Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Team Andrew vs Team Charlie: Hit or Miss on Men’s Issues? | Deep Cut (Whatever Podcast)

Transcript

Team Andrew vs Team Charlie: Hit or Miss on Men’s Issues? | Deep Cut (Whatever Podcast) · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Hello everybody, and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. My
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: name is Brian with Allison, and this is Team Andrew
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: versus Team Charlie Hit or miss on men's Issues, where
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: we're going to be looking at a debate. It was
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: from about a month ago on the Whatever podcast two
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: weeks No, it's this is a month old video. Oh okay,
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: so we got really late. Yeah yeah, this got messy fast,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: and that's exactly why it matters.
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: Team Andrew versus Team Charlie on Whatever Podcast firals from
• 0:34
  Speaker 2: a You're an Idiot jab into a full blown pylon,
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: complete with Rachel charging in from offscreen to defend her husband,
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: while the chat does precision character assassination on both of them,
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: although I would say that they were much more precise
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: with Charlie. In this episode, we're going to treat that
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: chaos like a game tape. First, walk through the fight
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: beat by beat. Then we're on the highlight rail of
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: the most searched hits versus the most feral roasts that
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: came out of it. After that will slow down the
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: footage and look at the arguments under the drama. Who's
• 1:08
  Speaker 2: threat narrativizing men? So if you guys know, if it's
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: been here a while, what a threat narrative is. It's
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: basically just presenting men is a threat that needs to
• 1:17
  Speaker 2: be neutralized. Who's crash, who's cashing in on male sacrifice?
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: And who if anyone is willing to talk about men
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: as fully human. By the end, you won't just know
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: who won the shouting match. Well, I think you already
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: know it. You'll know why Rachel had to protect her husband,
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: why Charlie's frame is still winning, and what we can
• 1:35
  Speaker 2: do about it, all right, And if you want to
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: make a commentary of your own at any point throughout
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: the show, you can do so that feedbadgery dot com
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: slash just the tip, very best way for you to
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: send us a tip, and the best way for you
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: to send a comment with that tip, because that comment
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: does not go through YouTube's comment labyrinth of mystery. So
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: once again that's feedbadgery dot com slash just the tip.
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: And if you want to support the show, support right,
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: all right?
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: Are you what? What? What microphone are you using? Sound
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: too bad? But it sounds like you're far away.
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: Maybe the you know what it is?
• 2:13
  Speaker 4: It is the void cat.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, it's.
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: The chaos Agent. I apologize guys hopefully that that intro
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: wasn't too bad. You're really you're really getting into it today.
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: You're like, you're like, no, you shall not stream.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay. So, uh, Andrew and Charlie were like, Andrew's
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: a frequent guest on the Whatever podcast, and he's invited
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: on off and by Brian Atlis, the guy who hosts
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: the show, because he's debating uh, you know, feminists on there.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: For the most part. They say that he just debates
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: like you know, three or fours, but that's not really true.
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: I mean a lot of them. Basically, everyone who goes
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: on there, whether they are three or four or not,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: is basically going on there with the feminist worldview, and
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: he's basically just you know, debating them on that. But
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: he's also debated men and like other people, you know,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: so it's not just like that. It's not low hanging
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: fruit per se. And Charlie is defending feminism, so they're
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: basically just defending it's a debate on feminism that gets
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: a bit heated later on. And this one, this one
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: had like a clip that went viral, so we're going
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: to be looking at the actual topics that we're discussed.
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: We're gonna start with I guess war, right, is that
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: the first one? Or what do you want to what
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: do you want to jump into?
• 3:42
  Speaker 2: Sorry, Alison voidcat wrangling, I apologize. No, Let's just go
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: for the one that you said. Let's go into the fight.
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: Let's talk about the fight, the meta fight. Yeah, the
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: what everybody wants to talk about, the viral part of it.
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: I had to I had to do something to pease
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: the voidcat. I had to sacrifice, throw a can of
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: tuna into the volcano. So yeah, let's just do that.
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: Let's just go to where everything goes to hell?
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: All right. So at this point in the debate, this
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: is like four hours and fifteen minutes in this this
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: video six hours and twenty minutes long, just about so
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: you can imagine if you'd been sitting there debating with
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: a brick wall for four hours, you're gonna get frustrated.
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah, and uh, we have we have special chat activities.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: It looks like no we don't. Some of the special
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: people have found their way to the main chat though.
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, like new people just yeah, hello, special people in
• 4:41
  Speaker 2: the main chat mm hmm. Okay.
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, So anyway. So at this point, uh, you know,
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: Andrews trying to like explain his worldview to Charlie. This
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: is the woman here, her name is Charlie. It is
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: a woman, not a trans man, not a trans woman,
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: just a lesbian feminist woman that dresses like a Mister
• 5:05
  Speaker 1: Rogers character for some reason. And yeah, so he's trying
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: to explain our worldview and nothing's getting through.
• 5:11
  Speaker 3: So fucking dyke, don't talk about my wife.
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: I gotta go back a little bit before then.
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, you just dumped us right at the deep
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: end there.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just like that, the way the time codes are.
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: I'll go here.
• 5:23
  Speaker 3: Can I just take this show right? When you're talking
• 5:26
  Speaker 3: about Donald Trump, he has the same exact powers that
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: the president Joe Biden had before him, the same ones
• 5:31
  Speaker 3: he had. He doesn't have a single additional power, not
• 5:34
  Speaker 3: a single one.
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: What about the bullshit of the Supreme Court ruled that
• 5:37
  Speaker 4: he cannot be held responsible for specific illegal acts that
• 5:42
  Speaker 4: he committed.
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah, well, look, this was an early understanding of case
• 5:46
  Speaker 3: law with the president.
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Is that so sorry? It's just the way that the
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: fucking dyke it just jumps ahead to like because of
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: the time codes, yeah, I know.
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: It's it's really freaking it's it's really janky.
• 5:59
  Speaker 3: Yeah, when you're talking about Donald maybe I can just
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: like move forward a little bit.
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: Mm hmm, and let's.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: See if there's a way to do this more precisely.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: I apologize. I'm trying to get to.
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: Where you can't have the state charging the executive branch.
• 6:18
  Speaker 3: You can't have them doing that.
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: Let's go, Okay, can you not?
• 6:23
  Speaker 3: The Supreme Court even ruled you can't.
• 6:24
  Speaker 4: I think you should be able to. I think that's ridiculous.
• 6:27
  Speaker 4: I think to be able to hold too much power
• 6:30
  Speaker 4: in their hands because I am against authoritarianism.
• 6:34
  Speaker 3: Okay, So let's say California does that. They say, hey,
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: we're going to go ahead and bring up Donald Trump
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: on and he needs to appear in court. How does
• 6:44
  Speaker 3: California enforce that?
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: Hmm? Guns, I don't know, Bears, I don't know.
• 6:53
  Speaker 4: That gets tricky. I wouldn't trust Donald Trump too.
• 6:55
  Speaker 3: Are they going to send California agents to arrest the
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: president of the United State?
• 7:00
  Speaker 4: Do you think we could send the National Guard and
• 7:02
  Speaker 4: start a civil war? Our national Guard, the California National Guard?
• 7:09
  Speaker 4: Why would she reason?
• 7:11
  Speaker 3: Why would she?
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: This is where so he's trying to explain, you know,
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: like the way that the government works, which is essentially
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: that is, it is force, and Charlie is either intentionally
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: up to or just not very smart. But what it's
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: coming what's coming across, is that she's not smart. She's
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: a she's an activist. She says a lot of the
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: same things that feminists say. She gets pats on the
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: back for it. It inflates her ego. So she goes
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: on to do this in other places, gets pats on
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: the back for it, inflates her ego, and on and
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: on it goes until someone pops her bubble. And so
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: this is where that happens. So but it's obvious she
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: doesn't understand that. Like what it's sort of like the
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: gun conversation. You know, in order to take away people's guns,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: you have to use guns to take them. So you're
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: not really against guns, you're just not You're just only
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: in favor of the government having them. So it's like
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: saying you're not against power, you just want your people
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: to have power, right, So it's authoritarian. Okay, yeah, all right, anyway, I.
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: Got to rephrase this. I'm going to reframe and I'm
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: just gonna be totally honest with you. I will never
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: be able to convince you of my worldview. You all,
• 8:29
  Speaker 3: I know. But the reason is not because I'm not
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: a great orator, or I don't make good points, or
• 8:35
  Speaker 3: I haven't said things which should be compelling to a person.
• 8:38
  Speaker 3: But Charlie, I just think, honestly, you're too fucking stupid
• 8:41
  Speaker 3: to understand them.
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: Okay, Can I just point something out? What would she
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: have said to someone who said we should just start
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: a civil war with Biden? I'm pretty sure that happened,
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: or not even close, but something like it was framed,
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: something like just was a January event that happened? And
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: what did they call? Insurrection?
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: Lady, what you're saying is insurrection? Right, But it's okay
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: because your political tribe is doing it?
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: Is it?
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: If you're saying, if you're saying, let's start a civil war,
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: let's overthrow the government with with troops, that's insurrection. That's
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: exactly what this side of the argument was pointing fingers
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: at for January sixth, when that really wasn't what happened
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: on January sixth, at least from the footage I've seen.
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: It's you know, it's not it's being reframed as something else.
