are and the things they have over other races.

I think the likely outcome is going to be a bunch of white kids hearing that they have better things, that they've done better, that through their history they've achieved or taken more than other races. What would they say? I mean, that sounds like what they're going to tell the kids. I mean, I think someone should talk to these kids who partook in this class and see what they learned. I mean, that's, I mean, we're just, I mean, I'm not saying what they learned in there. I'm just going by what the class says.

You're pontificating about what they possibly took out of it. I haven't done any of that. Well, I just think that if you take a bunch of white people and tell them to go to a room by themselves to talk about privilege, they're not going to have a negative conversation about themselves. Like, if I asked a bunch of-

I'm going to seriously- Let me ask you. I'm going to seriously, I mean, again, I can't, this is me pontificating here. I'm going to assume that if you tell kids to do that sort of thing in a class, that there is a teacher or some sort of, I don't know, anti-racist advocate, someone leading the class and helping these children along in taking part in this activity. That's what i'm going to assume we should find we should find out we should contact the school and find out how this went ask

if we could talk to if uh we could uh send some questions that the children the kids these how old are these kids how old it's a great school so kindergarten to eighth maybe have them answer what they learned like the paper just a little what what if i what if i did like an event and it was called like um leftist affinity and it was to have a conversation around all of the horrible things that leftists had done throughout the past several hundred years and to understand their privilege do you think if i brought in a bunch of you didn't listen to anything what i said just said about white privilege though it's not that it's not that's not what it is at all okay so if i if you

think that if i took a bunch of people of any group and put them in a room they would talk critically about themselves or talk positively about themselves i mean four of us are in here right now right and we're just having a regular conversation and i mean clearly i will not accept you know uh like i'm like this is what i know to be sure this is what's right you say the same thing seamus is the same thing so my is, and I don't want to go in circles. So we'll go to super chats. And I'll give you, you know, I don't, I don't, I don't take the final word. But my point is, I think if you try to do your best, and tell a bunch of white people to keep forming groups, or to go in or to have like rooms that are only for white people,

or like, like Dearborn did, like they did in the library, I think was in Seattle, like the school's doing, like we've seen in a bunch of other states. Like in Atlanta, they did it. The principal took the black kids out. Like, you're telling people to segregate. Whether it's like harsh segregation or not, you're making the problem worse, and you'll end up with deep racists. That's why I oppose it.

We should find out what these things actually do. We should actually do a legitimate study, ask these students who took part in this, whether it's first, second, third, high school. We should ask them what they got out of these sort of courses, what they got out of this anti-racist classroom. I think that would be very interesting to find out. I think we should encourage people of all races to get together and have a

conversation with each other. But what if these kids answer and they say this was a very, the white kids and the people of color, they both come out and said this was a very positive thing we went through and it actually made our relationship with our – the white kids say our relationship with our black friends is better. Black kids say their relationship with their white friends are better. What if that was what they found and got out of this? What would you think? So this is what I was told it was like pre-1964, that Plessy v. Ferguson, like Derrick Bell's argument, that Derrick Bell, the critical race theorist, argues Plessy v. Ferguson was correct when it clearly wasn't.

And so you actually had people arguing everybody was better off. Critical race theorists have argued that before the end of segregation, the black community had its own economy. And by ending segregation, it forced them under the white economy which gave the white people power over them so those are the kind of conversations they had in the past as to why they but segregation didn't make the relationship between whites and blacks better i agree yeah i'm saying what if the kids but they were saying it was no no no no no no that's so read derrick bell like read his thoughts on plessy v ferguson because that's he argued segregation was a good thing he's a critical race theorist along with kimberly crenshaw let's read uh let's read i So read Derrick Bell. Like read his thoughts on Plessy v. Ferguson. He argued segregation was a good thing.

He's a critical race theorist along with Kimberly Crenshaw. Let's read – I apologize, man. I'm not familiar with that specific thing. But I think if you – we should find – we should reach out to this school and we should find out what the kids got out of it. In Ferguson and in St. Louis – Baltimore. Ferguson, obviously, in St. Louis, Baltimore. Ferguson, obviously, in St. Louis. And Baltimore, they were circulating a letter among Black Lives Matter, which was like the writings of Derrick Bell and advocating for Plessy v. Ferguson and all that stuff. But we'll try and read as many superchats as we have.

Okay. If you haven't already, smash the like button. We went long because these things happen. We went way long. I'll read as many superchats as we have, but I apologize. YouTube deleted them. button that we went long because these things happen we went way long we'll uh we'll operate as many superchats as we have but i apologize youtube deleted them i i can try and find a way to to get them back i just i might be able to find another way to get them back give me a second they're in the i pull this up somehow

oh yeah okay i have them sweet but they're formatted in a very difficult way that we and there's not all of them usually all of them are there okay you're right you're right going back basically forever right yeah okay Yeah. Okay, cool. Hey, guys, good news. Yeah. Thanks, Matt. I'll try to read them. We'll pull over this tab, which we normally don't pull over,

and I will try to read these super chats. I don't know when they came in, though, because are they reverse? I think they're coming in reverse chronological order, actually. Okay. So let me see if i can uh uh i don't know where you're coming in from it might be it might be from the beginning okay okay it is reverse chronological order reverse chronological chronological order all right anthony says citing white privilege is just a way to defer responsibility if you're poor and white

it's your fault but if you're poor and non-white it's someone else's fault at any point you know and we'll just keep reading more i suppose but unless you have something to say all right let's see how do you usually do this you we could we read it i'll just read okay go ahead what was it again i'm sorry this one wasn't directed at uh you necessarily i don't think it's just a general point citing white privilege is just a way to defer responsibility. If you're poor and white, it's your fault. But if you're poor and non-white, it's someone else's fault. No, no, no. That's not what it is at all.

It's not what it is at all. It's not your fault. It's just that the odds are that whatever you went through in your life, the reason you are in economic trouble, the reason – it's not because you were white. There were other externalities that caused that issue. That's all's all it's not blaming anybody all right uh should i read the mean ones oh please yeah of course matt why does sam cedar with 1.17 million followers only average about 25k likes on his youtube videos sure by the way great conversation i think that's actually a good number to get in terms of likes, actually. I don't think that's a bad number.

Yeah, it's a decent number, I guess. But also, his show has always been, his show was from the, his show started in, his show actually started with Gene Garofalo back in, what was it, 2004 on Air America. It was a radio show, like a terrestrial radio show. And so his audience actually mostly listens to the show via podcast. So those YouTube numbers are mostly from a very specific subjection of his audience. It's a completely different. He has 25K is a good amount of light.

It's good. Yeah. Yeah. Like that's what I get. All right. Let's see. I don't know if that's accurate. That's what this person's saying. But yeah, Heather Corrin says he just proved Tim's point.

Some people view this negatively, making race center and calling all white people bad constantly, which they do is going to create more racists of all races, not less. No, what I said was the term privilege, I think, does cause problems. I think we could find a better term for that same exact thing. I think people, for some reason, hear the word privilege and think, oh, you're privileged. That's not what white privilege means. So, you know, I think maybe to help this conversation along, maybe we should find a different terminology for the exact same thing,

which is basically just if you're white, you need to just come to the realization that there are things that people of other races, people of color, black, Latino, Asian American, they go through experiences that you don't because you are white. It's not saying you are bad. It's just come to that realization. You can be going through hardships and troubles. There could be things happening to you

that are truly horrible and unfair, but it's not happening to you likely because it's white. Like, for example, if the same thing was happening to a black person, there is a chance that his race or his or her race did play some role in that hardship or difficulty that they're going through. Can I ask you something?

Because you referenced Asian Americans. Why is it that basically by every economic indicator that's used to demonstrate white privilege exists, Asians outperform white people? Well, it's not always just economics. I mean, are you denying... But I'm saying all the indicators that exist. But one indicator that exists,

the fact that... Would you deny that there is anti-Asian hatred sentiment across this country? No, I would not deny that there is anti-Asian hate. Whoa, whoa, whoa. From who? What do you mean from who?

