« Tim Pool Daily Show

S553 - Democrats Pass New Gun Control Bill, Media Launches Creepy Coordinated Propaganda On Gun Crime

2021-03-11

Democrats Pass New Gun Control Bill, Media Launches Creepy Coordinated Propaganda On Gun Crime. The new bill, which was supported by some Republicans, would expand background checks and require private sales to have a background check effectively ending them.Its under the guise of a simple background check but would nationally prohibit people from selling to each other without going to a proper location. But the bigger story is the coordinated media campaign. A series of articles all nearly identical just swapping out location but pushing the same narrative, gun crime is skyrocketing and perhaps the solution is gun control.It may just be an A/B testing effort to target localities but the end result is the same. Crime waves sparked by defunding police are being used to justify gun control measures

Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Today is March, eleven twenty twenty one and our first story. The Democrats have passed a new gun, control, bill, expanding background checks and they had a lie. A bit of republican support to do it, but the bigger story here: so much about them. Trying to pass this bill, it may fail in the Senate. Bigger story. Is this weird coordinated propaganda? Push a bunch of news outlets, all wrote nearly ident. Articles saying that gun crime is skyrocketing and then going explain how gun control may be needed to stop this. In reality, it seems like much of this crime may be attributed to defunding the police and the covid lockdowns, which resulted in more crime. Our next story woke activists at teen, vogue, have accidentally cancelled themselves. They were true,
to apparently get their new editor in chief, fired or heavily criticized over ten year old tweets. What ended up happening is that a seven figure advertising deal was lost because well they like the idea that there were these offensive tweets coming from an editor in chief ten years ago, and these activists may actually have just cost themselves their job as their company could lose millions and last get into Tucker Carlson and his conflict with Taylor Lorenz, because I think we need to rise above this. I don't like the infighting, I don't like the conflict and I think it's pointless. I think we are all bad. Then just squabbling over personal issues and if we want to take issue at what journalists we think is wrong. We need to focus on the institutions and the ideas and avoid the online flame wars before we get started. Leave us a good river If you like the show, give us five stars if we deserve it thanks so much, let's
up and that first story all throughout last year the left was screaming De Fund, the police, they said. We need social workers to deal with many of these circumstances, so we don't need to send in police now I think, there's fair assessment that says they're, probably certain circumstances where community officer social worker can help d funding. The police is the opposite of what you would need to do. If you wanted to bring more people on, you need actually fund the police. In the wake of the calls for defining the police, we action sod departments and cities various jurisdictions actually take away funding from their departments in many Apple S, where all of this start with George Floyd Riots they actually defended their police department and at risk, salted in a major wave of crime. Now some people say it wasn't that it wasn't the fault of defining the police you wrong
but many news articles and many locals are saying: that's exactly what happened and because of it. Minneapolis is now spending sick point four million dollars to recruit new officers. So when they d, funded police and crime began to sky rock, and then the city decided we are going to spend millions of dollars to bring cops back. Think it's fair to assess the crime was the result, or at least per se. To be the result of defending the police. But, of course like with be covered, lockdown democrat politicians can not let a good cry just go to waste. It appears now that there is an ongoing effort to use this use the crime we are seeing to propagandizing an effort to get more gun control. Of course, Joe Biden made it a campaign. Promise
He said: we're gonna ban the online sale of firearms and ammunition, and he absolutely intends to push for more gun control today, in actual news, the actual story this coming out the house past H, are eight which expands background checks, and this is what I want to start with the show you. The Democrats are serious and has even some Republicans war, not really conservatism publicans siding with the Democrats to pass this bill, which basically says in any capacity any sale has to be done. With a background check. I guess it would ban the private sale of firearms they're, calling it the Charleston loophole but that's not the biggest story. The biggest story, perhaps, is a collection of articles that pop up on Google, when you type in a certain frame and you can see across the across the board. There is a coordinated series of news: are articles making at sea as though the crime wave we are seeing is the result of guns and that we need gun control to deal with it, ignoring the fact that
Much of the crime we saw over the past year could be attributed to defunding the police. It could be attributed to police, not want to engage in certain ways, because some office, or even some officers, are facing criminal prosecution for doing their jobs, while always be the first to say, police reform. Absolutely it seems like their experts, the increase in homicides caused by defending the police in some jurisdictions to justify gun control. I won't waste time, I'll show you right in the introduction. Before we read into gun, gun control. That's coming coming this from Google. All you need do is type in mass shootings surge and what you see. Mass shootings, surgeon, Florida nation faces record high than right below it Mass shootings sergeant Tennessee as nation faces record high mass shootings. It was content, as nation faces record high in South Carolina record High in New York in Ohio,
and then the one that stands out mass shootings in it, it fall in Indiana, but nation faces record high. Why are all of these different news outlets supposedly to different, lose out? writing nearly identical articles, but centralized the story on the locality each and everyone these articles. References, gun control is needed. I'll make it simple. I am saying, there's a grand conspiracy, necessarily it may just be there exploiting fear over crime as news outlets due to generate clicks, but whether its, tensions or not. It is resulting in a justification for more gun control. Read the story about H our aid and explain to you what's going on and what Democrats me doing Democrats are doing, but I do want to point out. I believe we are going to see a major push for gun control under Joe Biden and want to talk about how it doesn't really make sense
no there's a lot of people who watch who are way more knowledgeable on firearms than I am, but over the past year I've become much more of a to a individual Protecting the second second amendment, and I own firearms firearms I'll talk to you about some of my experiences and what I think may result from what's going on, but it's simply the left called for defining the police crimes, skyrocketed and now media sang gotta, take away all the the only answer The answer is actually to let people defend themselves and also respect police but reform them before we had started, however, go to TIM, cast dot com and become a member to get access to exclusive segments episode from the TIM cast rail podcast. We have a bunch of really great. Segments and episodes that you can check out and when you become a member, you help support and protect my podcast, my show, because I you know any point we could get banned. They want to take away your once they really do. They ve set it as much now there are
certain individuals as say: no, no, no one's coming for your guns, but, of course Beto O'Rourke. What did he say heck? Yes, we are, I firmly believe they do want to and the more conversations I have about what constitutes an assault weapon, the more it really does feel like this is just a power grab now for most people for most of your watch who are not gun owners or big on gun rights and don't really care the reason why covering this is not necessarily about gun, control and gun rights. It's about media manipulation, as it usually is on my channel when I saw these stories were ordinary, a nearly identical it kind of creeped me out, because even if it's an accident it play into that trap. We saw way back with the dead spin video. Did you see this when it showed all the local news, although local news outlets all saying the exact same things, this is very day. To our democracy in unison. We think we're getting independent and good news. We are not. It is coordinated, it is pre written and it serves a purpose whether was
intent of these news outlets or not. It will fuel narrative, and that narrative is the cry, it can only be stopped with gun control. Will. Then you have no police because they ve defended the police. Then you have no weapons to protect yourself and the criminals who don't care about the law will be armed and why would any sane person org? for that let's get started with this. I want to show you the news on the eight on HR: eight, the actual gun control bill that was passed because for one it's legitimately happened. Right now it is a bill. That's going to affect all of us, and I leave. It shows the seriousness of the Democrats in their efforts to enforce new gun control bills. Use it today, as house passes, bills, expanding background checks for gun sales, closing chow Austin Loophole, they say what does h are what hr eight dozen doesn't do as they hr ate a background checks package meant to enhance reviews of those seeking to acquire firearms would not create a firearms registry or other.