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: And she but she would say that as insurrection if
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: Republicans had said that during Joe Biden's term. Now, this
• 9:53
  Speaker 2: is this is complete moral myopia, complete moral tribalism. And
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: he's right, although she's not looking at it from his frame.
• 10:02
  Speaker 2: He's like, you know, in order to have an advanced democracy,
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: we have to uphold certain principles of rule of law.
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: And she's like, smash ogre smash no Ogro is a
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: cool character from Dark Crystal. No Augro was, you know,
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: all get smash a get smash other tribe. That's that's
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: basically where she's operating. And of course she can't logically
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: explain it because it's a feeling. She just wants to
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: get rid of the Orange Man. She just wants to
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: get rid of the tribe of the Orange Man, and
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: and also feel intellectually superior to that tribe for some reason.
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: So operate on the most basic base level, zero political nuance,
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: destroy other tribe, and yet still feel like an enlightened
• 10:51
  Speaker 2: intellectual while you do so it's interesting to watch. So, yeah,
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: I understand why he said that. It must be very frustrating.
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: It was like me and Rose Wrist remember that. And
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: it just came down to be part of my tribe,
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: B tribe or not, you know, not exist. And I'm like,
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: I don't want to be part of your tribe, well
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: B tribe, you know, Like I'm like, and that was it,
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: because talking to these political tribalists is an exercise and
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: sheer frustration and they don't they don't get the fact
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: that what they're advancing is war. Well, I guess she
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: does now because she's literally said it, let's just do
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: a civil war, folks, let's just do that.
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: Well, she's trying to say something something, this is what
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: you guys do. I'm just you know, but it's just
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: not it. Basically, for most of this conversation, she's being obtuse,
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: she's avoiding confronting his arguments. She is doing what aboutism,
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: she is bringing up anecdotes, she's been wrong on her
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: actual claims, like this is like, until this moment, I
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: don't see how anyone could say she was winning at anything.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: But so at this point he's like, this is what
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: I believe, and she just isn't listening. And even when
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: he says, I'm not gonna be able to convince you
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: of my worldview. He's even basically saying, I can't even
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: get you to understand my worldview, not necessarily agree with it,
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: because you can't even decide whether or not you agree
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: with something if you don't actually understand it. And the
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: reason is because she believes that there's nothing that he
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: could possibly say that would change her mind. And this
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: is you know, remember, this is a conversation about feminism,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: So by default, she's entering the conversation saying, I am
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: the feminist, I am right. Anyone who disagrees with me,
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: there must be something broken inside of them. They can't
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: possibly disagree with me because I believe the good things,
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: because I'm the good person that believes the good things.
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: This is what they think. Anyone who doesn't agree with me,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: obviously is a bad person that believes bad things. It
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: is that childish, it is that simplistic, but it is
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: that true, and can't he can't convince that.
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: So now, granted, she does not win necessarily on the
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: in the realm of logic and reason and principles, but
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: it isn't still entirely possible to win on the ground
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: of narrative framing. Yeah, yeah, so that's not that is
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: like the least appropriate win for an advanced democracy, But
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: it is possible, you know, like that she she simply
• 13:36
  Speaker 2: is capable of maintaining the narrative frame throughout all of
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: this or parts of it anyway. So let's uh, let's get.
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: Into the step. So yeah, so he he basically says,
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: you're too fucking stupid understand it. It's I think a
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: better reply might have been you don't want to understand it,
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: because that's what it really is.
• 13:55
  Speaker 4: But sell you on my worldview. Yesfe has three baby
• 14:00
  Speaker 4: daddies and has been married twice before.
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: And you under and under your religion, Elix snizz, what
• 14:08
  Speaker 3: is that? You're a fucking dyke. Don't talk about my wife.
• 14:11
  Speaker 3: He's stupid bitch. Shut your fucking mouth. Shut your stupid bitch.
• 14:14
  Speaker 4: Mouth your wife with the three baby Did.
• 14:17
  Speaker 3: I just say, okay, all right? And consequential in comparison
• 14:22
  Speaker 3: to your ditch licking to.
• 14:24
  Speaker 4: The men that you.
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: And now she's gonna she's gonna problematize all the men
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: that watch Andrew based on this comment, Yeah.
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: This is threat. This is threat narrativing.
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: Yes, although it was.
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: Interesting, she went after his wife m that actually is uh,
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: that is a very high level difficulty to start attacking
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: a woman in this context. So this is probably why
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: she pivots to attacking his male audience. Well, because when
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: a woman attacks another woman, she doesn't have the automatic
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: assist that the woman is framed already as threatening and
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: lacking in any vulnerability and that their intentions are negative.
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: When a woman attacks a man, that that's already in place,
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: that's already in play. So the fact that she attacked
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: Rachel first is probably.
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: She was trying to use the fact that Rachel has
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: children from different men before Andrew, without actually knowing the
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: story behind that, as a way to attack Andrew.
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I know, I know.
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so sas saying, why are you taking somebody's like
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: sloppy forces or whatever.
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but that's attacking on more of a I think
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: a male vector, not necessarily a female vector. In order
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: to establish a threaten narrative, if you attack the woman,
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: then you have to deal with the fact that Rachel,
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: as a woman, even she's perceived as a conservative woman,
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: is perceived to be more vulnerable than Andrew, and you
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: have when you're dealing with threat narratives, you have to
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: realize everything is reversed. The most vulnerable party is actually
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: the hardest party to attack in a threat narrative sense.
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: So Rach, she just she just took a jab at
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: what is, in effect Andrew Wilson's where we perceive his
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: vulnerability to be, which is his wife, and he perceives
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: it too, I no doubt. So she's actually hit him
• 16:30
  Speaker 2: where he's strongest, which is that was a mistake on
• 16:35
  Speaker 2: her part. She should have gone directly to the in cell.
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: Your your your audience is a bunch of in cells. Uh,
• 16:43
  Speaker 2: maybe she could get away with something and your aicoc
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: kind of thing, But the way that she framed it,
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: she actually gave him a huge inn, or at least
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: she gave Rachel a big in, which is interesting. But
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: now she's pivoting to safer territory, which is attacking men,
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: specifically the men of his audience. So that's what I'm saying, right,
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: So she made a mistake going after Rachel first. She
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: ended up going she ended up throwing a punch where
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: his defense is strong, and now she's trying to quickly
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: re establish some kind of dominance by now going after
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: where he's weaker, which is, oh my God, you have
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: an all male, all in cell audience. That means that
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: you are potentially a vector of evil into society. And
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: so she's pivoting to something. So you see how she
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: just she doesn't even seem to blink with the whole
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: uh her him throwing slurs at her right and insulting
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: her sexual proclivities, she doesn't blink, partially because this might
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: have been a faint maneuver by her part. This may
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: have been intentional. If it was intentional, like I think
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: it was probably uh a mistake, but it could have
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: been a faint She could have attacked him at his
• 18:00
  Speaker 2: strongest point, which is his wife, because she's perceived to
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: be vulnerable, but also knowing that he's going to react
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: badly to that, and then he's going to go on
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: the big bad, angry, pissed off man, and then she
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: frames him as a threat. Of course, I'm not sure
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: if Andrew really cares about that, but other people might.
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: So she may have done this as a feint to
• 18:22
  Speaker 2: get him to start acting in a very aggressive manner,
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: which then frames him as a threat, which wins the
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: threat narrative like she wins. So that may been part
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: of her rationale, which is why you'll notice the insult
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: doesn't land like she does not give a crap about
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: him saying that she licks ditches or anything. She doesn't
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: even pause in her threat narrativing. She just is pivoting
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: to another thing. So she if I'm right, Well, actually
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: I got two interpretations. One she made a mistake by
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: attacking Rachel. One it wasn't a mistake. It was an
• 18:57
  Speaker 2: intentional feint. She attacked Rachel to get him to get
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: into his big bad, pissed off man and then frame
• 19:04
  Speaker 2: him as a threat. And then she's pivoting to framing
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: his audience as a threat for the win. So let's
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: see what happens, okay, to.
• 19:13
  Speaker 3: Do the women that you try to do, the women
• 19:16
  Speaker 3: that you try to Charlie, did I bring Charlie? Did
• 19:21
  Speaker 3: bring your family is older? Did I bring any of
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: your family into anything? Did I say anything about you?
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: Yeahlie, it's because that's good. That's good. Actually, actually that's
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: really good. Like what he's doing there is he's holding
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: her to the line did I attack you? Did I
• 19:38
  Speaker 2: attack you? And she's like, yo, you she did.
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: He did attack her, but he did not attack people
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: that she is close to you attack people who are
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: close to him.
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: So he's emphasizing her threat essentially and her bad intent
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: and the bad intent in terms of bringing into the
• 19:58
  Speaker 2: argument people who are even involved in it. So basically,
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: he's saying, you are engaging and killing, you're engaging in
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: targeting bystanders, and she's she is rather ineffectively countering that
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: by refocusing on while you're the threat because you insulted me,
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: and that justifies me targeting bystanders. Right, That's that's where
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: that's going. Now, Now this is hitting. Notice this. Notice
• 20:25
  Speaker 2: her face now, before her face was almost completely neutral,
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: if not smug to condescending. Now she's she this is
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: hitting because she knows that he is threatening her threat narrative.
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: She he is actually at this point actually engaging with
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: her on the level of where the conflict actually is,
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: and she's she is waking up to that. So let's
• 20:49
  Speaker 2: see where it goes.