Who's got... From people who are using... Who are attacking Asian people. What do you mean from who? Who's attacking Asian people? Anybody. Do you have examples of this? Sure. There's been white people who've done it. There's been black people who are using – who are attacking Asian people. What do you mean? Who's attacking Asian people? Anybody. Do you have examples of this? Sure.

There's been white people who've done it. There's been black people who've done it. Oh, I didn't ask you that. I'm asking for the stories about Asian people you brought up race. Well, we're talking about race. We're talking about in the context of race, yes. Well, I asked you like where is the – where the Asian attacks happen. Oh, in New York.

Sure. In California. That's where there are major populations of Asian people, right? Who's like, so is there a reason the Asians are being attacked? Oh, yes. Because of sentiment via like racism due to COVID-19. Beliefs that it came from China and people or it purposely came from China. Or, you know, and they're taking it out on completely innocent Asian Americans.

And a lot of the times, they're not even attacking Chinese people, which wouldn't make it right, but they're even wrong on that sense because they're attacking Korean Americans, they're attacking Japanese Americans, and it's just, it's wrong. And that's something that, for example,

white people do not experience. They usually do not experience racist attacks like Asian Americans do in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. What about in general? Do you think white people experience racist attacks for being white? I'm sure it's happened, but that's an anomaly. It's not as often as, for example, a black person or a Latino person. Is that your feeling or is that a fact?

I mean, you could look it up. I'm sure it would be true. I mean, we just had a story about the 10 people who got killed because there was a racist attack in a supermarket against black people, specifically from the shooter. That's what they said. Sure, sure. But how many people died last year in extremist attacks?

We have to look up those stats. 29. Okay. According to the Anti-Defamation League. I mean, you had nearly 1, shootings in chicago in mass like i think it was like uh 400 ish people died in mass shootings in chicago the entire the entirety of last year and so it's just like i feel like the conversation about white privilege when 29 you don't think you don't think the the the situation in those neighborhoods that have led to what you're describing,

you don't think that has anything to do with the historic racism in this country? You don't think those neighborhoods are predominantly, they've maybe been redlined? Do you know why they're shooting each other in Chicago? It's different for every reason, right? It's mostly like honor shootings. I mean, that's – can you pull up something to back that up? I've never even – what do you mean honor shootings? What's that?

Like you diss me, I take your life. Okay. I mean, I'm familiar with that. Do you have anything to – I have a – we should go through super chats, but I can pull up for you. Sure. Yeah. That would be really interesting. For one, I'll cite myself as a source as having covered and lived in Chicago for 23 years.

And I actually went nightcrawling with a couple of journalists. One was really famous now. And you're familiar with nightcrawling? Yeah. Get the radio and you go and chase it around. And we interviewed this crime prevention woman, a local in the black community, who was arguing in favor of gun rights,

but against gun violence. And she was talking about one of the misconceptions in Chicago is that it's gang violence, when it's actually more like somebody smack talked my girl. And if you do that, you're going to pay for it. I would love to see more information about that, for sure. You should definitely pull it up. You want to get back to the Super Chats or while you pull it up? Yeah.

We'll get to Super Chats. I wish we had more time, man. I hate to... Well, I guess you're going to have to invite me back. Yeah. But we... There's an opportunity that takes it. There's two videos. I mean, definitely. Absolutely. There's two videos on my channel. One is the interview with this woman. I forgot her name.

It was years ago. And then also when we went night crawling. But I mean, I could also just speak as much as it's not as valuable as a direct source as someone who lived in Chicago and lived on the South Side having like witnessed people doing it. We know why it happens. So anyway, let's read some more. Let's read some more Super Chats. We got to read more.

I don't know if we're going to have time for a members only segment unless, you know, you guys are all cool with it. All right. Let's see. Twimmy says, I can't believe in 2022 Tim of the disgraced show Shimcast is advocating against segregation. Shameful. For heavens.

Shimcast. Wonderful show. Let me tell you. All right. Jeffrey Pfaff says, sounds like George Wallace. Leftist Atlanta teacher segregated the students. If white people have privilege wouldn't they use it to their advantage um sure i mean it happens what do you mean what

do they what do they i'm not so following so uh in california sure are you familiar with the proposition in 2020 to repeal the non-discrimination language from their constitution i'm not no excuse me oof it was called like the affirmative action bill or something and uh there was a provision in the constitution that says you can't discriminate on the basis of race sex national origin uh for purposes of public public education or contracting and one other thing they wanted to remove that because they said we can't enact affirmative action without it. My issue with it was I kind of feel like if you give the government, which includes all the smaller and local governments, the ability to discriminate on the basis of race. Like my question to you is I'll start with this.

Do you think that there are racist white people? Racist white people? Yeah. Yes, I think so. Personally, do you think that there are racist white people in government? Personally, I do. Sure. Do you think that if racist white people in government were given the opportunity to discriminate on the basis of race, they would discriminate against people of color? Probably.

I think they would. So when California tried doing this, I was like, hey, that's a big no for me. But it was actually the Democrat-led effort at the national level to do. So you had tons of federal-level Democrats who were advocating for this repeal. To me, I find that shocking. So the point was, if white people have privilege, wouldn't they use it to their advantage? It sure looks like it. Sure.

I mean, it happens. Yeah. Well, the Republicans opposed it. It failed, but the Democrats were pushing it, and I'm glad they lost. I would have to look more into that. I'm not familiar with it. All right. Jeffrey Pfaff says, did he just admit CNN and MSNBC really put ad revenue

before black lives being killed in Chicago? They set the narrative, but he trusts the media. You don't have to respond to that. No, that's fine. I mean, I'm sure they do. I mean, what do you want? They're a corporate media outlet what is their purpose

alright let's read some more it's really hard to read the superchats this way in this weird very small yeah very small and like is there a way to zoom in

in the browser yeah go to view go to view and enlarge it no the size isn't isn't mainly the issue it's the formatting normally we like to make sure we get people's

questions from earlier in the show so we don't miss them so i'll go back and then we'll we'll try and go forward uh but we're it's like reverse reverse the order don't we normally do it in so i'll switch it all right make 1984 fiction again says tim there is no such thing as a viable baby up until three years old and that's being generous that argument is infuriating. What does that mean? Well, he's saying children are wholly dependent on their mother at an early age.

Yeah, I mean, I get it. I've heard the arguments. It's tough. I don't have all the answers. That's all I can really say. They're dependent on a very different way, though. I mean, you can't say that going out and buying your child food is the same as your your child literally being inside your body eating the nutrients that you intake that's not the same yeah but now they give you the right to kill your child if you don't want to do it do what no one's advocating for killing yeah unborn children that's what abortion is you're killing an unborn child

so you're right that it's arguably yeah there's a difference sure between having a child inside of you and providing resources for them, but parents are responsible for taking care of their children. Right. Yes. A child. Yes. Yes.

An unborn child is a child. A person. And they are people. No one in all of history who has ever referred to a group of humans as not being full persons has ever been right in the final analysis. Ever. Does, does, does a,

uh, does a fetus get,us get child support from their father? I would absolutely say that men should be held to account for the children that they create. Absolutely. Before the child is born, men should pay. Yeah, I think men should. Yes, I think that men should have to pay for their children. 100%.

Specifically what I'm saying. Yes, those are children. Seamus thinks they should be married before... Yeah, exactly. And if a man abandons a woman who is pregnant with his child, he should absolutely be on the hook for taking care of her and that child. Yeah. All right.