Fire federal mechanisms for review. Instead, the legislation would expand the cases in which a background check is required for the sale or transfer of a firearm, including for private individuals and groups selling or transferring firearm Closing the gun show loophole. The requirement would apply to online sales. The bill would make it illegal for any Who is not a licence? Firearm importer, manufacture or dealer tutor aid or sell firearms to another person. Current federal law requires background checks only for licence gun dealers. Non licence. Individuals who would like to sell or trade weapons could do. So through a licensed firearm dealer who run the necessary background checks as with much legislation today the bill face an uncertain future in the Senate, were republican, lawmakers largely remain obstinate up to any gun control measures. The bill passed with a few. Can votes signalling. There may be support among the GOP for such measures. People could still temporarily trade and share final but shooting ranges on hunting trips and when necessary,
to prevent imminent death or great great bodily harm under new regulations. This bill makes no sense and explain. If you go online, say two gun broker not come and seek to purchase a firearm, so gun broker allows various stores and individuals to sell firearms. It still has to be transported to an that fell. This is a store that is certified by the government to do a background, check and sell your weapon. To put it simply Why go online and say I would like to purchase this firearm. It cannot be sent to my home. It is sent to a store when I walk under that store to do a transfer. I have to fill out a form and go through a background check through its called Nick and ICS. I don't understand and perhaps maybe I'll have to read through the whole the whole bill itself to try and break on the nuances, I don't know what Democrats are trying to do when, thereby, simply saying: if you want to sell something you gotta go through a store, it essentially means that you can't go to arms list,
list your firemen transfer it through a store, or you already have to do that. So is it just meaningless, garbled nonsense, I'd say so earlier today I saw someone post about banning assault weapons. And they said no self respecting Hunter would use an assault weapon to go and hunt the nonsensical statement? Let me let me try to help, inform those who don't know What about this? And I'm learning? But you know in the past year, where I live, certain weapons are illegal. I mean in most places like entire country, their sort weapons that illegal openly wrong, but there are certain things that make no sense, for instance, in France, for example, is a small caliber long gun. Actually I mean you know some people might argue and also TIM you're wrong, but You might have a weapon that has a folding stock, takes a small caliber bullet folding stock. This means the part goes in your shoulder. You can press a button and it folds in for easy storage. That would
We considered in some jurisdictions and assault weapon. Well, this individual posted, a facebook saying that no self respecting Hunter would use that and I'm like may there's no reason to use that version of assault weapon for hunting, but have you ever Actually looked at what constitutes an actual hunting rifle, for instance, there's something called a four fifty Bush master. I'm only recently becoming familiar lie. The stuff, so forgive me for those at a lot more than I do feel free to comment and anything anything make it wrong wrong. But there are semi automatic hundred and fifty Bush masters with polymer tips and that's what you would use for. Hunting and they're used for taking down buck are are bigger and heavier than humans. What do you mean? No self, respecting hunter, what use an assault weapon a solid and has no clear definition like a pistol grip? The way you hold it certain things you put on it as a lot of reasons why people might use what's constituted an assault weapon by some definitions to go hunting with, but think about what I mentioned,
you're, not smaller caliber weapons. Those can be significantly less devastating to a person like a weapon for hunting is meant to take down bigger game. I suppose if someone was hunting Turkey's or pheasants they might not use something big, but these people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to Well, let's get to the nitty gritty, I know maybe there's a lot of people who say TIM. I don't really care about firearms and all this stuff. I think you should, because it's in the constitution and as Dave. Chapelle said the second amendment is they're in case the first one doesn't work out and that wasn't in incredible statement by David about who is not a conservative, as I showed you early just go to Google and search this, and it is the craziest thing. The media manipulation in this country. Maybe it's not conscious, but it is still creepy it's happening. Well, let me put it this way. It's definitely conscious, there's, no way they accidentally copied and replicated all of these articles, but targeted localities. I would say this
simple solution? Maybe it just makes more sense that you, as I did, a networks which publishes these articles sent out a pre written script, sang take this story about mass shootings. It will shock people, it will scared them. If you make it about their locality, will get more. Money will make more revenue and in order to make the peace long, so we get people to stay on the page longer include as much as you can politically about gun control. Maybe or maybe there are activist individuals whore these companies who say I want a big push on gun control. I would not be surprised. We know, activists workin, news outlets, I dont know their intent, so going to imply any evidence to suggest that the case other than they did this, and it will result in sentiment favouring gun control, maybe you're in favour of certain gun control and that's fine Oh, I don't staunch to defenders who do think there could be reforms. I actually did a training around with a New Jersey Police Department, where I met this very proficient.
Shooter, who said he actually thinks we need new gun control laws, but also thinks we need to fix and get rid of some of the ones we have now. The general idea being some kind of uniformity and I think, he's right actually, for instance, reciprocity. You can have a concealed carry permit in some states that don't mean anything and other sites. I kind of think we should have more reciprocity, so if you are, if you got if you ve gone through the background check, if you ve gone through the concealed care, You know training programme and you are certified and qualified and licence to do so. Why should you can arrested because you are driving, There are certain state. Now I understand there are certain federal laws, but sometimes state police, just don't care wait for you some these stories as I, you may already have their all replications. They all say, mass shooting, surge in location as nation faces record high. They are the same Newark advocate. They say: mass shootings in Ohio increased twenty five and twenty twenty from the fourteenth year before, while now
national Mass shootings jumped nearly fifty percent during the pandemic, with crippling unemployment, violent protests and idle youth. I don't think it's entirely unfair when they point out that you know Covid, lockdown and idle youth poverty and things like that play a role, but let's just search for the word control, and here we get a paragraph quote, but he adds that police departments likely will have to step up there. So to get the estimated fifty to two hundred million illegal guns in the country out of circulation. The gun control measures, often touted by President Joe Biden's administration may also come into play. You said these include measures aimed at keeping guns away from people who are a danger to themselves or others and cutting a standard for guns storage. I started this in two thousand and twelve, and my goal has always been to see that my job is eliminated. So far that hasn't happened. Okay, he's not saying outright, we must have gun control but hold on it's still saying Joe Biden wants to do these good things at stake,
Joe Biden wants to ban the online sale. H are eight wants to make it much more difficult for people to transfer weapons where it already is hard on. You already have to go through with Golden Ethel. Joe Biden wants to outright destroy online There are many small businesses where you can buy ammunition, accessories and weapons. Often these have to go through a gun, store, you'll order them, but the weapons will be sent to a gun store. I think these people just don't know that Joe Biden's Ville bill would be devastating and wouldn't change quite make sense, so you can't buy online. So you do you go to a gun store and then tell them. You want to buy it, perhaps its innocuous, but it seems too many people have spoken with at at the range of the guns stores. The fear is it's just another of sand in the heat that will ultimately result in the inability to own firearms. Many on the left say: well, you shouldn't be able to have war, ships or tanks. Should you they had warships. They were called Corsair and private tears at the time the constitution was being
written. There were letters of mark for private ships that they basically said, go attack our enemies, privately owned warships by Americans. So so they certainly have eroded our right to bear arms. I don't get me wrong. I am not entirely convinced. People should have warships, an entirely convinced war it's our good in general, but I understand why they exist and, I suppose so long as the right in that constitution: it's not up for vote. What's up to the next article, the Chronicle Express Mass shootings sergeant New York as nation faces record high, ok, let's tripe and the word type in the word control. What's this an identical paragraph at a different outlet targeting a locality, you see what that's creepy. The same thing, but he has police departments will likely to step up their efforts to get the illegal guns out of circulation. Joe Biden's plan may come into play: okay, let's to the next article, shooting surge in South Carolina, let's type in the same word there. It is again, but he, as police departments were likely to step up their forts. Let's to the next one. Milwaukee
mass shooting sergeant, was consulates, type and control again. The same paragraph exists in all of these. These or, at the very least. In my opinion, it's plagiarism right are these written by different people, Marco Della Cava, and MIKE stuck for the USA today, network. Ok it all of these individuals right the same articles, it would seem they did and what they did after I the same article was they went in and just changed key tidbits personal. I think it's creepy. I don't think it's the apocalypse, I We do feel that they are just trying to maximize its up something called location or a be testing. They know that they will get more clicks if they specifically on where you live, but think about it when people are targeted in this way with a scary story, being told that these things are affecting them. Here's Florida, Flora, which has some some fairly decent gun laws. Basically, people can on weapons fairly easily same paragraph same paragraph same pair
now the one is as mass shootings fallen. Indiana is interesting. It still has the exact same paragraph. We need get the guns off the street, even when they say mass shootings are falling, here's the Do I take with all of this? The new is simple and well now it's not it's not really that simple, but its fairly simple. In my opinion, from Fox NEWS February, fourteenth many apple is pushed to DE fund police, backfires after residents complain of slope, slow response times increase in crime, the city Council Friday voted unanimously to approve six point: four million dollars and additional funding for the police department, so here's the gist of it. Maybe I love to in the way than the gun control stuff. I dunno maybe you're interested in that what I end up scene, is that for one, a lot of people have no idea what's happening or why and their willing to support, uncontrolled measures, even though the real problem may be defending the police, it maybe Democrat P
the seas around locking down cities and destroying the economy's resulting in poverty, desperation and crime. We know poverty breeds crime. So are the mass shootings. In the end, the and the homicides the fatalities, a result more so of the lock downs, Andy Funding, the police. Perhaps now those articles dimension that I want to be fair, but they also put in people's minds that Joe Biden is gonna, take action and get that gun troll and many people are going to read the headline and not the story and when they read headline they're going to say? Oh no, mass shootings are on the rise around the country. What do we do and they'll turn the simple answer, a Democrat like Joe Biden or even Republican, like Rep cleansing, her saying you know we need gun reform kinzinger are supposedly a Republican from Illinois and he's what many people I guess refer to as a FUD and Elmer FUD. I suppose it is
I wonder if I don't know if I have the actual thing I have it here. We go Rep Adam Cleansing or says the vast majority believe in universal background checks as a gun owner myself. I firmly support the second amendment, but I also believe we have to be willing to make some changes for the greater good and then my Go ahead says you belong in jail. I don't completely gray with Michael MAO's about kissing you're going to jail and not a big fan of establishment politicians nor p, but like using, who is certainly not a republic at ease in Illinois. Gonna just pretends to be, I suppose, but I do think there can be changes made I do believe we need at, I think, it's fair to say we're not upset reform the gun laws. I do you know why too many of them make no sense, make no sense, in some jurisdictions, for instance, for instance, older weapons or my favorite- is that M one, a which is kind of an updated version to the M one grand it's an old weapon, an old design, it's illegal.