• 20:50
  Speaker 4: No, it's because you're embarrassed and you know that the
• 20:52
  Speaker 4: traditional values that you tried. You're not a traditional man.
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: Okay, here here, let's let's let's let's stop here. You
• 21:00
  Speaker 2: are embarrassed. So what is she attacking here? She's attacking
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: his sense of use as a man. Right and now,
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: in the threat narrative, you can also frame. You can
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: also attack men based on their threat, and you can
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: also attack men based on whether or not they're useful.
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: And that's where she's going right now, you're embarrassed, you're vulnerable.
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: You should feel ashamed as a man because you're vulnerable.
• 21:25
  Speaker 2: You should feel ashamed as a man because you don't
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: recognize that your strength should be in service of my weakness,
• 21:33
  Speaker 2: and blah blah, on and on it goes. All right,
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: So that's that's a pretty good counter by her. Let's
• 21:37
  Speaker 2: see how he responds.
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: Let's go through it.
• 21:41
  Speaker 3: Chuck, tell me what I'm doing, which is immoral, what.
• 21:44
  Speaker 4: You're doing, which is immral.
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: I think that, yeah, because okay, before we get into it,
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: Pazinos that were talking over each other. She was trying
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: to use the fact that Andrew married a woman who
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: had children from other men before as a way to
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: dig in, because she was saying, well, according to like
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: the people that you associate with and your values, like
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: you're like the worst person, which doesn't actually make sense,
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: but I guess because Andrew, like he's a christiann orthodox
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: Christian at that but also he spends time with the
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: guys in the red pill at the Manisphere guys. He
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: doesn't agree with them on because he was on like
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: pearls thing with with Paul Elam I think at one
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: point as well. He doesn't agree with their prescriptions, but
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: he is looking at what their like diagnoses is right,
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: He's and he's always been in defended us for that
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: by saying, look, you know, the MRAs and the red pillars,
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: they have an accurate picture of the problem. And and
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: generally the red pill is a descriptive thing. It just says,
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: here's what's going on with men and women, right. It's
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: not necessarily prescript The prescriptions come in different forms either
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: Migtao men's rights, you know, or pick up artist stuff,
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: red pill stuff. And he's basically like got a different
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: idea of a prescription, which is his orthodox Christianity and
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: essentially patriarchy. But that is only if you ask for it.
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: So what she's trying to do is paint him as
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: a hypocrite or discredit him in the eyes of his
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: Menisphere peers by saying, look at you, you married a
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: woman with you know, like that have babies from other
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: men in the past, and he's saying, how is that immoral?
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: Explain to me how that is immoral by my standards
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: as a Christian right? How is that un Christian? And
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: she's gonna have to make that case, which she can't
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: make because the truth is Christianity is not against that
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: at all. It's obviously like if someone is redeemed and
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: you like want to if you love them and you
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: marry them and you raise their children, that is Christian right.
• 23:57
  Speaker 2: So it isn't me it's adultery. But that's that's not.
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: She didn't she didn't cheat with anybody.
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: She she no, no adultery is married in strict Christian
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: like just basic historical Christian sexual norms, you get one wife,
• 24:14
  Speaker 2: one husband, and anything after that as adultery. Now, there's
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: a lot of different interpretations because that's pretty damn strict,
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: especially with Produstan.
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but again I'm just saying, like this is what
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: her tactic is.
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: So but it's certainly not immoral and her her landscape,
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: that's true.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: But we're going to get to that. So anyway, Albert
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: Nita Retro gave us five dollars. Canadian says, whatever, podcasts
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: are a bunch of hypocritical A holes? All right, thank
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: you for your input. Hypothetical A holes? Yeah, I think
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: you meant to say the critical. But anyway, let's keep going.
• 24:50
  Speaker 4: You have been complicit in convincing young men that no, no.
• 24:55
  Speaker 3: No, my family dynamic. What am I doing being married
• 24:58
  Speaker 3: to my moral Then?
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: Why so?
• 25:00
  Speaker 3: Then so all you did so? Wait so wait, Chuck,
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: all you're doing is saying is so, Chuck? Should I be?
• 25:07
  Speaker 3: Shouldn't you actually be saying that? Andrew? You're doing? You're
• 25:12
  Speaker 3: doing a good thing. Hang on, Charlie, I just want
• 25:14
  Speaker 3: to make sure I got this right.
• 25:15
  Speaker 4: Huh?
• 25:16
  Speaker 3: Am I doing a good thing? Am I doing good thing?
• 25:20
  Speaker 4: Do you think your wife is a charity by taking.
• 25:22
  Speaker 3: By taking, by taking care of?
• 25:23
  Speaker 5: Man?
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: Did you see that? Do you see how she's constantly
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: pivoting back to threat narrativing like you're you are a
• 25:31
  Speaker 2: threat to your wife because you pity her? See that?
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: Now?
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: Yes, he she briefly dipped into threatening his sense of
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: honor in terms of his audience. But she's she's I
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: think she's mostly operating from a threat narrative frame. So
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: what that is is she's trying to show him as
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: a threat. She's trying to poke, poke at his vulnerabilities
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: to get him to react in such a way that
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: demonstrates he's a threat. And she's trying to maxim lies
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: her vulnerability in this circumstance so that she perceives to
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: be the injured party. But yeah, this is But again,
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: she did pivot, I think briefly, into a more male frame,
• 26:12
  Speaker 2: and attacking is his honor, that that whole thing about
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: being a hypocrite with his audience is more male framed.
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: It's more about principles. So it's interesting she she's straddling
• 26:22
  Speaker 2: a line. I'm wondering where she's going to go.
• 26:24
  Speaker 3: All right, a good thing whose father's abandoned them? Was
• 26:27
  Speaker 3: I doing good thing?
• 26:28
  Speaker 4: You're doing a good thing?
• 26:29
  Speaker 3: Oh okay, well then, Chuck, why did you use that
• 26:32
  Speaker 3: as a form of personal attack on me? Okay, this
• 26:34
  Speaker 3: is good doing a good thing.
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: I'm convincing you of my worldview. All right, he's got that.
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: That's really well done. So he reframed that as an attack,
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: so she has to acknowl it and also reframed it
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: as an attack that has no legitimacy within her principles,
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: which I don't think she has. But we'll go with that, right,
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: But now she has to defend. She's on the defensive.
• 27:01
  Speaker 2: She has to explain why she engaged in this threatening action,
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: and he's not letting her get away with the idea
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: that it isn't threatening or it was justified or some crap.
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: So that's good, that's his response.
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: Is good.
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: Let's see what she does.
• 27:14
  Speaker 4: Under my worldview.
• 27:15
  Speaker 3: I'm a person.
• 27:16
  Speaker 4: Can you can marry your wife and no one would
• 27:18
  Speaker 4: judge you, and you can raise the children that aren't
• 27:20
  Speaker 4: yours and no one would judge you.
• 27:22
  Speaker 3: No, they would still under.
• 27:24
  Speaker 4: Your worldview, that would not be so Christian.
• 27:26
  Speaker 3: Nationalists, m m yeah, what.
• 27:28
  Speaker 4: About it even acceptable?
• 27:29
  Speaker 3: Do you understand what what Christianity is? Do you think they?
• 27:33
  Speaker 4: Do you think Christian?
• 27:34
  Speaker 6: Were you?
• 27:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah?
• 27:35
  Speaker 4: I was Protestant?
• 27:37
  Speaker 3: Yes I was.
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: Are they getting in the weeds?
• 27:39
  Speaker 7: Okay?
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this is interesting.
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: But yeah, so she's she's claiming. Okay, notice this though,
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: I think this is important to point out. He's saying,
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: under my worldview, no one would judge you. That's a lie.
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: You can't control whether or not people have an opinion
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: on your lifestyle, no matter what your religion or lack thereof,
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: is okay? That's just a lie. It doesn't matter right,
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: so that you can't you're just claiming that under my
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: worldview as a feminist, as an intersectional feminist, I believe
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: atheists her. She's basically saying, we would never judge anyone
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: for anything. That's just not true. That doesn't exist. Guys,
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: there's no such thing as a society where nobody has
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: opinions about anybody else. That just doesn't exist. So when
• 28:30
  Speaker 1: she's making a claim that's ridiculous because she's trying to
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: protect herself. And then she's saying, under your worldview, there'll
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: be lots of judgment and it'll be really hard. There's
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: judgment no matter what the point is. How do you
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: cope with it? Do you just say fuck it whatever?
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: Do you you know? Or do you get on with
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: your life? Like in general, in my opinion, men don't
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: care about judgment women do. This is what the whole
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: feminist movement, by the way, I've been saying for a
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: long time. But part of it is all about avoiding judgment.
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: It's like the most important thing, which is why a
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: lot of their causes have nothing to do with law
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: or policy. It's all about perception. I want to be
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: seen a certain way. That's it, yes, right, yeah, Accept
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: me no matter no matter what my body count is.
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: Accept me no matter how fat I get. Accept me
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: no matter how wherever I grow my hair, Accept me
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: no matter what clothes I choose to wear, what color
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: I decide to dye my hair, whether I have accept
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: them piercing or not, those are all based there. There's
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: no way you can pass a law that makes it
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: illegal for someone to judge you on those, although you
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: can get into a position like in Europe where free
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: speech is limited, where people can get arrested for saying faggot.