But, you know, in the current laws we have, that's not the case. It should be. Good. Are you going to advocate for that? He does. Yeah, I do. I'm happy. Good good he opposes premarital sex yeah all right that's i mean like i i think it's interesting because like shamus catholic conservative what do you think about that one though about uh about should a um a uh the father of the person who impregnates a woman the male who impregnates a woman, should he be responsible for child support payments from, I don't know, I guess the moment

of conception, right? Yes. But it's a question for me of law, right? I think one of the problems we have is cultural enforcement. I think we should do these things. I think a man should be responsible the moment the woman is like, yo, I'm pregnant. It's like, well, tell me what you need and what to do, and he's going to take care of it. I don't know how much I like the government's involvement in a person's private matters,

because we've seen instances where even mothers have argued they don't want child support anymore, but the government's been like, we don't care, and then force the guy to put the money through the government and to her. That's a very specific case. That's not the vast majority of the issues there but i mean you're in favor of the state in enforcing like the private matters between a man and a woman if uh if uh if uh if a woman is going to have a baby then yes absolutely the father should be oh wow yeah and that's a more conservative position than i would have expected you don't what you have a father's

rights guy that's actually usually a right – No, no, no. I think – I assumed you were more on the side of like individual – like why would the one have the right to choose but not the man? I just assumed you would – Well, the right to choose is based on the body. What do you mean? It's my body, my choice, right? It's not my baby or my fetus, my choice.

We're talking about it's a woman's body that's being used, and she has the ability to decide what she wants to do with her body. Does the man have a right to choose in any capacity? With his own body, sure, yeah. Does the man have a right over whether or not the woman has a baby or not? In terms of if they decide together to have a baby, then yes. No, no. Let's say a man and a woman hook up and they both were like, uh-oh, she's pregnant.

It's not his body. But can he choose to just leave it? Can he choose to just leave it? Yeah. No. So you think the man should have no say in the matter in any capacity? Well, he has plenty of say in the matter. He could just not have sex with that woman.

The woman could not have sex too. Sure. So the woman has a right to choose and the man doesn't with her because it's her body yes what if the man is like i don't want to pay for it well he's got to why does he have because that's the law why doesn't the woman have to pay for it she does pay for it with her body and raising the child but she can get rid of it for she could abort it right that would that what you want her to do no i'm saying if like i recognize a woman it's a woman's body But how can you argue pro-choice for the woman but not the man's right to sever himself from responsibility? Because pro-choice is talking about the woman's body.

It's not – what do you think pro-choice is? We're talking about women's bodies. That's what the pro-choice movement is. Well, I assumed – I think the guy should pay. I mean it's literally in everything they say. My body, my choice. That's the thing. It's not my fetus, my choice. It's my body, my say. My body, my choice. That's the thing. It's not my fetus, my choice.

It's my body, my choice. Right, right, right. That's the whole thing that Roe v. Wade argues with the 14th Amendment, right? I thought you were making an equality argument. Equality? Like, if the woman can choose to terminate or not, it's her choice. Because it's her body, yes. Right.

The man could also choose to sever or not. It's his choice. Sever what? What are you talking about? Sever tithes. Well, no, he's responsible for the life that he helped bring into this world, if that's what she decides to go forward with. So men have less of a say in the birth of the baby. Hear me out. Do you think it would be okay

if a woman got an abortion because she couldn't afford a baby? Like, let's say she's six weeks pregnant, she has no money, and she's like, I can't afford this. Sure, because it's her body, yes. But based on finances. Sure. What if the guy has no money. And she's like, I can't afford this. Sure, because it's her body, yes. But based on finances. Sure. What if the guy has no money and he's homeless?

Well, then the courts take that into consideration. So I'm not asking you about the courts. I'm saying do you think the guy should be like, I have no money. I can't have a baby. Well, then he should have considered that before he went ahead and did an act that resulted in the birth of a child. But why should the woman not have that same obligation? Because it's her body. It's really simple.

Yeah, exactly. No, she had the option not to use her body to engage in the act, which creates children. She did have that option. No, no, it's not. We're specifically talking about the right to your body. I mean, you guys disagree. That's fine. I mean, but this is the position.

No, no. I mean, I guys disagree. That's fine. I mean, but this is the position. No, no. I mean, I think... I think we agree. I'm just confused as to what your principal position is because it doesn't seem to make sense to me. How does that make sense? You have two human beings who are of equal rights under the eye of the government. One says, I am six weeks pregnant, but I can choose to end the life of this... To end right now the child.

Now, hold on. But the major thing is that the choice is her choice over her body, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So the male's body is not involved. So there's no choice involved here. I'm talking about finances. Okay.

That's where the responsibility of it comes into, right? So a woman can get an abortion because she's broke, right? Sure. That's her body. Right, right. Okay. So a woman can get an abortion because she's broke, right? Sure. That's her body. Right, right, right. Okay. So a woman can be like, I'm not going to have a baby. I can't afford it.

Yes. Was there any responsibility for her when she decided to engage in sex without – and then getting pregnant? Is there any responsibility there? I mean, sure. But at the end of the day, it's her body and she has the right to decide what she – what happens. So what about the man? Does he – he has no say in the matter at all i mean if a man wants if a man does not want a child he should not engage in acts that

require him it's really if he does want a child though there's many ways he could go about getting a child if that if his partner for example doesn't want a child you know that your argument is an inversion of the right-wing argument like like they're identical in principle, but they make no sense logically to me. I mean, I would say that my position is the position that most people on the left have. Right, right. So when Seamus says both the mother and the father have to be responsible for what they did and the man has to pay and the woman shouldn't be able to kill the baby, that's logically sound.

I get it. Both have, they've done it, the baby's there. Your position is one gets a say, one doesn't. Because we're talking...

I'm talking about finance is not a body. Okay. You keep changing the subject. Because finances just, when it comes to a woman's choice, the finances are just irrelevant because a woman's choice is to, because the man doesn't

have anything happen to his body. There's nothing. There's nothing. He doesn't have anything happen to the body. Why should, if the woman chooses to have a baby, it's her decision. Sure. So the man doesn't, why does a man have to choose? Like the man has no choice to have the kid?

I think he does. He could just not have done what he did to result in a pregnancy. So like you're, so here's the problem. The 14th amendment, this is the problem. The 14th Amendment, this is my confusion. The 14th Amendment says equality under the law. You can't create a circumstance

in which for any reason, body or otherwise, one person has a legal right and another person doesn't have. If the woman can decide to, for financial reasons, terminate a pregnancy or keep it under any argument,

the man would have to have under the 14th Amendment the same equality under the law. Now, if you want to make an argument about a woman's right to an abortion because it's her body, I agree. It's her body. But now we're talking about responsibility that one can end and one can't. That doesn't jive under the 14th Amendment. I don't understand. It makes no sense. I mean, you're arguing from a 14th Amendment perspective. Which is Roe v. Wade.

Sure, but it's not the same thing. Equality under the law means men and women have to be able to make the same financial decisions so you're you're saying that every situation where a man uh did not want to have a child and is forced to pay child support your claim is that it's currently uh unconstitutional is if i'm so my position is the guy should pay no your position was your was – but you're asking me this – I said from the beginning I think the guy should pay. Okay, so we agree. But I think we need cultural changes.

Okay. My question is I don't understand how you reconcile that. I mean if we want to talk about cultural changes – My position is civil rights and equality and the law. If you want to talk about cultural changes, that's fine. I could agree with cultural changes, but that doesn't change the fact that in the situation where, as it happens right now, if a woman does not want a pregnancy, six weeks, like you said, not viable, completely legal to do in this country, she can have an abortion. So when it comes to financial... A man cannot force her to have the

abortion. A man cannot claim he doesn't want to pay for a child support to men so for what for the baby for the baby what do you mean if if a man and a woman get together and they have kids sure and the woman is you know she works at uh vice media making 70k a year and the husband's homeless should she pay child support to him he's not carrying the child no no after it's born after child support is after it's born if they're together then no why would no no they split up they split up yeah is after it's born. If they're together, then no. No, no, they split up. They split up. Is he taking care of the child? They have dual custody.