In Maryland, and this I believe it's called a scar, twenty more modern three await which its basically the same round, not illegal. Why? Why is the old he called salt weapon. It makes no sense. So when I say reform I mean it, we gotta get rid of some of these laws. You know that's the problem. I have a lot of these Republicans and people like kinsman. They will jump up and down screaming. We need more gun control and never say, but we need to fix those ones that make no sense where there are people Can I meet repeal these things and changes laws because they're not working anyway? I digress The issue I see is for one is this ingenuous they're, exploiting the increase in crime to make. It seem like it's an issue of guns, as opposed to an issue of failed policies, major urban jurisdictions. They defended their police. What are we supposed to expect from this now they're going to spend six point, four
million dollars recruit more offers us well, it's no wonder. Crime is skyrocketing these jurisdictions. When you demonize and defended police. I dont think that was the intended goal to be honest, but the result is a fairly simple outline. Leftist riders burned down cities with impunity after an individual his life. The police are blamed for this, and then we see two things. Addictions actually took away money from police, making it harder for them to do their jobs. Many police work demoralized quit or refuse to do their jobs and if they refuse, maybe they should be fired, but many of them said don't expect me to go out there. We then saw the rise of autonomous zones in Minneapolis, for instance, they created a new autonomous zone around what they called George Floyd Square, and there was recently a shooting someone died. We saw what happened in Georgia, where There was a sight of a little girl got shot because people set up Their autonomous zone keeps happening, they said it is autonomous, owns the police, don't go in
shootings happen and say: oh no, we gotta get rid of the guns. Ok, you get rid of the guns and you get rid of the police Then you will be ruled by organised crime. It's that simple man I mean for them. Matter, as most of you probably realize it makes no sense to to ban guns universally. It doesn't make sense. I'm sorry! Look in places like West Virginia. You can easily and freely transfer guns between people. I was surprised to to find that out and I'm not sure how I feel about it, I'm very to a for sure. I've got some really cool stuff. I bought rec but I also wonder this when you what I was too into a gun shop recently- and I said if I own a gun- and you know like in- in West Virginia. Am I allowed to just sell it assembly and they said, yes, so long as their legally allowed on it. You can't knowingly transfer or a weapon to somebody who is not legally allowed to do it. However, they said sure
you get it all in writing. File the paper work so that you can prove that you sold it and I'm like where wait, wait. Wait wait hold on what you mean by that. Well, if that person commits a crime with your weapon, they're gonna come looking for you, because when you, when you bought it, they know who bought wealth they may find out who the weapon was registered to or that serial number things like So they said make sure you document this stuff and I was kind of like if I'm going to do a transfer, I'm going to do it through an Ffl, because that protects me from liability. That just seems like crossing the t's and dot in the eyes. But I've seen a lot of people, don't think it's necessary, especially we're talking about friends and family members. In some places you transfer weapons so long as it's to a direct relative or things like that, I'm not I'm not the biggest opponent of those ideas. I don't it's that big of a deal, but I do understand why people are scared that you will, it is grains of half the grains of sand, making a heap, and eventually you will get more. Or in more cumbersome laws and there's all
but he too many in the box. I have to be completely honest recently I've been calling around numerous departments to get clarification on different state gun control laws. To understand what these bills doing, what they mean, and you will not get it fight answer, that is a problem. I think we need to get rid of state level. Laws hear me out just wait another The right are screaming and drink say yes, get rid of all of them and the deciding what are you nuts tend to hold them? I think you get rid of them and you ve got a right. Some uniform of policies that pertain to everybody that we all agree on that. We absolutely agree on I tend to lean more towards you- should all be allowed to keep and bear arms, because I'm sorry, the constitution guarantees that right, the right to defence, the right to defend yourself, the right to hunting or sportsmanship or whatever Second, a moment is not about hunting. It is about ending yourself and a free state, and if they have a problem with it well then amend the constitution. It'll never happened right, exactly so instead they create laws that supersede this. Essentially I think it's wrong. I don't like it. I had this,
this. This relate wrote revelation when someone commented on the video and they similarly said. I said: I'm ok with certain you, no restrictions on guns and gun control and they said ok. Well, I agree with you that regard so then, can I have restrictions on your speech and I said no, I get your point. You have to amend the constitution. If you want these changes, place, but it seems like in every different state they have violated the the constitution in a variety of reasons. Ll give you a very simple reason. I'll give you a very simple example: it says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's in the constitution, nothing else. Matters they say regulated militia, no regulated militia. No, no, the right to keep in bear arms that, you should be allowed to bear it walking around with it. Many states don't allow you to even have one, it's almost impossible, some states to even get a concealed carry permit. You needed some kind of justification why it says you have a right to bear that weapon. The constitution is being violated in this capacity and, if you don't like, like, I'm sorry I mean it's just true, amend the constitution
that's your issue, it doesn't happen. Instead, we see nebula to Amanda Farias plots. We see people willing to exploit a crisis. Just like I met with covered we recently saw Gavin Newsom California say we're not going to return to normal, even if the pendent icons, because normal means inequity. Never let a good crisis go to waste now that crime is skyrocketing because of the pandemic and crime is Skyride because the defining of police you are now going to see all of these stories used as justification for more gun control, I now have a conversation with somebody about why these measures don't work. It's tough, but you have to be respectful says what our quest of all of the gun owners out. There is just let people understand it simply and and kindly and all this really don't get it like a mentioned with a face post where they said you know, that's no, sir. Respecting hunter, what use an assault weapon ask him what an assault weapon means. Or I mean you don't want to do that you just I just simply responded with so I guess the issue here is that
assault. Weapon is not defined to find different ways state by state and federally, and it's hard to understand what it really is. They also interchangeable, used the phrase, assault, rifle assault weapon and I generally. A lot of people are have good intentions. They just want people to stop being murdered, and I respect that but they're being taken advantage of by politicians who won't you the truth. I just want to scare you to explore you out of your vote now. Take this vote One of these. You know lefty lefty, liberal types, Salma I'll remind you, are very proud to a no like legit, like the anti bupple love guns. These are really the static, We spent liberals tell them that politicians are lying to you too, to extract your vote and that you agree that we don't want people. You know to die now. Let's talk about how we saw this, you'll find many find many people have a real conversation unless, of course truck a grifter. I guess I think most people have good intentions, but do you think a lot of people are drama enraged driven. If you can we'll conversation with someone. I think we can actually make progress.