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: So there is that, and I think that comes from
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: this kind of attitude.
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: In my opinion, well, I would say that while men
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: are less concerned with judgment in the way that meant
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: women are, they can this shouldn't be like considered a
• 29:58
  Speaker 2: free for all for judging, because I think that what
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: they are sensitive from my opinion, an outsider's opinion is
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: having a consistent metric to understand their self worth. And
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: that's that's a bit different than judgment because you can
• 30:15
  Speaker 2: you can be very iconoclastic with that, like you can
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: be the the uber mint. Sheo just decides on his
• 30:22
  Speaker 2: own standards, but a lot. And I don't think this
• 30:26
  Speaker 2: necessarily makes men like these men who do this weak,
• 30:29
  Speaker 2: or it's they do want some kind of way of
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: establishing self worth through their actions in relation to something
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: greater than themselves.
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: That makes sense, right, Well, I think there should be
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: there should be a desire to please people deserving of that.
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but I think men are drawn to external principles,
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: to standards of honor, and these are ways of judging
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: your your actions and your decisions. But women are drawn
• 31:03
  Speaker 2: to the absence of that.
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: Well, that's right, that's right. Yeah, Well, its what I'm saying.
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: We understand we can't escape that world. There's no escaping
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: the world where people have opinions on other people, or
• 31:15
  Speaker 1: people have a view on how to operate in the world,
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: or standards of any kind like that has to exist.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: So men at least believe that those should be aspirational standards,
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: and they want to achieve them so that they earn
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: the respect of people who see those also as aspirational.
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: But it also means that there are other people whose
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: opinions just don't fucking matter because they don't have good
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: standards or any standards like Why should I care what
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: Charlie believes if she has no standards anyways?
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, yeah, Well I think this particular exchange
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: is a little bit in the weeds because it's essentially
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: two people trying to force the other say that the
• 32:01
  Speaker 2: other is a hypocrite.
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: Well yeah, but you want me to go to a
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: different So at one point she goes after Stephen Crowder
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: for I guess it was like, here, let me get
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: to that real quick, because I thought that was good too,
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: because I let's.
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: Go to the show turned sour.
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: Okay, well that's that's going.
• 32:19
  Speaker 2: Let's just keep going. We have to we have to
• 32:22
  Speaker 2: sacrifice my complex.
• 32:24
  Speaker 4: The Protestant spirit is still you.
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: Oh my freaking god, we're back in the hundred years War.
• 32:32
  Speaker 4: It's the thing that Protestants do. When can I get
• 32:35
  Speaker 4: really into the idea of rules?
• 32:36
  Speaker 3: And have you ever had an abortion?
• 32:38
  Speaker 4: No?
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: Never? Would you? Yeah, so you'd kill your own kids.
• 32:41
  Speaker 3: Why am I going to take moral advice from you?
• 32:44
  Speaker 4: You don't have to.
• 32:45
  Speaker 3: I'm not going to take moral advice from you. Show
• 32:47
  Speaker 3: you all your trying, but you all.
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but you're trying to establish yourself as his moral superior.
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
• 32:56
  Speaker 2: So okay, again, this is this is really like, this
• 33:00
  Speaker 2: is basically just they're locked, you know, like you know
• 33:05
  Speaker 2: with with with boxing.
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: Well she's yeah, she's trying to. But the thing is
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: she's trying to, like, he doesn't have stanards of her own,
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: so she's trying to find a way to hold his
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: standards against him. But it doesn't work because he's like, well,
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: why should I listen to you? You have no standards.
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: So he's like, he's not allowing her to do that. Pivot, Yeah,
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: your belief system, which again involves her having telepathy because
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: she never she never understood his belief system because for
• 33:35
  Speaker 1: most of the show he was trying to explain his
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: position and she was just you know, calling him a colonizer, racist,
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: sexist or whatever.
• 33:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah, which is trying to establish moral dominance over h
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: But now he's now he's well, okay, let's let's continue,
• 33:49
  Speaker 2: because that's basically what's happening though.
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: World view.
• 33:52
  Speaker 3: Okay, which part? Which part am I lying about?
• 33:55
  Speaker 4: So I think that you pretend to be a traditional
• 33:57
  Speaker 4: Christian man?
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: But what I never said that I'm a traditionalist.
• 34:01
  Speaker 4: I what I see you doing as someone who claims
• 34:03
  Speaker 4: to be a Christian is spreading hate. Okay, I think
• 34:06
  Speaker 4: that you all.
• 34:07
  Speaker 3: Right, Chuck? Fine, you got me, you got me. I'm
• 34:10
  Speaker 3: a stepfather, Chuck. What did I do wrong?
• 34:14
  Speaker 4: Oh?
• 34:14
  Speaker 2: Oh, he's not even letting your pivot. Well, this is good.
• 34:17
  Speaker 2: He's keeping the line. He's keeping the line. He's saying.
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: Another thing too that's worth going out here is that
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: when when when Andrew debates women, feminist women, he treats
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: them like men. That's why he comes across as an
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: asshole because he's talking to the way he would talk
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: to men, and when he debates men, he talks to
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: them the exact same way. So if you think Andrew's
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: an asshole here, then maybe you need to think about
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: what you would say if he was doing this with
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: a man, because I think this is the appropriate way
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: to talk to feminist women. If you're going to debate
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: them and they want to pretend to be men, then
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: argue with them like their men, and then watch what
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: happens they become women, like really like really feminine women.
• 35:00
  Speaker 3: But anyway, being your stepfather and a good father to
• 35:03
  Speaker 3: kids who needed one, Chuck, can you tell me.
• 35:05
  Speaker 4: What I was referring?
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: No, No, it was what you were referring.
• 35:08
  Speaker 2: To yes, you Yeah, he's trying to pivot away. Yeah,
• 35:14
  Speaker 2: she you see what I mean, Like that was actually
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: a mistake, and he's making sure that it remains a
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: mistake that she attacked his family. Yep, that's good. That's
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: that's a that's a good way for a man to
• 35:25
  Speaker 2: deal with a threat narrative because she like she I'm
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: pretty sure either she did not realize what she's doing,
• 35:34
  Speaker 2: because she seems to be operating a little bit in
• 35:36
  Speaker 2: between uh, a masculine honor frame and not honor, like
• 35:41
  Speaker 2: holding herself to it, but holding him to it, and
• 35:44
  Speaker 2: a threat narrative frame. So maybe she just made a mistake,
• 35:48
  Speaker 2: or she thought it would be a great faint she'd
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: get the get the angry, and then she'd pivot into
• 35:53
  Speaker 2: his audience, him spreading hate, and then and then she'd
• 35:57
  Speaker 2: get the wind. But he's keeping her where she weak.
• 36:00
  Speaker 2: She's he's like nailed her to where she's weak, which
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: is her choice to attack bystanders, to attack her family,
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: his family. So that's good, that's that's good. Let's see,
• 36:11
  Speaker 2: let's see if he maintains it, because this could be
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: a winning strategy.
• 36:14
  Speaker 3: You are what am I saying what am I doing?
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: What am I doing except taking care of people?
• 36:18
  Speaker 4: Is you are espousing to be a good Christian man,
• 36:21
  Speaker 4: But what you do with your life is you don't
• 36:22
  Speaker 4: help others. You sit around smoking cigarettes.
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: I thought I did.
• 36:25
  Speaker 3: I thought you just commended me for helping others. Didn't
• 36:29
  Speaker 3: I help children who weren't even mind?
• 36:30
  Speaker 4: Chuck, That's not what you do with your life.
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: Yes, it was what I did with my whole young life,
• 36:37
  Speaker 3: my entire youth.
• 36:38
  Speaker 4: Your job is debating women who aren't formal debaters, and
• 36:43
  Speaker 4: literally mock you.
• 36:45
  Speaker 3: Do I only debate? Do I only debate women? Or
• 36:47
  Speaker 3: do I debate the best debaters in the world?
• 36:49
  Speaker 4: You sometimes do?
• 36:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so shut up?
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: Okay, Wait, know this was an attempt to frame because
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: again this is what a lot of people do with Andrews.
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: They say, well, you only debate like women who can't
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: defend themselves. It's essentially threaten narrativing him around how he
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: talks to women on the Whatever podcast. But he does not,
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: and I said this earlier because they always bring this up.
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: He does not only like debate against three zero four's.
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: In fact, more and more frequently he debates people like
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: Dave Smith. He debates like people who do a lot
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: of debating all the time, and he, you know, generally
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: does well. He's been on modern day debate many times.
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: He's hosting his own debate con thing like next week
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: or next year. I'm sorry, so that's just not true.
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: But it's if you frame it as though he's a bully,
• 37:43
  Speaker 1: then that's how you win. So that's what he's doing, all.
• 37:50
  Speaker 3: Right, And what have you done? What have you done?
• 37:53
  Speaker 4: I have a master's.
• 37:54
  Speaker 3: Yeah, you haven't done shit. You don't have a family,
• 37:56
  Speaker 3: You've never taken care of another human being besides yourself.
• 37:59
  Speaker 3: And on top of that, let's just point this out.
• 38:01
  Speaker 3: You have not debated with those people because they think
• 38:04
  Speaker 3: you're too fucking stupid to do so.
• 38:05
  Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I'm not someone that does debate for.