Is he taking care of the child? Dual custody means they both have equal access to the child. I mean, I'm sure she's making sure, if that's the case, that the child is okay. The government should mandate women pay child support to men. I mean, if it's that situation where the man is in squalor taking care of the child, then yes, sure. What if the man makes $50,000 and the woman makes $80,000? I mean, if the court decides, I'm fine with that so uh simple question simplified women should pay the same child support men should pay in the same circumstances sure if they're if they're if they're both taking care of the child sure yeah okay there we go that's one way to get

it all right let's see we got well uh that's what you were asking this whole time because that's not how it read to me so we could have got we could have got past that a lot earlier well because my my question is if you're making a 14th amendment argument for uh abortion how do you ignore the the like that men don't have a say it doesn't make sense well i'll just read some more so what was oh go ahead yeah so what what uh if a man pressures a woman to have an abortion what should the penalty for that be if a man if a man pressures yeah yeah so you're saying a man can't a woman to have an abortion, what should the penalty for that be? If a man pressures a woman? Yeah, yeah. So you're saying a man can't make a woman have an abortion.

I mean, what if he does? What should the penalty be? Well, what do you mean by make? Like he puts pressure on her. He coerces her into doing it. He threatens her. He says he'll hurt her or something like that. Are there – well, that's a completely different thing.

So here's the thing. That's a completely different thing. Do you think it should be a different penalty than if a man threatens a woman for some other reason? Like if a man says, you know, I'll hit you if you don't listen versus I'll hit you if you don't get an abortion. Do you think that those are different circumstances that should incur a different penalty? If he does something to actually convincing her. What if he threatens her? She has an abortion because if a woman says I got this abortion because a man threatened me, should there be a legal penalty for that?

I would actually love to see if there are laws in the books for that because that'd be interesting for sure i think um you know there are in terms of like if a man was to punch a pregnant woman his pregnant partner and that would result in abortion uh that would be considered in this country a fetal homicide we have a specific classification for that in those scenarios yes so there are certain circumstances in certain states where you can be charged with homicide for killing an unborn child. It's a separate... But homicide means you've killed a human.

That's what homicide means. It's specifically called a fetal homicide. Yes, but you're acknowledging that it is homicide. Sure. He killed a person. But what you're saying is under specific circumstances, if the mother doesn't want that child, killing it becomes acceptable. Because we're now talking about the issue of it being her body,

and she has the authority over herself, over her person. But she's not making a decision about herself. She's making a decision about the child that's in the living. The law disagrees with that, though. The law agrees that— That law's wrong. Okay. Well, then—

I think you guys, like— Sure. But then I guess my final question is, since it's an issue of her body, would you argue that since this is just about her body, it's not about a right to kill a child, that if the child is viable, it should be delivered and then saved with medical technology? Do you think that should be the requirement? If the child's viability, if the child is past the point of viability and the mother doesn't want to be pregnant, should she be allowed to kill that child that can survive outside the womb?

Or should there be a requirement? I'm not talking about the laws in the country. I'm asking about your position. Sure. If this is just about a woman's body and there is an opportunity for the unborn child to live outside of her body because it is viable, is she able to abort the child and kill it? Or would you argue, since this is just about her body and not killing a child, that everything would have to be done

to deliver and save that child? It's her body. That's my position. But that's not an argument to what I said. We're not talking about her body. Yeah, I'm saying... So... So...

Because when they perform an abortion procedure, they actually specifically go in and kill the child. They don't simply remove it. But you're talking about something that doesn't happen. It's not happening in this... What are you talking about? People aren't getting abortions? After viability, a woman can't just up and choose.

There has to be a reason. And I told you, I read citations from partial birth abortionists who have said the number one reason cited is depression in their practice. So I think this quantifies the political issue we have in this country very simply. My political positions have long been from what's called traditional liberal. In the first several weeks, pre-viability, beyond that. I understand Seamus's perspective. I have a libertarian argument that he's mocked and doesn't agree with.

I don't think you understand at all what's being said. I'm not saying that to be disrespectful. I'm saying when I pull up the law and we're trying to explain to you what the definition of abortion is according to the U.S. government and you don't understand it, you say it's her body,

but we didn't mention her body. We're talking about a baby being delivered, but you defer to something that's not being talked about. I don't know if we can... I mean, we've discussed this. I don't view it as...

I view it as an issue of if the fetus is in the mother's body and going by the current laws we have right now, which I – for Roe v. Wade and Casey. I'm sorry. This is the issue. We're trying to ask you about your advocacy. My advocacy is what – Not the law. My advocacy is what exactly is legal in this country right now.

So you think... Let me try this. There's two babies. There's a pregnant woman and she's eight and a half months along. There's another baby next to her that is freshly delivered at eight and a half weeks. The babies are completely...

I got a better idea. Twins. Here we go. a woman is pregnant with twins one is born can they kill the one still in her or no if there's something that needs if that's what absolutely needs to be done yes that's the law so you say no no no but then you can't say my position is the law that falls well that's how is the law he's asking you philosophically is it a moral I don't care about the baby but I don't care about the philosophical discussions because what matters is the law these

philosophical discussions help inform what the law should be they don't so no but the law is what it is right now it's her body is a philosophical point that you're making no that's the democrats just tried to change the law last week okay they didn't. Because they failed thanks to people like me. Because people like me who oppose terminating the life of a baby when it can survive outside the womb, we oppose that.

We've always opposed that. All right. Bill Clinton, all of us, since going back, the traditional liberals, the traditional liberal position. So Seamus is the

classical conservative position. I'm the traditional liberal position and you're the progressive leftist position. So Seamus is the classical conservative position. I'm the traditional liberal position, and you're the progressive leftist position. So you can understand why everyone on the right calls me a leftist, because I actually say first term, you know, pro-choice or whatever. And that is so far from where Republicans are and conservatives are. But then you guys are sitting here saying a woman can decide to terminate a viable baby if she chooses. That is so far removed from me. No, no. I never – when we're talking about a viable pregnancy, the laws in this country are that there needs to be a reason that it's done, where the baby is going – like why is it so hard for you to understand that I agree with what the laws currently are?

Because I'm asking you about your moral position and advocacy, not what the law is. My moral position and advocacy is that it is a woman's choice because it is her body. And if a fetus inside her body can survive, can survive. Right. In this country, you can only do that. Whatever you're trying to get out of me, I don't know what only do that. Like, you're just going to not get... Whatever you're trying to get out of me, I don't know what you're looking for, but you're not going to get it because I'm telling you exactly what my position is.

You know what your position is? You're scared to actually say it because the left will come at you. No. Oh, bro, bro. No. How many times... A woman has a right to choose whatever she feels is... We're not talking about a woman, but you refuse to say it because this is the issue.

But that's what abortion is. If the baby is at the point of birth, Kathy Tran said it could be killed. In the situation where the woman's life or there is something... How did they get the baby out? What do you mean, how did they get the baby out?

The woman... What do you mean, how did they get the baby out? A woman is nine months pregnant. Sure. At the point of birth, she is dilating kathy tran said yes you can end the life of the baby as per the cdc's definitions is that what she said yes if that's what she said okay then there must be a reason that it's done it's not just babies coming

out and she goes i don't want it what's's the reason? Okay, so the baby has to be removed. Hold on. The baby has to be removed from the woman, right? The baby has to be removed from the woman. The pregnancy is bad. The baby has to be removed. Are you talking about like a miscarriage? No, no, no.

I'm saying when Kathy Tran said at the point of birth. I'm sorry. It was a judge. I believe it was a judge who said a woman is dialing at the point of birth. Could you perform an abortion? He said there are no restrictions. None. No limitations.

It was then stated to Ralph Northam, even at the point of birth, abortion, as the CDC defines it, is a no live birth removal of the pregnancy. How do they get the baby out of the woman? The same way that you would. What are you asking? Like, she gives birth. But an abortion ends the life of the baby, according to the CDC. Sure. So if they would legalize abortion up to the point of birth, that means ending...

A termination of a pregnancy that results in no live birth would mean they need to take action to end the life of the baby as it's coming out. So if you're saying there needs to be a reason, my question is, okay, how do you propose they get a fully developed baby at nine months out of a womb when it needs to be removed? It depends on what the doctor decides is right. C-section or birth? No, no. Abortion ends the life of the baby.