When someone of the left says to me the liberal types we have to stop is mass mass murderers, these shooters and these killers, I just say, you're, absolutely right. What can I do to help you and then, when they come to me and say we need to ban this. This are this. I say: okay, I hear you interesting, did you know, x, Y and and then show them some links. Some people don't want to hear it. Some people are more she didn't tribalism and they come and the conversations go nowhere. Some people try to. These stories as weapons, but I feel a lot of people who just don't care a lot of people want tribal victories and a lot of people are authoritarians who don't want you to have the right to bear arms. I'll, give you an example of the danger and the tribalism, the Gravel Institute. They try to be a left wing version of Prager. U so they're trying to build themselves as well. They made a post where they said what happened in DC on the six was bad only because it was the right that did it. And they said, if the left it they would actually approve of it. You see that's the problem.
I dont believe anyone have. Any group is morally superior based on their ideology. I believe in Prague in the individual liberties of everybody. That means Christians and Muslims are both allowed to bear arms in this country, thereby to practice religion. It means the left is allowed to bear arms. The right is allowed to bear arms and it also means there are gonna- be people who will lie, cheat and steal to take power and pretend like they should be the ones who only have that right. They'll claim you should be censored, but they should not be they'll claim that if they do it it's good, but if you do it, it's bad. That's why you have to watch out for what the Democrats are proposing with a lot of these bills. We are better off when we can all equally bear arms. We are. There are some issues because indeed, very dense population areas. You will have problems if everybody is walking with weapons and these people don't have training I'll. Tell this I'l say this- for all the gun owners, all the conservatives, imagine what be like of all these Democrats who have no idea how guns work, all of a sudden had them and walking around with them, not going to be pretty young to get training courses I'll tell you that
but I want to point out that many of these Democrats have armed security and, while the proposing these gun control measures pushing the stories and pushing this propaganda their guarded. They are allowed to bear arms, but you're. Not it isn't it. I've learned. I learned this in up growing up in Chicago my dad just talk about it. He didn't like the idea and he wasn't the biggest you gun guy, but he was just like these. These politicians, around with guns and armed guards and then say we're not to have them. I'm like that's gonna messed up. It is kind of messed up Why should only the police? Why should only the state the authority have the right to bear arms? That's not what this country was based on anyway. I digress. It turned into a bigger gun, control thing I'll, be honest, because the Democrats did just pass. This bill, but my bigger fear is media manipulation. That's freaky! Isn't it all these identical stories stories live at their necks is coming up at Youtube.
About coms lashed him cast. I arel at eight p m, so calm hang out you can you super chat, will read your comments and we will see you all them. My friends, I give you the greatest back firing in cancel culture, history, where woke leftist tried to get a woman fire because of ten year old tweets, resulting in their own publication, losing its seven figure add deal. Levies blow this down and start from the beginning. We have a story from the daily beast beauty brand alta pulse. Invoke, adds over new editor in chief old racist tweets. You hate to see it the suffering of these poor media institutions that just want to write a smear piece about you and make you seem like a villain, so they can enrage their tribal allies and and make more
all right. Our story begins my friend the other day I covered this. There was a woman who, I believe, is a corrupt. Reporter worked for acts, she was covering the Biden campaign, dating there's their pr guy spokesperson, I guess and then, when he got having the Bite administration, this woman can start. She kept she's dating this guy, claiming it's not a conflict of interest. But you literally can't be a journalist dating the administrator you're supposed to be covering she's corrupt. Now, in two thousand and nineteen, they pulled up tweets of her earth from twenty eleven when she was like seventeen years old, and she said some offensive things about Asians she apologized and deleted these posts. You know what I respect. I respect your for it, fine he said mean nasty things you got rid of em don't be mean a nasty arrived. I can accept an apology all move on because we're mature adults, but then she was rewarded for her corrupt behaviour working at Xos given the role of editor in chief of teen vogue for those that may not be familiar, teen vogue is supposed to be a fashion.
Z, but for some reason they praise socialism and Karl Marx device strain magazine, but short whatever I guess well, around twenty or so individuals, who work for this company wrote a scathing letter saying. How could this have happened? You're hiring a bigot. Is this corrupt journalist from Axios didn't pass the purity test and now all tat is pulling ads from teen vogue, so the journalist so calm air quote journalists who wrote the scathing letter angry at the hiring of the editor in chief just sunk, seven figures from their own company they're canceling themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, this is amazing. It's one thing when you're like that, dude who works for that company should be fired and he gets fired. It's one thing: when you're like look at the dude who works for Fox, take away his advocate
and they take away. Is advertisements it's another thing when you're like I work for this company- and I don't like this lady, so they take away your revenue stream, what's going to happen, they're going to get fired, why it's not going to be fired because they said this letter sent this letter. They're gonna get laid off, they're gonna lose their jobs because they have no money wow. This is amazing. Let's read some the daily beast. They say the ad campaign worth. Seven figures on pause following internal concerns over new top editor Alexi Mccain's past tweets daily based reports, a major advertiser for Teen Vogue hilarious has paused its campaign with the publication following internal. Uproar over the new editor in chief decade, old, racist tweets about Asians popular cosmetics and skincare retailer Ulta beauty, set in a statement statement to the daily on on Wednesday that it is holding its current advertising campaign with Conde, Nast owned publication. According to people familiar with the situation, the deal was worth seven figures:
They say diversity and inclusion. Our core values at Aalto, beauty and always have been accompany. Spokesperson said our current spend with teen bogus pause as we work with content ass to evaluate the situation and determine next steps regarding our partnership. While it appears, is the only advertiser to have thus far taken action of the controversy concern with a fall out was raised that a high level containing sales meeting this week, all too has been sensitive to criticise some of its handling of racial issues after several high profile public allegations of racial profiling in a lack of diversity over the past several years, my friends let me take this opportunity to let you know that we hear at TIM cast media we're on minority owned company and that's that's a fact, it literally the fact. So there you go. I saw issues, they say over the past several days, canniness out may have mostly kidding about that content. Ass has been flooded with criticism and debate over the selection of Alexey Mccann Mccammon, as teen folks
who editor. In chief twenty seven year old reporter was viewed in political journalism circles as arising star for her coverage of the Trump White House and the twenty twenty election, which garnered her award from the National Association of Black journalists and an on air contributor contributor, with with MSNBC, also point out? One of my documentaries has an honorable Mention from me? It was a finalist for, The National Association of Black journalists awards it wasn't the winner, but we were in a week. We got this like special card. They like the work we did, but ultimately following Honda's announcement of its new top editor critics resurfaced all the tweets from twenty eleven in which a then college aged Mccammon, who black used racist stereotypes about asian people, I'm not going to read what she said: Youtube Mccammon Youtube previously apologized, previously the for the they when they first two thousand and nineteen saying she was Sorry, sorry that the social media post do not reflect my views or who I am today. You're gonna make me defender she apologized. Thank you. Alexi have a nice day
but she also engaged and unethical journalism dating a guy in the Bite administration when she was covering the bug administration. Although she claims she wasn't, but she was sorry. This person should not be rewarded. This person should be term. Okay, a violation of journalistic ethics, or I mean honestly, it was a scandal. I don't think I would. Damn her to a life of misery simply because she did something bad this one time when she was young and you said, offensive things that one gets a free gets a free ass. Ok, I now get out of here. Don't you young people say dumb things you apologize move on. As for the unethical behaviour between her and the bad administration. I thank. Ok, you get a warning, you get a warning. I don't do this stuff again and I tend to be forgiving. So I got defend the strict this this, this woman. She is being attacked by the she herself is working for a woke publication. She hates Donald Trump and she's being eaten alive right. The left is
continue, eating themselves. Obama called it a circular firing squad and so be it. People are being are terrified to speak up and speak out, and this is a big problem, but in the end they think it's gonna benefit them. It's not as they are called no person familiar the matter. Mccammon has been meeting one on one with staff individually to apologize, discuss, moving forward and is planning virtual round table on clubhouse with several asian american teen vote writers about issues facing the Asians in America, facing the Asians added location of this story, Mccammon posted to Twitter. A lengthy note, addressed to our new colleagues and folly, this week's news of internal uproar over her old tweets Mccammon received support from high profile media figures. Like MSNBC host Chris Hayes NBC Peak many, a son who both argued the tweets from someone's teenage years should not count against unprofessional as adults. You know I want to say I agree with Chris Hayes and that your son, but I'm willing to bet they will flip one hundred and eighty, when it's a conservative or republican, who has nasty old toys
They'll scream and spitting Ya'Ll about any new Republican. They will condemn Marjorie, Taylor Green, because three or four years ago she posted something dumb now they'll say, but she was an adult women. No, no, no, no! No! No, no Marjorie, Taylor, green apologize for saying done things I respect it and I have to accept it. We're supposed to be good people more figure, work together and compromise, Alexey Hammond apologize for these posts and they should not be held against her her per journalistic career. That should be held again, sir, but I'm still willing to give a warning and say: ok, fun. I dont think she should be rewarded for what she did. Maybe you know, like I said, a warning, but here we are at an end, and this is what we get. I don't like this this drama world of screaming people's faces, and I think really, what's going on with Mccammon said opportunity for people to complain, that's it Your report you, so you see these news organisations that are really news organisations, but these media outlets thrive on rage, baked drama.