• 38:07
  Speaker 3: No, it's not because of your debate skills. Check, it's
• 38:10
  Speaker 3: because of your i Q skills. Do it for fucking fun? Well,
• 38:13
  Speaker 3: the only thing that you could come up with this
• 38:14
  Speaker 3: entire time, after this nice, pleasant debate, that's true. I
• 38:18
  Speaker 3: did say I think you're too stupid to understand my point,
• 38:20
  Speaker 3: but never to you. I would never have attempted to
• 38:24
  Speaker 3: attack one of your family members you could do it.
• 38:26
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he's keeping it to that. Yeah, that's good. She
• 38:31
  Speaker 2: really made a mistake, So I was I was correct
• 38:35
  Speaker 2: because I haven't actually watched this yet. I was correct
• 38:38
  Speaker 2: when I identified that as a mistake. And he is
• 38:41
  Speaker 2: keeping he's drilling that down like he's she she really
• 38:45
  Speaker 2: screwed up. She let him get an opening, and he
• 38:49
  Speaker 2: is drilling down on that opening. Good instincts. This is
• 38:52
  Speaker 2: this has nothing to do with logic, reason accountability on her.
• 38:56
  Speaker 2: This is simply threat narrative, call bat But the problem
• 39:03
  Speaker 2: is that while men can hold their own, they can't
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: win a threat narrative against a woman. It is extremely
• 39:15
  Speaker 2: difficult for that. And it's because I hate to say it,
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: but men just do not have the same ability to
• 39:22
  Speaker 2: perform vulnerability as women do. And that is the strength.
• 39:27
  Speaker 2: Like in a threat narrative, you have to invert everything.
• 39:30
  Speaker 2: Vulnerability is strength, strength is weakness, and so you have
• 39:36
  Speaker 2: to understand that you have to get into that framework.
• 39:38
  Speaker 2: And it's much easier for women to do performative vulnerability
• 39:43
  Speaker 2: than men. Like if Andrew broke down in tears, that
• 39:49
  Speaker 2: wouldn't go as well in terms of a threat narrative
• 39:53
  Speaker 2: than if Charlie broke down in tears. I could just
• 39:56
  Speaker 2: imagine her breaking down.
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: Into well, yeah, definitely would be better for her. Yeah,
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: I think for him though, it would destroy him, like
• 40:04
  Speaker 1: people would be, it would get memed all over the internet,
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: and yeah, it would be.
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: That's essentially that. That's this point. A woman can not
• 40:15
  Speaker 2: only more successfully do performative vulnerability. They don't have the
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: same social followt as men do. Yeah, well, it's like
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: it is. I would say it's almost impossible for a
• 40:28
  Speaker 2: man to win a threat narrative. He's holding his own,
• 40:31
  Speaker 2: so he's not becoming a victim of her threat narrative.
• 40:35
  Speaker 2: But it's not like he's gonna turn he's not going
• 40:37
  Speaker 2: to do a reverse who know on her.
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: Well, this is what he does. Like, like, here's the
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: thing he does not. If he like asked you to
• 40:46
  Speaker 1: respond to something, you can't dodge that. You can't pivot
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: away from it, you can't try to change the subject,
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: you can't do what about is You have to answer
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: it right away or he will just keep keep it
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: on you until you do. And so people will see
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: that as him talking over them or insulting them. But
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: that's not what he's doing. He's saying, answer the question,
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: answer the question, answer the question, answer the question. And
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: if you don't, he's just gonna keep doing it, and
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: maybe he'll call you names while he's doing it until
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: you do it. So it's it's you're if you're not,
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: if you're not seeing that, that's what's happening. She is
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: not answering what he's saying. He is calling out her contradictions,
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: and she doesn't have anything because what she was trying
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: to do was simply make him look bad, go viral
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: and make some money, and it did it, and she
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: went viral for the wrong reasons. So uh lib pro
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: Marte Rules says, after three hours of destroying her arguments,
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: most people have a tough time keeping composure. Yet people
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: want to focus on just this part, not the whole
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: debate where she got destroyed. I agree. I watched. I
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: watched most of this fucking thing, and I'm telling you
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: it was mostly like nothing. And it's not because it
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: was It was because Charlie had nothing. She had nothing.
• 42:03
  Speaker 1: She came. It was like she wasn't even prepared. I
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: don't even know why she has a pen and a notepad.
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: She had nothing. She had anecdotes, she had threaten narratives,
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: she had feminist fucking gobbledygook talking points, and that was it.
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: She she and he debunked everything and it wasn't hard.
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: So I'm not even saying he's like a genius. It
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: wasn't hard. You just like take apart the logic and
• 42:26
  Speaker 1: and it falls apart, and she had nothing. So when
• 42:29
  Speaker 1: you get like I said, this is like four hours
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: in four hours and twenty minutes, and there's like nothing,
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: and she's not making a dent, and he's not able
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: to get her to like see even like what his
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: side of things is. So he just says, you know,
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: you're just too fucking stupid, Like we've been at this
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: for four hours, and then she goes after his family
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: like this is what I'm saying, Like he has less
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: than nothing. She's ineffensible.
• 42:56
  Speaker 2: No, I mean she isn't defensible, but she doesn't have
• 42:59
  Speaker 2: less than nothing.
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: No, I know, of logic, I mean she's got reason.
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, sure he's outmatched her, but in terms of maintaining
• 43:08
  Speaker 2: a narrative, she probably looks at this exchanges she won
• 43:12
  Speaker 2: and in certain instances she did like she she maintained
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: the narrative that she wants to maintain because there's two
• 43:20
  Speaker 2: there's two fights going on here. There's the logic and
• 43:23
  Speaker 2: reason fight which occurs and men are picking up on it,
• 43:27
  Speaker 2: and then there's the maintained the narrative fight, which is
• 43:31
  Speaker 2: operating on a completely different level. It's like she's giving
• 43:33
  Speaker 2: off some subsonic frequencies that the women are picking up
• 43:37
  Speaker 2: and they're like, oh yes, oh yes that, and men don't.
• 43:41
  Speaker 2: They don't pick up the level of the fight on
• 43:44
  Speaker 2: that level. And on that level, you can make the
• 43:48
  Speaker 2: argument that she won in terms of maintaining the particular
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: narrative that she wanted to maintain. No, she didn't win
• 43:55
  Speaker 2: on logic, she didn't win on reason, she didn't win
• 43:59
  Speaker 2: on coherants, she didn't even win on cleverness. But in
• 44:03
  Speaker 2: terms of maintaining and framing the narrative, there are potentially
• 44:08
  Speaker 2: points where she won, right, and now can we let's
• 44:11
  Speaker 2: let's finish this up, because I want to see the
• 44:13
  Speaker 2: ultimate resolution of this where it goes.
• 44:16
  Speaker 4: All of my family members are better people than you.
• 44:19
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean, but I'm a better person.
• 44:20
  Speaker 4: When I said that, my dad has spent his life
• 44:22
  Speaker 4: helping people. You spent your life doing what tising to
• 44:25
  Speaker 4: the masses and as a fucking leader, essentially.
• 44:29
  Speaker 3: Saying I am a leader? Are you saying I'm not?
• 44:32
  Speaker 4: You are inconsequential in chocolate.
• 44:35
  Speaker 2: So again, she's threat narratives. He's attacking his usefulness as
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: a man. So now she's attacking his identity, right So
• 44:43
  Speaker 2: this is this is all within the threat narrative for Rick,
• 44:46
  Speaker 2: because if a man is framed as useless, he ceases
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: to be somebody to talk like who has authority to speak?
• 44:54
  Speaker 2: So that's what she's doing. So she is attacking his
• 44:56
  Speaker 2: identity as a man right now, and he's going to
• 45:02
  Speaker 2: defend himself. But unfortunately, women's opinion on men's identities tend
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: to hold a stronger narrative weight or a stronger social weight,
• 45:15
  Speaker 2: which is why he's this is going to put him
• 45:16
  Speaker 2: on the back foot. Let's see what And again, my
• 45:21
  Speaker 2: prediction is that he's going to pivot to defending his
• 45:24
  Speaker 2: identity away from keeping her in the frame of recognizing
• 45:30
  Speaker 2: that she was engaging in something very, very threatening by
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: going after his family. So if he keeps her answering
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: to the fact that she attacked his family, that is
• 45:45
  Speaker 2: keeping her in the position of being seen as a threat,
• 45:48
  Speaker 2: lowering her vulnerability, increasing her bad intent. But if she
• 45:53
  Speaker 2: gets him to pivot to defending his identity, he moves
• 45:56
  Speaker 2: into a weaker position. Right, So you see the position
• 46:02
  Speaker 2: of framing her as a threat and framing her as
• 46:05
  Speaker 2: having bad intent is actually keeping her on her back foot.
• 46:11
  Speaker 2: Getting her getting him to pivot to I'm actually a
• 46:16
  Speaker 2: useful man is basically saying I am addressing your opinion
• 46:20
  Speaker 2: of my manhood as if it's legitimate. But also it's
• 46:24
  Speaker 2: abandoning this stronger position that's attacking where she's weak. Does
• 46:28
  Speaker 2: do you understand that? Okay, let's hear it, let's see
• 46:32
  Speaker 2: what happens.
• 46:33
  Speaker 4: But I'm not ashamed of it, and I don't aspire
• 46:36
  Speaker 4: to be consequential.
• 46:38
  Speaker 3: Chuck, you do. I didn't want any.