Sure. So how do they remove the baby and end its life at the same time at nine months? That doesn't happen. There's no abortions happening once the baby and end its life at the same time at nine months? That doesn't happen. There's no abortions happening once the baby is out of the body. The law they proposed would legalize that. No, it wouldn't because that would be homicide because that is now a person. You're starting to get it. That's a person.

You're starting to get it. At birth, when the baby is out and becomes a baby, it is a person, and that would be considered homicide, not an abortion, and homicide is illegal. Crazy law that it just magically it's a person instantly. Now it has legal protections. I mean, that's exactly what the law says. It's a really bad law. I mean, that's what the law is.

Let me just try and see if I can pull it up. The baby gets a name then? The baby gets a birth certificate? Already legal in some cases in Virginia. The baby gets a social security number. A baby. Those things are what make you a human? In this country, under the law, that's what makes you a person.

There's a difference between being a human and a person. Disagree. I think humans are persons. In the video. I think that's a false distinction to strip people of their rights. Every time that distinction is made that these humans are not persons worthy of rights and protections, it is always an argument to strip them of their rights and do horrific things. And I pointed that out, too. It's never, it's never, that's always been the losing side of history.

Always what the losing side says. Every argument throughout history that some people aren't legally people has always failed. So Tran acknowledges her bill, which was killed in a five to three vote, would allow a woman to receive an abortion even up to the point when she is about to give birth. The Virginia House GOP tweeted that legislation would provide abortions up to just seconds before the precious child takes their first breath. Right. That means before the baby is born. But at the point of birth, seconds before, you think there's a distinction? Yes, there's distinction. One is a baby is born and the other one is not. And there has to be a medical concern for either the mother or the fetus.

No, there should be a medical concern. And I've told you, I mentioned this early on the show, there have been entire petitions signed by doctors saying that this idea of a medically necessitated abortion is a myth. You've also repeatedly claimed that late-term abortions don't happen. It's only because there's some extreme reason why they need to. You said they don't happen, but I quoted the Guttmacher Institute, the most pro-choice abortion related think tank in this country their own numbers and according to them late-term abortions only happen because there is some fetal anomaly one to two

percent of the times one third of the time it's because the woman says she missed she underestimated how far along she was 25 of the time they said they tried to arrange an earlier abortion couldn't 14 said they were afraid at that point to tell their parents or partner. The rest cited something along the lines of taking their time to decide or a change in their relationship status. I'm going to throw a bone. So your point is completely wrong, but you've said this repeatedly that it doesn't happen. And as someone with a public platform, when you were speaking about a life and death issue where infants are being slaughtered, you have a responsibility to know that it does in fact happen

and stop saying that. Stop saying, but I don't... Stop saying it doesn't happen. You've said multiple times it doesn't happen. What's the link to this? So we can show them. Yeah, I can pull up.

It's a 1988 Guttmacher Institute study. 1988 survey. Well, because they don't survey this anymore because guess what? They didn't get the results that they wanted. I'm just going to...

I'm going to do this. I'm going to be a little bit condescending and I'm going to point out where... why it's so difficult to do this. I'm going to be a little bit condescending, and I'm going to point out why it's so difficult to do these shows. Seamus chose data, at least from 1988. It happened.

We have edge cases that are clearly citable. We have the legal definition of abortion. We have a clear moral difference. But I'll give you an example of where I think the problem lies, and I'm going to throw it back to explain the Thanos moment

with Sam Seder. Sam doesn't know what deontology or utilitarianism is. And when I was having a conversation with him and I referenced deontological thinking versus utilitarianism, he said, I don't understand what that is. How do you explain to someone

who doesn't understand these concepts what they are? How would you propose I explain deontology or utilitarianism? I don't understand what that is. How do you explain to someone who doesn't understand these concepts what they are? How would you propose I explain deontology or utilitarianism? I don't know. I don't know. What if I use something that is common to most people like a movie? I mean, if you want to do that. Maybe if I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know philosophy. I'm not saying they have to know that.

This is the thing. I understand why on your show when you like to have the discussion, but I don't deal in the philosophical. I just don't. I just don't. I deal with actual policy and what's actually going on and what happens to people in real life. What do you think I mean by philosophical? It's nice just opining about hypotheticals. You do that all the time.

That's not what I'm talking about. Okay. Then what? Well, this is another really great point. Sure. I think that you and Sam lack the perspicacity to understand the context of the arguments and the substance of them. So in the context of Sam Seder, I made a reference to deontology, that an immoral act against a single individual shall not be taken, versus utilitarianism, which is more the argument that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, which is also a pop culture reference. The idea being that we tend to see villainous people as those who are willing to sacrifice

people for the sake of other people. We tend to see heroes as those who are willing to save the individual. Sam didn't know what those words meant. But they're hugely important to our policy in this country. The trolley problem, as it were, is a question about whether you're willing to kill a person to save five people. These are questions of deontology versus utilitarianism. Sam doesn't know those words, and I'm not saying it to be mean to him. Not everybody knows philosophy. But if I'm trying to convey ideas, the only thing I can do is try to find common ground between us.

Big movie just came out, Avengers. So if you don't understand deontology or utilitarianism, which is the academic approach, I can try the pop culture approach. Me, I love pop culture references. Instead of actually addressing the substance of the issue, instead, Sam and many others just mocked the idea that I had to dumb down the concepts for him because he didn't get it. You see, this is a problem. If I approach in good faith Sam with a question about philosophy that he cannot understand because he doesn't know these terms, so I try to find common ground and he mocks me for it, what is my incentive to even try?

What does that have to do with, it sounds like an issue you should take up with Sam. I'm here here are you trying to say that i was doing that on this show i think i was being very upfront and honest with you guys i've given you guys my full-blown opinions and everything i agree i appreciate you coming i just my point is i don't know how many times seamus and i who completely disagree on the issue of abortion can try to explain to you legal terms definitions the body of a baby versus the body of the mother you can't understand it. How do I have a conversation with you

if you don't understand what we're saying? No, I do understand what you're saying. I'm reiterating to you what my position is and you just don't want to accept that as my position. Like I'm telling you in the most plainest words. Like when we say a baby has its own body, you say it's the mother's body. And we're like, we're not talking about the mother's body.

You say, but it's the mother's body. I'm like, I don't know how many times we've got to say it's the baby's body for you to get the baby's body. Well, if it's inside of her body as a fetus, then it's whatever you're discussing, whatever you want to try to go about from that perspective or direction, the ultimate decision comes to the mother.

I want to make one more, I just want to make one more statistical point because you didn't like that study was from 88. I found something newer. A 2013 study published by the Guttmacher Institute states that data suggests that most women seeking later-term abortions are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment. How many women are having late-term abortions period, though? It's an evil, horrific thing to do. What year was that?

That's 2013. Oh, 2013. I do kind of feel like if Seamus has made two references and you haven't made any then you're in the weaker position okay like so

see my attitude tends to be like if someone's like like to me this isn't like a thing where I'm trying to score points or win I'm giving you guys what my position is

no I respect that look I'm not trying to score points either. Most of the show I haven't talked because I didn't want this to be like, we're double teaming. There were a few times where I wanted to jump in. Yeah, but with a couple statistical points. I'd be happy to do it again at some point, but there was just a couple statistical points that

I really did feel I needed to correct. This is a really great example of why do people call me right wing? I don't know if we're going to get to the members only, guys. We think we're just doing it right now. That's it. We're giving it away.

Just give it away. What makes me right wing? Well, you say you advocate for these positions, but earlier I got you to say that, you know, if your position, if the, you know, you actually said that you preferred to stand next to me or the ending of Roe v. Wade, me or the ending of Roe v. Wade.

You prefer the ending of Roe v. Wade. No, I didn't say Roe v. Wade. I said banning of abortion. Yeah, so you stand with the banning of abortion. Why? You tell me. What was my reason? You tell me.