They hire people who love rage, baked drama. It is the bread and butter of what they do. You see they thought they could wield the one ring you can't. No one, can you see what happens? Is they decide going to make funny how we gonna do it well, no one needs news anymore, because we have instant transmission and social media. They need comforting lies. They need rage. Bait click baked drama content, so they hire people who are drama queens. These people, who complain about other people and all they do their hoping that there will be some shock content, drama that will generate collects because people are more interested in the real housewives and and the real? You, two birds of you no Middle Maryland, or whatever they want to write stories of me and the stupid things that people claim, because drama, because that's what people want. I guess, because what, when you hire people who live for drama
Will you think's going to happen when the drama comes home to roost? That's why I said like the one ring, it's extremely powerful sure it made Frodo turn invisible, I'm assuming or fans of Lord of the rings and works in their at some, his favorite some point certain to escape certain things, but he can't wield you. It corrupts you institutions, it destroys them and so the daily this brings on these people who thrive on drama and what happens they start eating? the organization from the inside out. It is corrupting them they're. Turning into rates, that's what you get. They say her to tractors, who flooded the comments section on teen vogue, social media platforms at the tweets couldn't be ignored, national conversation about racist harassment, aided agent Americans, as was reported spike in hate crimes against agent. In the US which, yes, I agree, is a problem, but the there was ten years ago, man. They really want to burn people to the ground. Well, you're
what I'm sure each and every conservative a sitting back chop and offer a cigar, no credit wherever it's called criminality, cigar puffin insane sucks for because the conservatives are the ones who are saying stop it. Maybe let it go though. Additionally, within ten so staffers have raised concerns about the decision to hire mccammon and according to multiple people familiar with the matter. Former editor in Chief Lindsey People's agnor who departed earlier this year for top Roland Yorke magazine magazines, the cut privately expressed opposition two Mccammon desert successor and did not include, or another of recommended replacements shared with Conde, Nast, chief content officer Anna Winter. All, I don't care all that much about this. You get the point right
Let me show you where we're at from vocs dot com, its veto, Ex Republicans, are trying to outlaw woken s literally they're trying to outlaw woke less oh, how the right is trying to cancel left wing speech. Why is welcome as leftwing I mean what MRS just IDA determinism? I guess it's postmodernism won't ever shore find But there are people on the right who hold similar into Terry and views. Call whatever you want vocs says we're in the midst of something like a moral panic over so called cancel culture, as I noted a few months ago as a rising contingent of thinkers. In the left hand, right, who believe a culture of censoriousness has engulfed intellectual life of the last few years to state the obvious up front to genuine problem, although I don't think it's quite the existential threat some have suggested, and I consider it a debate not so much about the right to speak, but rather about where to draw the
boundaries and what sorts of social sanctions are permissible when those boundaries are transgressed. But when the topic is broached, it's almost always framed as a left wing problem. This is somewhat misleading. The left, of course, has its accesses and there are very real efforts to not only suppress unpopular speech but also publish but also punished. Violations of new orthodoxies, there is, however, an emergent, cancel culture on the right one that is every bit as pernicious as what we are seeing on the left. Only it hasn't received nearly as much attention, whereas the left is mostly exercising cultural power on campus
in social media. The right is introducing legislation here here and here intended to stifle leftwing speech in public schools across the country will read this and I absolutely think it's worth pointing out, because I do think the right has their version of council culture. I think many on the right have tried engaging in council culture and many of them complain because they dont control the cultural institutions, but given the power they probably would still do it. But let's was blessed be we'll here. It is not a problem of the right, it is the exception on the left. It's the rule. I just showed you teen vogue is literally cancelling itself. They are losing their there. There are at risk of losing a seven figure advertising deal because their employees are complaining about their own employees, so yeah the council culture stuff on the left is so egregious their literally imploding. I do not see bench appear, the daily why're, you know
being complained about by his staff because of his past tweets, for which he has many a bunch of bars. A lot of controversial, tweets or statements doesn't happen on the. May be legislation and there are efforts, but, like I said, I think most people are giving a our assessment will say on the right is the exception. Of course it happens, but it's not standards, not typical of conservatives left it's the rule, not the exception. The exception is like Jacobin magazine defending free speech. That's why I give respect Jacobin. I always try to give respect it is due Jacobin frozen. Familiar is an actual it's like the pre eminent socialist magazine. They have many many articles defending free speech for the most important individuals and they that and their correct when they say if we allow them the establishment powers to. Censor those we don't like. We are next think about it. This, if you're on the left, if your you're progressive you should be looking at the fringe elements of the right effect,
actively as a canary in the coal mines or as kind of a barrier. They need the outrage to justify the censorship and they use the right to do it once they do that are bending a bunch of progressive many progressive Youtube channels have recently got demonetized or outright shut down, and that's what Jacobin warning about, and that's what? I've been warning about, and Glenn Greenwald's been warning about and met Haye in my Tracy and many other people who are moderately liberal, individuals, some progressive who are telling you start defending free speech. Conservative of conservatives, of course, are absolutely about this. There's been big issues pertaining to religious freedom. So the first amendment is not a new battle for conservatives to many in the left. Just don't seem to get it what's right now and see what vocs, as they say, to highlight one example: recent bill in Iowa has proposed
batting material is derived from the New York Times. One thousand six hundred and nineteen project from being taught at community colleges and other schools are the control of the state's board of regents, whatever you think of the one thousand six hundred and nineteen project, and it's not without problems, that's an extraordinary step attack on academic freedom. Well, I will I don't trust the box dot com, I'm sorry, I'm so take it all with a grain of salt, but I do not believe the one thousand six hundred and nineteen project should be banned from being taught. I believe they absolutely should teach from it, but that requires
objective and academic view which challenges its notions, its conclusions and seeks to cite the claims made in and in the end, in the project, as vocs mentions, that's not without problems. Many historians have come out in sad its bs teaching at. I still think it is a man you're supposed to be a critical observer now depends on what the bill from Iowa actually says, and this is where I think things can get money because vocs might not actually give you the full details, but let's just reed we're. We hear this aid. Providing for the reduction of certain funding and budget are public schools. We need colleges and regions, institutions following the use of specified, curriculum and including effective date, yadda yadda yadda. So, let's see, let's maybe I can read the conclusion. Ok, it's not particularly long. Is it. A bill includes finding to the General Assembly that the recently developed United States History curriculum drive. My project by the New York Times known as the one thousand six hundred and nineteen project
attempts to deny or obfuscate the fundamental principles upon which the? U S was founded, General Assembly has a strong interest in promoting an accurate account of this nations history through public school. Informing young people and as a former young people into knowledgeable and patriotic citizens. The elements provisions governing the educational programme established by the State Board of Education to prohibit a school from utilizing, Annie, United States, history curriculum in whole or in part that is derived from the sixteen nineteen projects. Well upon reading it, I will say you can't do it. Violation of the first amendment. The state should not be going in and saying you can or cannot teach certain articles from newspaper There's an interesting argument about. Excuse me, religion in that regard and there's an informal separation of church and state. But perhaps, if we're going to be talking about what we can or can't teach there's a real argument here.