• 46:41
  Speaker 4: Rules supposed at the end of the day. What you
• 46:45
  Speaker 4: want to do is you want to be the leader.
• 46:47
  Speaker 4: You want to be in charge.
• 46:47
  Speaker 2: You do not have humility, Okay, useful useless man, useless man,
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: useless man. That's all she's saying, You're a useless man.
• 46:55
  Speaker 2: I'm attacking your identity. Okay. Where does he go with it?
• 46:58
  Speaker 4: Where does he goats people?
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: You?
• 47:00
  Speaker 4: They hate the author.
• 47:01
  Speaker 2: They stop Okay, go back to go back to pinning
• 47:10
  Speaker 2: her on her threatening attack of your family and her
• 47:17
  Speaker 2: bad intent in doing so. But I don't think I
• 47:20
  Speaker 2: think we're I think we're now in the weeds of
• 47:22
  Speaker 2: him defending his identity, or at least trying to deflect
• 47:25
  Speaker 2: her attempt to attack his identity as a man. Okay.
• 47:30
  Speaker 4: It hates people like you. They hate the author.
• 47:32
  Speaker 2: Okay. So now not only does she attack him as
• 47:35
  Speaker 2: useful useless, she is now pivoting to trying to morally
• 47:39
  Speaker 2: dominate him again. Yeah, because she has successfully moved him
• 47:44
  Speaker 2: out of the frame of pointing to her as having
• 47:48
  Speaker 2: bad intent and and aggression by targeting his family. Right,
• 47:55
  Speaker 2: So now this is this is this is actually slipping
• 47:57
  Speaker 2: in the wrong direction. Okay, let's keep.
• 48:00
  Speaker 3: Going so much. Why do you do instead? I get
• 48:04
  Speaker 3: clergy members who send me. I mean, I've got hundreds
• 48:06
  Speaker 3: of dms I can show you from clergy.
• 48:08
  Speaker 2: Why are you proving anything to her?
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: No, he's asking her he's not valid, and he's saying
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: if it's true.
• 48:16
  Speaker 2: No, But that that's the thing. It's still saying I
• 48:20
  Speaker 2: have to answer to she thinks I'm useless, right, And
• 48:24
  Speaker 2: this is where men are men are a little bit more,
• 48:27
  Speaker 2: are a lot more vulnerable like she. He wants to
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: answer to that because that strikes right at the heart
• 48:32
  Speaker 2: of the male identity. You want to be useful. This
• 48:35
  Speaker 2: woman is saying you're useless. Now I have to prove
• 48:38
  Speaker 2: to her that I'm not use useless by you know, X, Y,
• 48:42
  Speaker 2: and Z. Pivot back to why did you attack my family? Okay,
• 48:49
  Speaker 2: why are you doing this? What does this have to
• 48:52
  Speaker 2: do with our argument? But why are you engaging in
• 48:55
  Speaker 2: something this kind of aggression towards people who are completely
• 48:58
  Speaker 2: innocent That He keeps it back in the threat narrative frame,
• 49:02
  Speaker 2: targeting her as opposed to this, which is, now, I
• 49:05
  Speaker 2: think you're a useless man. Well, I'm going to tell
• 49:07
  Speaker 2: you why I'm not. Of course you're not. And she
• 49:11
  Speaker 2: don't have to tell her because she's there trying to
• 49:14
  Speaker 2: get your attention and trying to argue with you. By definition,
• 49:18
  Speaker 2: that puts you in the category useful like you don't
• 49:22
  Speaker 2: even anyway, Let's keep going.
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: But wait a minute. Is there a difference between saying, well,
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: let me show you why I'm not and saying, if
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: it's true, then why do why do I have all of.
• 49:35
  Speaker 2: This there's no functional difference.
• 49:38
  Speaker 1: There's no functional difference. So if if I got accused
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: of shoplifting, can I or or well, that's.
• 49:46
  Speaker 2: Different because you're talking about okay, why do I have
• 49:52
  Speaker 2: to prove that I am using?
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: He's not proving anything. He's saying, like, what if it's true,
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: true that I'm like, you know, the enemy of the church.
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: Why haven't I been excommunicated? Because she's making a claim
• 50:07
  Speaker 1: and he's saying this isn't true because if it was true,
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: here's what would happen. And he's saying, why hasn't this happened?
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: If this is true? That's the same as demonstrating, you know,
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: it's more.
• 50:20
  Speaker 2: Like, okay, this is a fine point. But the ultimate
• 50:23
  Speaker 2: proof in the pudding will be if he finishes off
• 50:26
  Speaker 2: this line of inquiry and moves back into a strong position,
• 50:29
  Speaker 2: because it's not just that okay, this is is this
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: defending your identity? He's acknowledging this as a vector of
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: attack at all by responding to it. Yeah, all right,
• 50:39
  Speaker 2: So the question is does he stay in this week's
• 50:42
  Speaker 2: position where he's responding to her allegations about his usefulness
• 50:46
  Speaker 2: as a man, or does he get out of there
• 50:50
  Speaker 2: and move back into the stronger position of you are
• 50:54
  Speaker 2: a threat, you are targeting innocence, which is the threat
• 50:57
  Speaker 2: narrative position, which is what she's actually She doesn't actually
• 51:02
  Speaker 2: care if he's useless or useful. He doesn't care about
• 51:05
  Speaker 2: his identity. She wants him to stop saying that she's
• 51:10
  Speaker 2: a threat because that's where she's seeing that she's losing. Right,
• 51:16
  Speaker 2: So if he if he stays on this line, she
• 51:19
  Speaker 2: has successfully gotten him into a digression away from that.
• 51:23
  Speaker 2: So she's gotten him out of a position of strength
• 51:26
  Speaker 2: into a position of relative weakness. It's it's you know,
• 51:31
  Speaker 2: it's different. No, like, guys don't see this as easily,
• 51:35
  Speaker 2: but it's there. Okay, let's keep going.
• 51:38
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 51:40
  Speaker 4: I mean I've debated with those what are the Catechumans.
• 51:43
  Speaker 4: What did you say? I've debated with them, and they.
• 51:45
  Speaker 3: Are You've debated with the Cumans.
• 51:47
  Speaker 4: Or the best the men that you've convinced to convert
• 51:49
  Speaker 4: to Orthodox Christianity.
• 51:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah, he debated with use Chuck, you're calling someone else
• 51:55
  Speaker 3: an idiot?
• 51:56
  Speaker 4: Yes, okay, And there were your idiots that bought your course,
• 51:59
  Speaker 4: and I stopped. And even people who were saying, like
• 52:01
  Speaker 4: I disagree with you, but you stop them so your
• 52:03
  Speaker 4: horses also.
• 52:04
  Speaker 3: Over their names, Schuck, who are they?
• 52:06
  Speaker 4: I could describe them to you describe them? White guy
• 52:09
  Speaker 4: wearing a hat with the orange mustache and blue eyes.
• 52:12
  Speaker 4: The other guy was also white, guayna hat.
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: All right, let me just jump ahead.
• 52:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this is this is like, this is getting into
• 52:18
  Speaker 2: the weeds. But he she has pivoted him away from
• 52:22
  Speaker 2: the threat narrative. That like, being from that in that
• 52:26
  Speaker 2: position where she he was nailing her on being a
• 52:29
  Speaker 2: threat and actually going after innocence, which in the threat
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: narrative context, that is a more that is a stronger
• 52:37
  Speaker 2: position than whatever this is.
• 52:39
  Speaker 3: Okay, let's go even under even under Catholicism. And by
• 52:43
  Speaker 3: the way, Christian nationalism advocates for this as well. If
• 52:47
  Speaker 3: there's abuse in the home or abandonment or things like this,
• 52:50
  Speaker 3: of course that's grounds for divorce. They're against things like uh,
• 52:54
  Speaker 3: not getting rid of show cause, right, Like you have
• 52:57
  Speaker 3: to show a cause for a divorce. You have to
• 52:58
  Speaker 3: create justification there against things like no fault. That's the
• 53:02
  Speaker 3: things you're against. Nobody's like, oh, there are some people,
• 53:05
  Speaker 3: I agree, there are some people who have been like, well,
• 53:08
  Speaker 3: even if you're getting beaten up at a fucking in
• 53:10
  Speaker 3: a relationship, you should stay. But you know what happens
• 53:13
  Speaker 3: when you actually hone down on what they're saying. They're
• 53:17
  Speaker 3: actually saying, wait a second. What I'm saying is that
• 53:19
  Speaker 3: that's something which can be worked through, that's not a
• 53:21
  Speaker 3: thing which instantly nullifies the marriage, and then as Christians,
• 53:25
  Speaker 3: you should try to work through that first before you
• 53:27
  Speaker 3: in the marriage, especially if you have kids. That makes
• 53:29
  Speaker 3: a lot of fucking sense to me.
• 53:31
  Speaker 4: Did you all have a did your wife?
• 53:33
  Speaker 7: All right?
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: I'm just pausing. Oh she's going after his wife again,
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: but I'm just pausing it there he's explaining the you
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: know again, these misrepresent misrepresentations of this position of like, hey,
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: you know, maybe it's more important to work through a
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: marriage if they're if it's going through difficulty for the
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: sake of the marriage, but also for the children if
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: there are children involved, right, And I think that's true.
• 53:56
  Speaker 1: I mean, it just it just it's common sense to me.