Because you're in favor of terminating babies' lives at nine months. But you don't seem to care about the life of the mother. I do. No, but you don't. If you say you'd rather ban abortions than my position, then you say the mother's life is worth less than. The grown human's life is worth less than an unborn fetus to you. No, no.

But that is the position then. They could deliver the baby. They could deliver the baby. What if they cannot? Then I said the provision should be added that all efforts must be made to preserve the life of the baby. But they didn't add that. We're not talking about provision anymore. I said in your context, if the issue was you telling me a baby could be killed at the point of birth or banning abortion, I would choose banning abortion.

I didn't say I wanted to ban abortion. I'm saying your position is so extreme you've pushed me to the other side if that's my only option. Okay, but we're now using that hypothetical. That's what we're talking about now. You don't like hypotheticals. I don't like hypotheticals, but you love philosophical discussion, so let's do it. Philosophical and hypothetical are two different things. Okay, well, let's do the philosophical then.

You said before that you would rather stand with people who want to ban all abortion than stand with my position. Sure, fine. So that means then that as a result, women who would die if they don't have an abortion would die. That is the result of that. That is the result of that. I see. This is the point I was making before about your inability to understand the argument. But I'm playing by your rules now.

So a woman is nine months pregnant. The pregnancy needs to end now. What should they do? No, but we're not talking about these specifics anymore, though. Your position was, stand with me, who, according to you, has this position. Bro, you're like talking to a brick wall. How is it talking to a brick wall? I'm going by your own position.

I have already said, if my choices are between someone saying, end the life of a baby at nine months or no abortion at all, I would choose no abortion. Yes. That is, if there were two extremes, I would opt for the one that for the most part does not kill the baby and in that that now hold on okay abortion according to the cdc terminates the life of the baby if a woman's health is at risk because of a pregnancy, you do not need to kill the baby to save the woman. Right, and they don't do that if they can't.

If they can save and give birth to the child, that's what they do. And that's why my position was they should just add a provision saying that to the bill. Otherwise, it would allow for babies to be killed, and that's one of the issues I have with it okay that's that's a little bit different than what we're discussing before we have to go back probably and listen to

it but we're not going to do that now i understand we're just going to keep going in circles here we're probably going to move on but your last statement is not true that they don't do that they do perform abortions at that stage but not i mean he cited two sources i've cited two i've cited actually three different sources of statistics on this but but it's not just like oh maintaining your position but it's not just like, oh, I'm depressed. You're still maintaining your position. But it's not just like, oh, I'm feeling depressed. There must be something that is – actually, I know that's happened. Just a woman walking in.

According to partial birth – I cited partial birth abortionist James McMahon said that is the number one reason cited. Depression. The primary reason given by those requesting the procedure is depression. But there's a difference between someone who has debilitating depression and then someone who's just, I'm sure what you're thinking, like, oh. No, I'm not thinking that. I think debilitating depression is a horrible thing. I don't think it necessitates killing an unborn child. I mean, I would have to leave that up to the woman and the doctor.

Well, I wouldn't because I think it's wrong to kill people. And I don't just leave that up to whoever's doing it or wants to do it. But the traditional position on abortion among Democrat voters has been there's got to be some restrictions. Right. And there are. Your position is like we should get rid of them. No, it's not my position. I think what we have right now works.

I mean, you do. Yeah. I mean, states are banning abortion. Roe v. Wade and Casey. It's still in play. Yeah. And several states have like oklahoma outright banned it not yet no no they did not yet you can't no no not until the decision comes down

no no no no no didn't oklahoma did they pass that bill already yeah where they it can't go into effect though until the supreme court decision i mean california's got uh they don't enforce immigration laws like it doesn't matter what the federal government's talking about we're talking about specifically in Oklahoma. Okay, dude. Why did you bring up immigration just now? You made a point about how the federal government made a restriction. I said there's examples of restrictions.

They have no impact. You cannot make abortion illegal outright in this country right now. Roe v. Wade. Casey v. Planned Parenthood. I know what this is. You're trying to stay on the show. I hope you guys are having a good time, really. I'm giving you a hard time.

I appreciate it. I love this stuff. It's been an interesting discussion. We usually don't have left-wing people on. It's not that we don't invite them. They usually don't come, but it's brave of you to come here. You should have Sam Seder on.

He's offered. He rescinded. When I invited Sam on the show, he publicly accepted and then privately told me no. I know the whole situation. I published all the DMs. You don't need to publish them with me. That dude is a bad faith actor. The scam on Steven Crowder for internet points. That was great.

Oh, yeah, great. Let's not have a real conversation and just sort of – Well, that's what Sam wanted to have. Sam wanted to actually discuss with Crowder. Crowder was going to talk to Ethan Klein. Right. And Sam intruded upon the conversation. Well, Ethan Klein invited him.

And Stephen didn't know. Well. So this is why – for one of the reasons we don't do digital conversations, because they're always bad faith. Well, I got a surprise for you. Open that door. You wouldn't be able to get in the house with the security we have now, especially on the squadding. Maybe it was Kansas that outright banned it. Was it Kansas?

Oh, there was something that actually, you brought up the same thing, and it's something I meant to ask you, actually. You did a video. It's actually been on my I meant to ask you actually. You did a video. It's actually been on my mind for a little bit now. You did a video when that happened. And you said something about the Sam Cedar Crowder debate that didn't happen where Ethan Klein invited Sam. And there was something you said where – I don't have it verbatim but it was something like if your viewers are wrestling fans, they might remember when Stone Cold Steve Austin ruined Vince McMahon's big moment with Mike Tyson. And Vince McMahon started yelling, you ruined it, Austin. You ruined it.

You had like a moment like that where you were screaming at like Sam and Ethan that they ruined it. They ruined it. I don't know anything about wrestling. Okay. I think you may be thinking of somebody else. No, no, no. That was my anecdote.

Oh. That was my anecdote. Oh, yeah, definitely. You said something like, but what did they ruin? I don't know what they ruined. Steven Crowder wanted to have a real conversation

with Ethan Klein and Sam put on his clown nose and shut it down. But Ethan Klein never wanted to, was never a... So he lied. Yeah, sure. I mean, come on, dude. I mean But Ethan Klein never wanted to it was never a So he lied. Yeah, sure.

I mean, come on, dude. I mean, Ethan Klein doesn't do a politics show. Look, you know it's I know what the end result of shows like this are. Who was the

who was the who was the the networks that you mentioned that blacklist Sam? Oh, I'm not going to talk about that publicly on air. I think I know who it is but yeah.

There's a handful. Yeah, Sam's blacklisted from a few places because he's a bad actor. I don't know about that publicly on air i think i know who it is but there's a handful yeah sam's blacklisted from a few places because he's a bad actor so like i've i'm i have spoken with people and i've asked them and they have said this is why we won't engage with him well i'm sure they think he's a bad actor i mean he he last row the steven crowder thing was like that's the kind of thing that gets you removed from bookings well bookings with who networks networks like uh who so i know you can't mention okay you're trying to look right right no i'm not trying to actually not trying it was a legit interest um in terms of what you were talking let's say let's say big shows well-funded shows typical mainstream like on the right a mainstream show mainstream show not like on tv mainstream shows across the board without me getting anybody in trouble because I'm already dancing too close.

But, bro, that stunt with Ethan was like, I can't believe he pulled that off. I can't believe he did that. That's a career ender. Well, he's still going. I mean, for sure, in his space. He's got his own YouTube channel. He's insulated in that regard. But you blacklist yourself when you tell people,

look, we can have a conversation. We can have an argument. We can get heated. We even had people smack the microphone in rage. Well, I didn't even do that. Not even you. And we've invited that guy back. We were like, bro, we get it.

Things get heated. You're always welcome back on because that's not. But Sam's stunt was like not just for me but a bunch of other people. Like that's not a guy you have on your show. I was just interested in that. Really, it was just out of my curiosity, truthfully. Just wanted to know what you meant by it. So there are a lot of channels that focus on interpersonal, intercommentary drama.