And I'm very pro free speech. But the issue is whether or not they solely teach the one thousand. Six hundred and nineteen project are teaching children extra things and whether or not schools are publicly funded, must adhere to a unified curriculum. What I mean by that or or I should say a unanimous curriculum- what by that is who gives this schools, the right to teach certain things now I do think if Parents have an issue with that. They should be to take their kids out, but there is the problem: no school choice. If we had schools for those that are familiar where you can you get a voucher. For instance, voucher programs, take your kid out of the school and to a different school, then by all means. But if we're dealing with kids have no choice but to be here, then there must be an agreed upon curriculum in which I actually don't think it is a violation of free speech for the government to ban the one thousand six hundred and nineteen project as a curriculum, I'm not a fan of it.
Though, my concern is that it's a slippery slope which will lead to very bad things. So while I completely disagree with teaching a sixteen nineteen project, The actual solution is not to ban it. The actual solution is school choice. The schools should be allowed to teach whatever, and in that regard I don't see why school can't can't teach religion really don't the issue HU, I suppose, is creating A fair and balanced system where are actually teach kids to be critical thinkers and teach them, here's the sixteen nineteen project, but here's the critical view of it as well. If they teach it, as fact, we ve got a problem because in our schools, aren't educate our children, and so the conundrum here isn't so much free speech box, I believe, are incorrect. The conundrum, as we are paying the government we have, No choice in the matter and our kids have to be here. When I demand an accurate representation of history, there is a problem: evolution creationism that whole legal battle. What do you do? The answer is not suppression of the answer is school choice, and that means, if there's a
just parents want their kids to learn creationism, which was that the union will fight for decades ago. They move their kid that school private schools exist. You can do this. You're still paying taxes for the public schools, give the families vouchers that problem is solved, not a free speech issue. They gonna say Jeffrey Sachs, professor. Politics at Acadia University calls it the new war on woke, as it is Durban escalation in the spiralling speech wars or reach out to sacks on one or more one of the more clear, headed voices in the debate. Talk about the latest developments and the dangers of inviting the government into the censorship business. That's true, though, the government should not be the censorship business. I do think there is an issue here and I believe you're gonna see Republicans wanting one of his powers. While Donald Trump, an Candice Owens, had previously said, people should go to jail for burning american flag wrong wrong. No, you can Barnett so long as it's. Your property is done safely,
And you want to burn something- I guess my only real when it comes to bringing the american flag. First of all, I think it's disgusting, I'm not a fan. I love this country and I love the american flag and I would not burn american flag, but if someone has private property, what makes America great is that it's a symbol of what makes this country great burning the flag is the ultimate representation of true American Freedom Watch, the Penn and teller Bit about the constitution. In the american flag. It's amazing, he says basically like we may burn the flag, but we do so as the ultimate symbol of the freedom that flag represents. So now people people have the right to express themselves. In that way, I've heard it from Republicans and Trump supporters people go to jail. For burning the american flag. That's wrong and given the institutional authority, I think they would take away our right to express ourselves. So now I err on the side of freedom for the individual. So I do not like the government. Conservative anybody coming and so you can't say that you can say that the problem is the approach to cancel. Culture is not more cancel culture,
I should say this: the solution to cancel culture is our cancelling other people on cancelling is the solution to. Let me put it this way. My when we see like what, with all due respect to MIKE sort of which his approach has been cancelled and back you know highlight what you know: James Gun friends, defensive coming. I don't think that's the right approach. I think you and cancel things. I what you do. Is you find him luck cancelled, like Pepe pure Doktor suits, and then you, you re, make similar things to be fair. However, I think the issue of council culture is it's. A small fraction of fringe lunatics pushing things too far are their racist stereotypes and doctors. His books, I believe If, yes, then one should it be discontinued, my personal opinion is now. However, I do think it because Doktor souci people take it too far. I do think there are certain cultural things. We do eventually stop doing. I have no problem with it. I remember family guy announced they weren't gonna do gay jokes anymore and about you will like all come on.
Don't be silly and I thought if something violence, the jokes about this subject anymore. I don't care, maybe we've decided we won't make and you know this and to make fun of it. That's fine if you dont want to do it, but at the same time the problem is family. Guy still does racist jokes. So you, to pick and choose man. If you want to recognize some things are funny, and you want to make jokes, you do it Dave Chapel did a start type of a chinese person on his special on Netflix and that went over swimmingly. I guess so. Ultimately, freedom is the answer. If someone decides not to make a joke, I don't care, if they're being hypocrites, I'll point them out. Someone just want to publish a book. Well, so be it if you think that book should still be published, make something akin to it, and you draw the pictures and say we're not giving this up we're going to remake it. So the opposite of cancel culture. I'll tell you this you've got, cancel culture and anti cancel culture, no, the opposite of cancel culture sent
anti cancel culture. The opposite of cancel culture is on cancel culture. To put that way. Well, I don't know whatever you get the point: they want to claim it's the right at a war on wokeness, but please spare me their cancelling themselves only leave their necks segments coming up at four p m over at Youtube COM slashed him cast thanks so much for hang out, and I will see you all a couple of days ago- a jury list with the New York Times by the name of Tailor lorens put out a tweet in which she's that online harassment had literally destroyed her life? This result in a major wave of moderate and disaffected liberal types as well as conservatives roasting. This journalist, saying oh calm down online Horrsman is not destroying your life and I got to be honest. I don't care about this drama not at all, but it's become something much much bigger, because Tucker Carl says He highlighted Taylor Lorenz in a segment on his show.
Which he said the most privileged among us, a New York Times, journalist from Greenwich, come planing about having their lives destroyed when most people would consider heard have one of the greatest lives you could possibly have I'm not a fan of any of this, and I don't even want to talk about any of this, but now there's been a back and forth in New York Times and Tucker Carlsson, and you know what why are we this stupid? Why are we as people so stupid? Everybody? every single person, myself included every single person. Listen when I saw that Taylor Lorenz a journal of the New York Times, tweeted harassment had to destroy her life life. I said okay and I scrolled on its just petty drama. I guess now that Donald Trump, isn't in the news. People need some kind of culture war to happen. Look I'm going through. This will break down the store for those that may be
failure- and I will stress- I will say absolutely outright- there are so many more there's so much more important news that we could be talking about- and I woke up this morning here- the New York Times, putting out a statement about this. Why I see Tucker Karlsson talking about Taylor on a segment Why? If she feels a certain way- and you dont like her criticized the idea, has criticised. The behaviour criticise the entity, the institution that empowers this, but all of a sudden Let's just Tucker is getting harassed and tailors getting harassed and I'm like dude. I don't like any of it. Nobody should be going, across this house. I understand why he's upset about this. Nobody should Harassing Taylor runs, and I just think it's dumb that this is but the new cycle is- and I think it shows he d K. That is our culture in our society. The big picture here for by all means be angry, but please please rise above this. It's a feel like every
is falling apart. When I turn on the news when I come and unlike what's going on with the stimulus check, what's going on with those whose small Business has been destroyed. What are we end up? instead petty drama, because people like the rage bait- and here we are not a friends who don't like Taylor. Lorenz and I know a lot of people who do like Taylor runs and they wanted. Justify why it is or isn't right to call individuals in things like this. So let me say, first and foremost, even if you think one of these jobs any one of them not just tailor any one of these journalists. The York Times or elsewhere, has done something wrong. After a year of watching Antifa black lives matter, writers, smash, destroy buildings and start fires, and we know there is a double standard. What makes you think you
Think the same tactics is going to win you any political points, I'm frustrated with this, because for one I think it's like the least important story that could possibly be happening, but it's become this like ongoing nearly week long fiasco and I'm upset that it seems like people just don't learn they get pulled down into the weeds in the mud. They start fighting over petty drama instead of talking about ideas. Talking about institutions. Instead, it just just becomes Tucker, is, is bad trending, trending and then Taylor, bad bad, Taylor's, trending and I know your stand. Why and I gotta be honest. It was. It was people on the right as well as us. Some journalists like blood Green Walden, met to not starting Michael Tracy. I must admit I ve not met Ivy Michael Tracy, who are criticising Taylor runs by all means, feel free to criticise. I often try to avoid saying people's names for two reasons. For one I do not want to create a pile on offer, I do not want people going to any two Tucker's house or anyone's house. I don't want them,