• 54:00
  Speaker 4: But anyway, I've had a no fault divorce? Was it
• 54:03
  Speaker 4: no fault?
• 54:04
  Speaker 3: I'm not going to get into my personal life with you, Chuck, all.
• 54:07
  Speaker 4: Right, But if you're saying that Christian nationalists are you know,
• 54:11
  Speaker 4: they're pro show cause but against at fault divorce. Then
• 54:16
  Speaker 4: it's the same.
• 54:16
  Speaker 3: Okay, Chuck, Well, what happened is her ex husband?
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: You want me to jump ahead in the time.
• 54:23
  Speaker 3: Thanks for, by the way, for reminding me of that.
• 54:27
  Speaker 3: Can you can you just can you just help me
• 54:28
  Speaker 3: out with this? Which Christian nationalists would say, this is
• 54:33
  Speaker 3: actually pretty good.
• 54:34
  Speaker 2: This is actually pretty good. I know it's horrifying, and
• 54:40
  Speaker 2: but he's He has once again pivoted to her, reframing
• 54:45
  Speaker 2: this in terms of her being aggressive and also targeting
• 54:53
  Speaker 2: innocence with what she said. Now, she probably didn't realize
• 54:57
  Speaker 2: that there was severe abuse occurring with Rachel's previous marriage.
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: But it doesn't matter. This is this is moving it
• 55:06
  Speaker 2: once again back into his position in terms of the
• 55:10
  Speaker 2: threat narrative is strong, is stronger anyway, She can still
• 55:14
  Speaker 2: break down in tears and then it's all over. But
• 55:17
  Speaker 2: let's let's keep going.
• 55:18
  Speaker 4: All right, who's the dude that was berating his uh,
• 55:22
  Speaker 4: his his pregnant.
• 55:24
  Speaker 3: You tell me you're just even crowder. You think Crowder,
• 55:29
  Speaker 3: who's one of Rachel's best friends, would tell her that
• 55:33
  Speaker 3: that was her best friend. I didn't say it was
• 55:35
  Speaker 3: her best friend.
• 55:36
  Speaker 4: One of that's one of her best friends.
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: Yes, and one of my old man.
• 55:41
  Speaker 2: Oh man, this is good, Like he's he's reframing it
• 55:44
  Speaker 2: in terms of personal cost again, really really shoring up
• 55:49
  Speaker 2: his position. And I'm not I won't say dominance, because again,
• 55:54
  Speaker 2: she can always she can always do the uh, the
• 55:57
  Speaker 2: sudden death or the fatality, which is start crying, but
• 56:02
  Speaker 2: she's he's maintaining his position.
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: Now.
• 56:04
  Speaker 2: I'm glad he got out of the Oh. Any kind
• 56:07
  Speaker 2: of defensive response to her saying he's a useless man
• 56:11
  Speaker 2: like I got. He got out of that, like I'm
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: probably the best way to approach that would just be
• 56:15
  Speaker 2: laugh and continue. Yeah, he's not even not even reference
• 56:19
  Speaker 2: it at all, not even say anything that looks like
• 56:22
  Speaker 2: you're trying to defend your usefulness to this person. Okay,
• 56:27
  Speaker 2: let's let's keep going.
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: So for context, so you're talking about Stephen Crowder because
• 56:30
  Speaker 1: this is interesting because Andrew laid out that Rachel was
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: with like abusive men in the past who were like,
• 56:39
  Speaker 1: you know, bad fathers, bad boyfriends, husbands. I don't know
• 56:43
  Speaker 1: if they were married to her, and I think they
• 56:45
  Speaker 1: were she was married before. Maybe don't don't quote me
• 56:48
  Speaker 1: on that. Not sure it doesn't matter, but essentially she
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: Rachel has abuse in her history, Andrew is her husband now.
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: And this woman brings up like, you know, these men
• 56:59
  Speaker 1: that are around Rachel that like whether or not they
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: are also like dangerous or violent, you know, like this
• 57:06
  Speaker 1: implication that, well, Rachel was with violent guys, so why
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: are you bringing violent guys around her? Right? And he's like,
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: they're not right, And so she mentioned Steven Crowder because
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: you guys, remember there was this viral video clip from
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: a ring camera that Stephen Crowder's wife Hillary Crowder, put
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: out on the Internet of them having an argument. Nothing happened,
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: they just had like, you know, strong words for each other.
• 57:31
  Speaker 1: I've had arguments like this with Lindsay. Everyone's probably had
• 57:34
  Speaker 1: arguments like this. It was pretty mild, but it was
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: emotionally framed by his wife, who knew they were being
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: recorded and basically like played it up a bit to
• 57:44
  Speaker 1: make it seem like she was in more danger than
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: she was. And on top of that, she was pregnant
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: at the time, So like canas Owan's made a big
• 57:54
  Speaker 1: thing about it and like said, you know, basically like
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: completely condemned for the clip. And all of these other
• 58:03
  Speaker 1: women online were like all on board. Apparently, according to
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: Andrew and Pearl, who infiltrated it, Hillary Crowder is in
• 58:13
  Speaker 1: like a secret like x Space, like a like a
• 58:16
  Speaker 1: friend group there. It's like a whisper network of like
• 58:19
  Speaker 1: her and like a bunch of other women like Lauren
• 58:21
  Speaker 1: Southern and Chrissy Mayer and stuff. And they were all
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: like talking about this and they were all in on it.
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: It was like the thing to expose him, but none
• 58:31
  Speaker 1: of it, nothing came of it. And and Crowder has
• 58:34
  Speaker 1: been very like, you know, upfront about everything that was
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: going on. He said he never laid a finger on
• 58:40
  Speaker 1: her and all that. But this is like important context
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: because the people like Charlie here will say that he
• 58:47
  Speaker 1: was violent to his wife, even though there was nothing
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: of the sort. It was an argument. Men have arguments
• 58:53
  Speaker 1: sometimes sometimes with women, and that there's nothing wrong with that.
• 58:58
  Speaker 1: But this is what she's trying to do, and Andrew's
• 59:00
  Speaker 1: going to defend Stephen, which I think is right.
• 59:04
  Speaker 2: So yeah, well I'll give my interpretation here. She's trying
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: to claim Rachel's vulnerability and claim ownership of it now
• 59:15
  Speaker 2: that she's made the mistake of bringing all of this up,
• 59:20
  Speaker 2: and she's made a mistake by starting and attacking Rachel,
• 59:25
  Speaker 2: because that's actually in a threat narrative context where Andrew
• 59:29
  Speaker 2: is stronger, like, if you attack a man's wife, you
• 59:34
  Speaker 2: are going to be seen as much more of a
• 59:35
  Speaker 2: threat than if you attack a man. And now he's
• 59:39
  Speaker 2: done this thing where he said, well, you're bringing up
• 59:41
  Speaker 2: things that are hurtful to my wife. And now she's
• 59:44
  Speaker 2: trying to reclaim ownership over Rachel's vulnerability and by extension,
• 59:50
  Speaker 2: all women's vulnerability by framing him as a threat to
• 59:54
  Speaker 2: his wife because he's not safeguarding her safety with other men.
• 59:59
  Speaker 2: Do you see how that works?
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: M hmm.
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 2: Yeah. So she's she's now trying to position herself as
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 2: the advocate for Rachel's vulnerability, and that is pretty it's
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 2: a pretty you know, in the context of threat narrative. Me,
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 2: it's a pretty smart tactic. She's she looks very lazy,
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 2: but she's cunning. All right, all right, Jesus.
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 4: Christ, I mean that's what I mean, man, as you was, no, no, no, man.
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 3: What I mean man, is you just said that Stephen Crowder,
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 3: Stephen Crowder, you're saying that.
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 4: Step you were telling your wife's like you were you
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 4: are talking about.
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 2: She's really working it like that. She's working it. She's
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 2: working it. She's found he's dropped his guard. She's starting
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 2: to to push like he's hitting some ribs there, and
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 2: she is selling it. Notice she's pivoted to selling. Yeah, yeah,
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 2: she's she's trying. She's selling. I protect your wife better
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 2: than you because I'm a feminist, lesbian possible sayartist. I
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 2: don't know, but you know, like I am, I'm the
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 2: one who sees your wife's vulnerabilities. And you didn't even
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 2: see this. You let her be close to another man
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 2: who is who is who is aggressive or or or
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 2: a potential threat. And now she's just she's going with it.
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 2: She's she's taken a victory lap. Let's see what happens.
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 4: Stephen Crowder.
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 3: Stephen Crowder didn't lay a finger on his wife.
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 4: You are hanging out with the grinning, grinning.
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 2: Look at that. Never laid a finger on Okay, here's
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: a problem.
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 4: As far as we.
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 3: Fucking know, no, as far as she claimed publicly, you
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 3: fucking idiot, you don't even know anything about the case.
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: Okay, stupid.
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: Unfortunately, that feels very like a like a cathartic. But
• 1:01:55
  Speaker 2: when then this is this is how like psych psychos
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 2: get us. They'll accuse somebody of something, and then when
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 2: you address the accused accusation defensively, people think you're guilty.
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 2: So there's going to be a group of people who
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 2: thinks that something nefarious is happening with Rachel and her
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 2: husband and Stephen Crowder, which is ridiculous, but that's how
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 2: they get you. And that's why she's grinning and laughing
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 2: as a result of this, because in that context she
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 2: scored and going after her again her stupidity and reframing
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 2: her as vulnerable and weak only adds to her threat narrative,
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 2: framing she is stupid. Let's be frank, I'm not defending
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 2: her on that level, and I'm not even defending her.