We do a little bit. We mostly try to avoid it unless it's overwhelming. Like Joe Rogan controls the news cycle sometimes. So we'll talk about him. But I don't address every single thing every time someone talks about me or anything like that. When you do too much, and I always give this advice to people who are starting channels, avoid intercommentary drama. Like if you've got 100K subs and there's another personality who's on the left or the right

and they've got 100K subs, ignore them. Because if you start doing these conversations where it's like, did you hear what so-and-so said about me? Did you hear what so-and-so did? Which is what a lot of people do. What happens at higher industry levels, they basically say, we don't want any of that. Advertisers don't like that.

That's interesting because you've got to sort of respect them that Sam Seder wouldn't censor himself in that way. What do you mean? I mean, you said that if you have one channel that's like 100K, another channel 100K, and you're one of those channels,

you should not go after or... Be yourself. That was Sam Seder being himself. For sure, for sure. If Sam... I'm not saying he doesn't have the right

to choose this. I'm saying the result of it has been blacklisting. So you're saying is to get on those other channels there's been a lot of people who self-censor themselves. No.

So there are a lot of people who do this. I'm saying if you're looking for a career, if you want to reach a higher level, you want... Personally, I think Sam's at a point where he knows exactly

where his career is and I think he's... For sure. He's got a million subs. I mean, he's probably super rich. No, he's... I mean, I think... When I mean he knows where his career is. And I think he's got a million subs. I mean, he's probably super rich. No, I think when I mean he knows where his career is, I'm not saying he's in some great position. What I'm actually saying is he knows that he has a point that he has hit

and that's where he's going to go based on his own content because he doesn't pull any punches. He'll do whatever that he feels like he wants to do. He doesn't self-censor himself just not to go after someone in terms of being worried about not getting on their channel. But we're not talking about self-censorship. Well, I mean, there is sort of self-censorship in a way if you don't want to go after someone specifically because you're worried about not getting booked on their show. I agree with that, and that's not what I'm talking about. So what I'm saying is if your goal is to have a – like you want to talk about the news.

You want to talk about concepts, ideas, and events. You've got to avoid the interpersonal drama. Well, a lot of what Sam goes after when it comes to interpersonal drama, it's not really like – it's not personal in the sense of like, oh, he was mean to me. Like he regularly does videos on Jimmy Dore, on Dave Rubin because he disagrees vehemently with what they put out. Every one of those videos you could look up and sure, he mocks them and they have fun with it. That's sort of like the point of the show. It's sort of like an old school, like leftist version of Howard Stern or something,

I guess you can say. But they mock these guys, but they always go after, like they're not like making fun of how Dave Rubin coiffed his hair or whatever. They're making fun of Jimmy Dore's glasses or whatever. Well know he's not they're making fun of uh jim uh jimmy dore's glasses or whatever well we're not the young turks no i know um i'm just i'm dragging them and everything sam goes after them and always makes it about the substance of what they say and

their policy um when he intruded on crowder he didn't just do it to go like ah surprise he wanted to have a legit discussion about uh covet 19 policy um he was supposed to have a legit discussion about COVID-19 policy. He was supposed to have a conversation with Crowder. This is why people like Crowder won't have conversations with him. Well, he wouldn't have a conversation before Sam did that. And this is exactly why. But Sam didn't do that before. No, no, no. It's an issue of tendencies, personality, and the things he's done.

So that stunt, I know, resulted in big shows being like, not that guy, man. Like, look, so. Damn, banned from the networks. That's pretty cool. Well, I don't know. I'm not going to say every. I can't speak for every single person. Sensitivity is bad.

What people with bigger shows are looking for is prestige and relatability and substance. So you want to be authoritative, not elitist. You want to create something of value that can help people in their daily lives. When you see a stunt like what Sam did, the presentation is that this guy doesn't address issues that people relate to. The stunt with Steven Crowder was a tribalist stunt,

which plays well to culture warriors, which are a very small portion of the marketplace. If you're trying to do a show that speaks to regular Americans, it's either influencing policy, sharing your ideas, or just addressing issues that more people care about. Doing stunts and interpersonal drama diminishes that and makes people not want to engage which makes the people at other shows say look

what we want to do here at TimCast IRL is share ideas even yours with as many people as possible sure we can't accomplish that with someone like Sam Seder

so we don't have him on the show well I wouldn't be able to accomplish that with him if you invite him here he's a stunt guy but he would be a stunt guy if he were yes he will

if he came here when I tweeted come on the show he publicly says I'll do it then privately says no i won't well that was because that was because he played us to get clicks and then went whoo look at me and he wasted my time understanding due to the covet situation honestly if you invited him now i bet he would come i bet if you would come if you invited him now because this is what he does for attention he's a bad faith actor all right who I said, we'll fly you out and cover all the costs, he said, how does this day work? I said, you got it.

I'll DM you for details. And then he privately says, I ain't doing it. Hassan did the same thing. Bro. Well, I'm glad you invited me. And I came on. Absolutely. And I know, you know, and I would, you know, and I think it was a good discussion.

I do. And I think we've gone way too long. I think I got to end it. Matt, it really was great. I really do appreciate you coming. You are welcome back anytime. Oh, thank you. We'll have you on with other people.

If you ever have any ideas for anyone you want to talk to, I'd love to debate someone who's got a stronger political ideology or something. We did Charlie Kirk and Vosh. For the most part, had them have their conversation. I saw the poster. That was pretty cool. Yeah, we made that poster for them. And I'll tell you this, man. In all honesty, we invite people on the left all the time.

They won't do it. All right, well, I'll do it anytime. We'll have you on again, dude. I really appreciate it. For everybody who watched, look, we got crazy, man. I'm sorry about the super chats. We didn't even really get to the shooting over the weekend. We argued too much.

That's really bad. I apologize for that too. But this is what usually happens and then everyone's like, half the people are saying it's time, it's done. Half the people are saying, no, keep going.

And I'm just like, it's 1130. We're an hour and a half over. We're not going to get a member segment and basically consider the member segment free. Support us at timcast.com.

We're going to have more shows like this, more questions, more debates. And we'll try and do better and better each time we do it. And bring a friend. We'll have you come on with somebody else. Bring a friend?

Yeah, yeah. Find somebody who's not Sam. Yeah, I think that would actually be good. No, I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea because there were a lot of parts of the discussion I wanted to jump into. I jumped into a couple of them because I really felt the need. But for the most part, I really didn't want this to become two-on-one I think so I think it would be great I think it would be

great if you like brought another person to back up what if we could be really loud and then this could go on till 4 in the morning and we I mean I could I sometimes my own streams I go on for hours and hours what are we doing on now yeah I mean sometimes they're deep into the night I can talk about one in the morning two in the morning sometimes um you, if you were open to it, I could certainly promise you on my own that, you know, Sam Seder would behave with me here if I brought him. It's not about behavior. It's about I think his shtick is tribal rage. Well, that's interesting.

Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, like we'll invite you on the show. Yeah. And we'll have a conversation. I think, you know, he just shock jocks. So, like, this Steven Crowder thing was a stunt. The thing he pulled with me was a stunt. His goal is to like, woo, woo, woo to his base.

My goal is to like bring you on in front of my base and say like, here's a dude who's got some ideas. Let's hear him. We'll argue about him. Sure. I think Sam is just like the Thanos thing is a really great example of like if a guy doesn't understand philosophy and I try to relate to him so he mocks me for it, that's not good faith. Like making an argument about me trying to relate to you is bad faith. I'm not going to entertain that. You wouldn't just hit me?

The original – I know you want to end the show. I'm sorry, but it just hit me right now. I thought you said, do you want to just hit me? That's what I heard. I was like, hey, I thought you were like joking. I didn't know. You want to just hit me right now? When you reached out to me and we reconnected to make this happen, it was over to like the libs of TikTok stuff.

Right, right. And you brought that. We didn't even get to talk about that because I actually, since we last discussed this, I actually went ahead and I did the work. I made FOIL requests, Freedom of information requests and um i have all the information in terms of where she has lived like her home address and i can confirm that the information that she is given to public record which is where all that information you see online would come from she has never lived at that address that was on that real estate license. According to who?