mean mean tweets anybody. I want ya to be nice. I want people to be nicer to each other, but I do want to criticise. Behaviors and ideas to avoid the pitfall of petty drama and focusing and and to focus on the things that are important like why people should behave certain ways. We must target the behaviors and the institutions that empower it when you focus on individuals, be it Tucker and left us at all times, and you forgot tailor it rallies people to just point the finger at each other and makes personal drama. Let me slow down, I'm sure a lot of people just don't care about this, and neither do I, but I should say It's grown to a point where I think it needs to be talked about, because I don't care if you're a conservative, I don't care if you're a liberal Democrat or Publican, if you like Taylor, if you like talker, Do you see why this is the cultural decay of a nation? of our society. I know if you may blame one side or the other more than the other. But ultimately it's like, I feel
I walk outside and I see you know like too. You know to do over arguing over like a parking space and to ready to war over I've. Just been like move your car choose. Your battles, but this is what we ve become the culture. War has resulted in Tucker doing nightly segments on one of the highest rated shows in the country. For conservatives talking about a tweet from New York Times journalist and then following up and turn into a flame more on tv. I just wish we could go back. Look Tucker is not a lot of great work. I think it's important. I think there are things to criticise Taylor. Or for sure I actually of all the journalist I've had to interact with over stories that I've been critical of. I actually have gotten the best response from Taylor, and I respect for being kind to me when I reached out with with content. Bombs are with with criticism. Concerns. Ultimately, I think there are a lot of Griffith or journalists there a lot of bad people. I criticise them so
times which will also notice, I tend to compliment people. I try really hard to do that. I am sick and tired of just everybody just wants to throw money at each other all the time I don't wanna do it. I don't want to do it. I don't care, I just want to do it. I want to talk about Joe Biden by Syria. I want to talk about the kids in the Middle EAST who are suffering because of the foreign policy of these people who get elected- and I understand you may say, but these your times journals they're. The ones who make Joe Biden possible right, criticise the New York Times as an institution for what they defend and what fund? Let me read you some of the story and down some of the arguments will talk about variety reports: New York Times. Ends reporter Taylor runs from Tucker Carlson's. Cruel attack is at a time Does defending reporter Taylor runs after Fox NEWS anchor Tucker Carlson mocked her during a lengthy segment in a Tuesday night broadcast Karlsson, said: Lorenz a attack, an internet culture reporter was at the top of journalism repulse
little food chain, and that she is far younger and much less talented than other prominent New York Times reporters and a segment discussing powerful people claiming to be powerless. He said quote you'd think Taylor. It would be grateful for the remarkable good luck that she's had, but no she's not cross and said. He then read a tweet from Lorene posted on international women's day, saying how online harassment and smear campaigns have destroyed her life. This is between question. Tweet, on my birthday, no less in the hours in the morning, Taylor set for international women's day. Please consider supporting women enduring online harassment an exaggeration to say the harassment and smear campaign I've had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life. No one should have to go through this destroyed. Her life really says Tucker by most people standards, Taylor Lorenz, would seem to be pretty good life when the best lives in the country. In fact, lots of people are suffering right now, but no, suffering suffering quite as much as Taylor is, is suffering. He continued me say something yeah. I think there's valid criticism. I think the tweet,
from Taylor is absolutely one of those like. I think it's kind of I mean that's about it, She has feelings, she treated her feelings and I will carry on she. She estate that that the online harassment smear campaign endured as destroyed her life. Let me tell you something: Taylor Lorenz, a claimed that a vc venture, capitalist investor said something that he did not say and it caused a lot of, problems for the individual and apparently she followed up later and made some more comments that we're just not true she's at things that were true, I was disappointed, to say the least, that she did not issue a stronger correction state? It was kind of this like half cocked, Oh, you know I'm glad as a clarification here know a good number and because of that she likely received criticism. But when people see this, I noticed something A lot of people saying getting called me. Names is not
strong your life calm down, but you you didn't say that I didn't say she was getting getting called me names and so on read this tweet, I just say: there's not enough information here for me to make a strong assessment. When I saw the coveted kids thing and I everybody was piling on and screaming in the faces. You know figuratively digitally of these. It's about how evil and ass. If they were too said, I dont have an Information. I don't know what happened so, what have tale he's talking about. Someone showed up our house. What, if she's talk got someone sending her pictures of our family sending her death threats. So when I hear that I just say I whatever got no assessment, I dont know what they are Erasmus door, but I can say this: nobody should be harassed, it's interesting that a lot of people say if you can't stand that he got out of the kitchen. You know twitter, place where you're gonna get harass and people are gonna, say mean things and I'm like. Oh yeah. I learned that a long time ago. You know right after Occupy Wall Street, I'm going what your followers almost numerous just a barrage of people saying the nastiest possible things about me digging through my
life in my history and it was sustained harassment, their posting pictures of my family. They are talking about, very personal family issues in an attempt to just cause me pain and suffering, and I realized it comes. The two I suppose, but it should not be that way. So by all means you can think she's over the top. But I'll say this. I don't like the attitude they're like well, you know this is just how things our people are mean on the internet. Now I'll tell people do better I'll, be an adult whose mature and recognized can do anything about it, but but Online harassment is more than just saying mean things I have people who post my address. I had. I have people who have sent me death threats. Send me away threats. I've had extremists on a laugh to have posted pictures of my mom. I have had these things where they have had things that can be considered to be legitimate threats against the safety of myself and the people I care about.
And work with, and we take these things very seriously, and it is also true that twitter does nothing about it. Nothing, that's true So why are we immediately just trying to play culture war nonsense over this one tweet, I think it's stupid, but let's carry on being The issue became more about the New York Times and Tucker Karlsson. The New York Times responded. They say on Twitter, our response to Tuesday nights, Tucker Car, and broadcast in n out familiar move. Carlson's opened his show last night by attacking a journalist, it was calculated and cruel tactic which you regular deploys to unleash a wave of harassment and vitriol. At his intended target Taylor Lorenz, talented New York Times journalist doing timely and essential reporting journalists should be able do their jobs without facing harassment at last sentence is true incorrect and that includes Tucker Karlsson. People shouted to his house, were banging on his door Tucker Cross and does not deserve that, and people should not be done
to Tucker, but they do it all the time they harassed his advertisers. They tried to get his show removed because they don't like his opinions. Tucker did not start any of this fighting, but I have to question why Tucker decided to name drop Taylor and criticise, or over we'll just one dumb tweet, how many people post dumb tweets? How many people so this is what you know that you don't. I see its cancel culture in a sense obviously, I don't think every conservative saying we're gonna highlight this, because you loser job or anything like that. They're just saying grow up, but I dont The idea words like someone sets then dumb one time and then returned to the biggest news story in the country, but this is exactly what we're doing and that's where we are and the New York Times as blame as well. I want to say this: you know, I gotta, be. I gotta, be honest. The person I blame, the least for the stupidity of his new cycle is pro. Hopefully, Taylor runs you know
there's probably lot of people who want to be tribal and they wanna say, but she's she's just a bad things. She smeared people sure by all means criticise her work absolutely, but if, if she puts out a tweet, I Don't see why it's newsworthy, I do not and tons, of people on the right decided to turn this into something where there are quote tweeting it criticising and it wasn't just the right. Like I said you had gone green walled. You add Michael Tracy and another two journalists, I very much respect, and I'm telling you this like Y Y yeah, Can talk about Joe Biden all day and night blown up kids like that's important right now, times. Journalists who put a hyperbolic tweet that major cringe a little bit. I believe this, the new cycle that we get, maybe as it may make. Maybe this is what we deserve because, we are. We are people who just love watching the real housewives or whatever the Jersey, shore or real world MTV. Whatever it is kids are watching these days. We love Youtube drama. We love Tik, Tok drama. We love voice
I mean drama on Youtube is lucrative because people just like watching other people fight- I don't I don't. I like watching people invent things I like watching. People accomplish great feats and I like people trying to be nice. Let me tell you something. Let's rewind this and go back and say you want to criticize Taylor's tweet. Okay, I think you can. I think it's very simple, your twitter and say Taylor. What kind of harassment are you're dealing with? Let's clarify that. First, most, then she says you, may you may see this tweet right here on March tenth Taylor, Lorens tweeted people being like quote there, making you famous, it's not fame, they want them armies of, follow followers to memorize your name and harass you wherever you go and just tweet from a curt schlechter who just posted
her name over and over and over again, because Tucker set her name. Why why why Kurt? Why would you just posted a name? I we children, I just I don't care be mad at me. Criticised me tell me I'm wrong and were allowed to throw, but no, I dont care. How stupid is this? Here's what I would say What kind of harassment are you dealing with? I've dealt with harassment too, and if she came out and sad people are being mean to me, I'd say I definitely think people should not be mean to you. I definitely would appreciate it if we built it, like a social media system here or a culture where we weren't mean to each other. I don't know what you can do about that, though, because people have a right to be mean it sucks, but it's not illegal and it's gonna happen. Perhaps that as you can, you can protect your account or perhaps you know twitter is not a place. You wanna be acted on. I've learned a long time ago. Twitter is just a hell where people just be mean a nasty to each other, which is why-
I've been engaging in what I call anti tweeting, where I just well tweet nice things to people. And that's it because because I hate it, I absolutely despise twitter and Facebook for that matter as well. There was a report came out recently the pulled up where they basically saying Twitter and Facebook are are just making everyone hate each other and making everyone anger I think I can tell you why. Let me see if I have this is the proper tweet pulled up So here we go this from me. Stalwart Matt is the EU. Work for the American Economic Liberties Project and he said here Is the story of cancel culture in chart form? The chart shows Google's less revenue going down. I'm I'm sorry, it shows Google's. U S! Riveted going up and U S! Newspaper revenue going down tat people dont want news anymore. They want comforting lies so big newspapers watching their decline, shifted into rage bait. The symbolic the council culture, because people need to be constantly outraged, now watch the
The new crash even more with Trump gone, here's it's happening and the analysis. Criticism for Taylor, as well as revenue for newspapers, declined newspapers. To figure out what was maximizing their revenue and they found rage, bait and drama. They then shift, into a whole bunch of articles that we're dedicated just to attack people, smear people for stupid reasons. They have one story from the daily beast back, I'm sorry! This is not the right one. This is a story from the daily beast the Instagram stars, hiding their famous muslim hating Mama PAMELA Geller from Taylor runs March. First, twenty eighteen now it was explained to me by people who are concerned about PAMELA Geller Safety that her she was her private information was docked by Taylor runs at all. No that's true! That's what people have claimed and I think it is absolutely fine unfair to criticise journalists. I do it all day. I could size, the news media. I try to focus on the institutions. However, there
for it is when you start pointing to the individual or no longer addressing the concept, the problem or the power structures that allow them to do what they do you ve now create drama where a bunch of people are gonna say, leave my friend alone. That's it what would happen to Tucker Carlson said the New York Times is doing this and what, if he said, a journalist New York Times, claiming that their life is being destroyed by harassment. Not really you don't you say the name, you don't need to say the name to get your point across by engaging in the Tucker versus Taylor thing. All we really done is turned reality into reality. Tv, the same thing, true for Donald Trump and it's what I could not stand about the past four years now they're doing the same thing with Marjorie, Taylor, Green and I'm like, I don't care, but everyone else does isn't as damn shame. This is what does it this is. This is this: is the world we live in? We get to physically waste time talking about the people we don't like there? Is this thing that Dave Ruben
a while ago said: small people talk about other people. The bigger people talk about what is a bigger people, talk of out. Ideas are ours, are, I think, is bigger people talk about things that happened or some like that, and I came our thick sex. What you're, probably not by than I do, but basically the idea was bigger and mature people talk about concepts and ideas and structures and systems and the small people. Just one talk about other things, I dont want to make a drama channel. There are a lot of people on. You, too, will make their bread and butter by simply making videos about me why they are journalists right now running stories about me. Why, What is the story about the guy on the on the internet complaining about his feelings? I guess upset I'm worthy of criticism in a lot of ways and by all means I deserve it. You know not perfect, I'm a guy on the internet complaining about his feelings, but a lot of these people take it it's all out of context. It's all manipulations, it's because there's a market for hating each other
I love what I love so much about the online harassment stuff right, so you have on the left. They'll take things out of context, they'll they'll. Do it because it makes them money but they'll never show you the nice things I say about people on the left. They'll tell you everything that I did wrong, but they won't tell you about the times. I'm trying to be nice and do better they'll, say TIM Pool, this thing about Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats and they won't say TIM Pool, praised Rashida tale of an AOC. They they won't tell You that you know TIM poolside June thirteenth should be a national holiday. They won't tell you that impulse. Add my my tremendous but today I see for the work she did in Texas. Helping provide relief to people she does up deserves all credit, the while they won't do that they want you to do is hate me. They want to write articles about why you should hate me. That's a problem. I get it though there are no rights mere pieces about me. They're gonna make things up, they're gonna take off,
the drama in the world whatever because it makes money so well he took her Karlsson. Do it, I don't care, if he's Tucker Karlsson, Joe Biden or Donald Trump. I think it's stupid. He didn't need to say tailors name. There are a lot of journalist I want to criticise and I can criticise them right now: But I avoid saying their names for the most part, even that's not where some of the Lincoln Project, I dont, say their names for two reasons and I wanna make them famous. I dont want anyone sending a barrage of mean tweets at them, and I recognize what it means. When I have over a meal, followers on one channel and millions across the board, and I and I criticise someone could I watched it happened before and it vertically causing damage to that. I did not want to cause why one of the primary journalistic ethics as minimizing harm, which means, if only criticise a concept, idea or behaviour I want to make sure I do so in a way that doesn't damage people's lives. Don't get me wrong. A lot of people will say well. Taylor deserves to be held accountable. Sure the left says that Tucker deserves ours, be held accountable.
While I probably of a biased in favour of Tucker, because I think he does it pretty good job over the best guys on tv, by the way, I will them when I think this is nonsensical and a waste waste of time criticize Taylor runs as much as, I have said: look there was a point where, Someone was writing a smear piece about me and I reached Taylor, and I just said how want to let you know this is not true and she respectfully and very Lightly to me said: okay, thanks for clearing it up. I won't You know the story whatever, and very easily. Like I was impressed- and I respect that- and I think if we do better to just be nicer unit- I mean so- maybe maybe it's by of me. Maybe people are going to say TIM Taylor was nice to you, so you're being nice to her and I'm like. Maybe that's what we should do. So I respect that and I say it all the time there are very few reporters that I will talk to and say: here's the the true. And an and most of us, but what we want to smear you, because getting it collects tailored and do that shouldn't. Do that to me- and I don't like the idea that people are just going to pile on and be nasty? Don't get me wrong? I do think Taylor deserves criticism.
There are some stories she's been accused of conflicts of interest on ethical. I set out disappoint. And she didn't issue that apology to mark. She is not a perfect person, but I still think still you. You will not win by engaging in social flame wars and making it about people- and I just I just don't want to deal with that. I don't I wake up this morning and the story just won't, go away and I want my life might my point to be with us as you leave, if even made this foreign, if even care, maybe maybe more The people have already left this segment because they realized. I dont care about this good. I'm glad you did, but Tucker Karlsson a second segment responding than your times and out becoming becoming a fight between the new Times and Fox NEWS, and as this because we have nothing to talk about, is there is there, this, because we know that it'll get better. Ratings is talker talking about tale instead of say, like middle eastern conflict because
she thinks his audience cares about it more? I won't do that. They'll say I will deal accuse me of that, but let me just to tell well, I will ignore stories like the royal family, Megan Markel, I dont care of its. Biggest running storing the world, I dont care, it doesn't matter to you or me, some of you may lie, those stories and want to know more about- and I can respect that if you do, but I don't think it will impact your life all that much now trying to cancel the queen. I guess is a hilarious thing. I want to talk about things that I think matter, Derek Shovin, George Floyd the economist, sown zone in Minneapolis and I wake up and I see this and I'll. Tell you one last thing. The reason why I did this segment because now we're looking at like dozens stories to pray. Time segments discussing it in a New York Times statement another here. It is this. Is it headline news for the further for twenty twenty one. Look what we ve become, and it's not you it's not me it's all of us, every single one, so vile.
And so you can imagine we disagree. I respect it comment below limited to think in all their nest, like next segments. Coming up at p M on this general then I'll see you all them.
Transcript generated on 2021-05-28.