According to who? According to New York State. So I have from New York State that she did. I also have personal sources who have confirmed it. You should show me because – I'll show you. I can't show them. I'm going to show you.

I have voter records. I have donation records in terms of political campaigns she donated to. I have the – in case you're wondering, oh, okay, that maybe just shows, you know, doesn't prove it without a shadow of doubt. Did Taylor Lorenz publish an address? Did Taylor Lorenz, she published a address in a- Whose address? Yes. She published a business address for that real estate company. And where did Libs of TikTok work?

Not there. She- At that time, she was not living there, no. She did not- I mean, she was not working there. For that company. She was not working there, no. She did not work for that company. She was not working there at the time that article was published, no. So you're saying Taylor Lorenz did publish an address? In the link that was originally posted.

That's without a doubt. So we disagree beyond that, but we agree she doxed her. Well, she didn't live there. She actually didn't even work there. Is publishing an address doxing? Is publishing an address doxing? Is publishing an address doxing? No, not if it's not connected to that person. So it's her company, right?

She's listed as one of your... No, it's not her company. Bro, you're trying so hard. No, no, no, I'm not trying so hard. Kayla Lorenz did. No, no, no, no. Bro, I have direct sources who've confirmed it. Who?

You want me to expose the sources? Well, did you hear it from... You don't have to expose... Did you hear it from the one person who would be able to probably give you the outright answer lives of tiktok i will not confirm or deny the identity of the source who gave me well i have information until the after show so pay if you want to see it i mean i also have uh the the uh the uh details for every person who has lived there over the past 10 12 years so do we yes good. Yeah, it's good. And I also have the mortgage on the building and I have the deed to the building,

none of which she's connected to whatsoever. Why did they remove the address? Why did they remove the address? Because they decided that it was irrelevant to the story because she didn't work there. Why did they deny posting the address? I don't know why they did that. I don't know.

I can't tell you. They posted an address where she was listed as working, where she was listed as living according to public records. But she's not living there. Where I have sources say she did and uh there you go so bro if you want to argue the semantics on doc could you could you could offline i would love if you show me the information you have like once we end the show i would love for you to show that to me i will pull it up and i could show actually brought the you know i could show you let's wrap things up this happens all the time.

Before a show, I'll assume we're going to talk about some things and do some research. This conversation goes in so many different directions basically every episode. But we'd love to chat with you guys.

Everybody, smash the like button. There's your free extra hour and a half. I'm sorry, Winston Super Chats. They got nuked and then we just argued too much. You're welcome, Timcast viewers. It was all on me.

Absolutely. But we'll just consider the members only having been free for this one round. And if you like the show and you want to help support us, go to Timcast.com, sign up, support our journalists,

support our infrastructure, support our work. And you can follow the show at Timcast IRL. You can follow me at Timcast. Matt, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, sure. Follow me on Twitter

at Matt Bender. And all my details are on there. We didn't even talk about cryptocurrency. Oh, my God. Greatest thing ever. I disagree. Guys, don't do this. Please don't do this right now.

Go to at Matt Binder. Check me out there. And I do a YouTube show twice a week. I actually take calls, which means you can call into my show. There's no, like, screener. I literally open up Skype. I give you my Skype username. I take the calls, which means you can call into my show. There's no screener. I literally open up Skype. I give you my Skype username. I take the calls as they come in, and I have a discussion with literally anybody and everybody, leftist, conservative, right-winger, anyone who calls in, open for discussion, even pro-Bitcoin people.

And Colin, check it out. I'm at Binder. All the details will be there. I got a ringer. It's unfair to you, but I have to do it. Binder is wrong on all counts. The Juan Carlos Vera settlement was for an invasion of privacy lawsuit and had nothing to do with allegedly deceptive edits in any way.

Even the New York Times own public editor revisited the Acorn tapes and found that, quote, the record does not support O'Keefe's detractors about Acorn. According to Acorn's own lawyer, quote, they said what they said. There is no way to make this look good. Second, Binder's claim that Minnesota allows ballot harvesting is similarly wrong. The New York Times made a similar claim. We sued them. They filed a MTD.

We won. Then the New York Times was forced in their answer to admit that the law banning ballot harvesting was always in place and their article was wrong. Binder would do well to retract that statement as the Times has effectively done. Okay, we have little time, so I will say that if everything there is true, I will

retract those statements, sure. And I'll also say that that researcher, I was reading it more after we got past that area of the conversation, so I should say this now for sure. That researcher that you had about the YouTube study, what I read was actually him defending whether QAnon content should be allowed on social media. So I retract and apologize for misstating exactly what that piece was all about.

Yeah, well, I mean, no, really, it takes a big man to apologize, and also it's tough coming on a show where people have adversarial views to yours. So we really do appreciate you coming out here. And you didn't have a computer. Yeah, and you didn't have a computer. I just want to let people know. Yeah, he did not have a computer.

Did people who watch this show who weren't told that their guests had, like if you didn't know the guests had a computer due to like Tim or Seamus or Lydia saying something, have you ever viewed a computer at this desk? I've never seen one on screen. You guys frame it out. I got to be honest.

Everyone brings one. Basically, everyone brings one. I don't. Never noticed it on the screen. I guess I shouldn't say every single person most, but it happens. I never noticed it on the screen. Maybe I always assume that. Because here's one thing.

This is a giant table. I've never noticed that before. I thought you all had your own desks, and maybe if I did see a screen, I thought there was just a monitor in front of them. We have a wide shot. We never use it. This is just one big table we're all sitting at. I really thought we were at separate desks. Again, I'm sorry for doing this. I know you guys are tired.

No, no. Again, we really appreciate being here next time. No, honestly. Honestly, it's not easy. And so I just want to shout out Freedom Tunes. I also want to shout out my special announcement. I know the viewership is dwindled at this point, but I did promise you guys I would tell you

we are going to be launching the website. We're going to have that launched on May 30th, and we are going to have a member section. We're calling it Freedom Tunes Plus. It's going to be plus-size Seamus, and you are going to get an extra cartoon each week. You're also going to get behind-the-scenes footage. It's going to be $5 aamus and you are going to get an extra cartoon each week. You're also going to get behind the scenes footage.

It's going to be five bucks a month. So if you want to go over to freedomtunes.com T-O-O-N-S put in your email and do our mailing list when the website's launched.

You'll get all of it. I love you all. In the meantime, subscribe to the channel. You're getting new videos this week. I love you all. I hate to do this.

You just reminded me. I'm on your YouTube show and I didn't chat on my YouTube channel. YouTube.com slash Matt Bender. Subscribe. Even if you hate me and disagree with me vehemently,

please subscribe. Watch and call in. I really want to talk with you. Good faith discussion for sure. Please. Very good. YouTube.com slash Matt Bender. Let me see if this works.

I think, yep, there you go. There's a wide shot. That's it. That's a huge table, isn't it? That's the one. Huge table. Where can I see it? There's Matt.

You'll see it appear up there in a second. Yeah. There's a delay for. That's a huge table, isn't it? That's the one. Huge table. Where can I see it? There's Matt. You'll see it appear up there in a second. Yeah. There's a delay for about a minute. Yeah. Anyway, I am here in the corner. I was here this whole time, believe it or not. Thank you very much for coming, Matt. I hope you all appreciated our wild and crazy extra super long, and I hope you enjoyed this

free bonus episode. We swore a lot less than we usually do, but I feel like we got most of our points in. Fuck. Thanks for coming, Matt. know i just want to say you guys can follow me on twitter minds.com at sarah patchlets we will see you all tomorrow uh same time and you can go to chicken city live and watch chickens and uh we'll see you tomorrow 8 p.m as per usual we have uh i'm not gonna say what the guest is we usually don't but thanks for hanging out we'll see y tomorrow, 8 p.m. as per usual. We have a – I'm not going to say who the guest is. We usually don't. But thanks for hanging out.

We'll see you all next time. Bye.