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 2: I'm explaining what she's doing and how she's doing it.
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 2: So at this point, let's see what Let's see how
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 2: she responds to.
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: This all right? Statistically though, as a lesbian, she's the
• 1:03:02
  Speaker 1: most violent person in that room.
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that would have been a good thing to pivot to, Like,
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 2: you know, what are the rates of violence in lesbian relationships?
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 2: Why are you bringing this up with this?
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 1: Uh?
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 2: When Okay, that would be a good thing to pivot to,
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 2: to reframe it back on her potential threat and her
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 2: potential targeting of the innocent, So her bad intent. That's
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: not what happened. But he's sort of in a defensive space. Now,
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 2: let's see what Let's see what happens.
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 3: Can you tell me, can you tell me that Hillary
• 1:03:36
  Speaker 3: Crowder has said that Steven Crowder ever touched her? Ever?
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 3: Because she's probably then why are you making those allegations?
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 3: Because he got into it. He got into an argue
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 3: that he spoke to Shock. You support that, you said Shock.
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 3: You've been in worse arguments and relationships than that. I
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 3: guarantee it.
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 4: I haven't.
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 3: Oh my god, you keeople are the worst liars. You're
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 3: the worst liars, the most uncharitable. But good, good, good,
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 3: you just made an accusation that Steven Crowder.
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 2: You know why? I say that this is good for
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 2: for Angie to go into lying bad intent more more
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 2: imputations of bad intent. That is that is actually moving
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 2: it back into the threat narrative him or you want
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 2: to get it out entirely, but you can't because she's
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 2: a woman, right, She'll always have that that as of
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 2: persleeve of so neat.
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: That's like, to her credit, she hasn't gone there yet.
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 2: No, she hasn't, and as far as.
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 1: I know, she never does, uh to her credit, but
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 1: it just yeah, it could just be she just doesn't
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: have the like instinct. I don't know, but let's let's
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 1: keep going.
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 3: I said that he beat her up, total fucking lies,
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 3: said that he would hate Rachel Wilson, who's one of
• 1:04:58
  Speaker 3: his best friends. Right, you're a fucking idiot. You don't
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 3: know what you're talking about this whole night and you
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 3: you literally don't know what you're.
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 2: Talking I like this. I like this because they're both
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 2: sort of exiting the threatnarrative frame and now they're just
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 2: slinging shit, which is always fun. Yeah it's not very productive.
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: Though, No it's not. But but I mean he's look,
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 1: he's sticking up for Crowder, and that's good to see.
• 1:05:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 1: I think that. Yeah, I think that Crowder was treated
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 1: unfairly and as somebody who cares about false allegations. And
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 1: I know how women weaponize that shit in family courts,
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 1: especially because Hillary and Stephen got divorced, like you know,
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: shortly after that happened, or that came out. Yeah, I mean, like,
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: I think it's absolute bullshit to go along with this
• 1:05:51
  Speaker 1: lie because it is a lie. Even Hillary Crowder didn't
• 1:05:53
  Speaker 1: make this claim. So like this video went out and
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: then like a bunch of women saw it and speculated
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: on it, and then that became the story, the speculation.
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, And that's the power.
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: That hight night men too, by the way, but.
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: That's the power women have to spin a threat narrative.
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 2: And because not responding to a threat narrative is so dangerous,
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 2: like if men don't respond to saving women, you know,
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 2: women might die and they're pretty freaking vulnerable to the
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 2: natural world. So there, there's some there's some serious inborn
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 2: instinct there.
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 3: Okay, all right, literally, Chuck, just stop.
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 4: You're an embarrassment, Chuck, an evidence you would be like, no,
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 4: it's not. I watched your debates.
• 1:06:39
  Speaker 3: Well, Chuck, I'm surprised you didn't learn from any of them,
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 3: because good lord, it was a terrible showing for you
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 3: the whole night, and you really ended it with a
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 3: flourish Let me tell you.
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 4: I didn't come here to win.
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm because that wasn't gonna happen, not with.
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 4: Your fucking audience.
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 2: It's all she's a victim of the audience.
• 1:06:59
  Speaker 3: Yes, victim, a bunch of ditch licking horrors. What do
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 3: you want me to say?
• 1:07:03
  Speaker 4: I like that better than you.
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah you should.
• 1:07:07
  Speaker 1: Okay, it got personal.
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, if you want an analysis Again, she is making
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 2: herself out to be a victim of his audience. So
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 2: in a threat narrative sense, she believes she won because
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 2: she she is the bigger victim, and he is again moralizing,
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 2: but from a position that she doesn't recognize moralizing is
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 2: the wrong way. She's he's he's saying that she is, well,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 2: she's insulting. He's insulting her in a way that doesn't
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 2: reduce her vulnerability. So she is she's she's the queen
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 2: of the vulnerability hill at this point. But really that,
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 2: like I said, women generally occupy that space just by roads,
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 2: So who knows what she's really winning. Anyway, Let's keep going.
• 1:07:58
  Speaker 1: Well, I can and this like, we can get because
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: I don't know if there's more of that, but I
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: can get to the part where Rachel calls in, or
• 1:08:06
  Speaker 1: we can.
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, let's get this too. Yeah a little before what
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 2: what what's what's the rest of this.
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 1: Argument over there's like more where Andrew defends his worldview,
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: and then there's Andrew hypocrit.
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 2: Is At any point, is she defending what she chose
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 2: to do? Uh, well, yeah, she attacked his family. Yeah,
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 2: and she attacked the by standard innocent bystander, and Rachel
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 2: wasn't involved in this, and she did it in a
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 2: way that actually was potentially harmful, right, because she's trying
• 1:08:47
  Speaker 2: to impugne this kind of moral failure. And then he
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 2: comes back with, well, actually she was severely abused by
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 2: her ex partners or one of the ex partners, you know,
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 2: and and she sort of steps in it there. But this,
• 1:08:59
  Speaker 2: like it's like Andrew has to answer for the hypocrisy
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 2: of his worldview. Andrew has to answer for whatever this,
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 2: that and the other thing, and she doesn't have to
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 2: answer for, you know, being meaned bystanders, like people aren't
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 2: even involved in this. Like that's just that's interesting to
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 2: me that it's always framed in terms of his worth
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 2: not hers. Okay, let's let's go to Rachel calls in,
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 2: because maybe maybe that this is all turns the time.
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 1: That yeah, well this is like how you turn the tables, yes, tables.
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 2: Now that the turntables turn Rachel, can you hear me?
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 1: Yes?
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 2: I don't know why discord wasn't working, So we're just
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 2: gonna do it via the phone.
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: Do you want to say anything?
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 2: Okay?
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 7: Yeah?
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 5: Am I coming to through? Okay?
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 1: Yes?
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 6: Okay, Well I guess I'm just going to ask her
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 6: the same question kind of that Andrew asked her, which
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 6: is I mean, she's said all this stuff about me
• 1:10:02
  Speaker 6: that she got completely wrong.
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 5: But what is it that you think and her or
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 5: I are doing that is wrong or hypocritical?
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 2: Ah, she's pulling it back into where she was weak.
• 1:10:16
  Speaker 2: And this is woman to woman combat, so this should
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 2: be fun. I'm excited. Let's see. Let's see Rachel's chops
• 1:10:23
  Speaker 2: and the threat narrative for Rena.
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 4: Okkay, I do feel that with your guys's platforms, what
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 4: you do is Rachel, I'm gonna be honest with you.
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 4: I'm not familiar with your platform. I'm only familiar with
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 4: your husband's. But well, hey man, I was trying to
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 4: prove my point.
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 3: I was, well, no, no, you weren't.
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 2: You were attacking somebody in But she's pivoted. She's pivoted,
• 1:10:49
  Speaker 2: you know, she's pivoted to reframing Rachel as a threat
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 2: your platforms and what you're doing, the evil that you
• 1:10:57
  Speaker 2: are perpetuating with your platform that's framing Rachel is a threat.
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 2: So it's a it's a it's she's so like lazy,
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 2: it's hard to say that. It's like a good salvel
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 2: because she's like, I don't know, the lazy master of
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 2: threat narrative, Like she's trying to barely make an effort,
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 2: like life is exhausting her.
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: So well, communists are lazy. So yeah, it's it is,
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 1: it is what it is.
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 6: Okay again, did you know did somebody tell you that
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 6: Andrew like hates on single moms and like ships on them,
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 6: and so you thought that because he's married to me
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 6: and I had kids before I marry him, that like
• 1:11:36
  Speaker 6: he's a bad Christian, Like I don't understand what that's.
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 2: A little defensive.
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 5: What did he do wrong? And what did I do wrong?
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: Okay, that's maybe, but like before she wants to counter argument,
• 1:11:48
  Speaker 1: she needs to understand what Charlie's argument is, and maybe
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 1: she's going to like orter in or not, because if
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: Charlie was just saying, you know, well you're with a
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: single moms and that implies that Andrews has hate single moms,
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 1: which I don't hate single moms. I think that there's
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 1: data that says that single motherhood is bad, but that
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 1: doesn't mean I hate single mothers. That's an important distinction.
• 1:12:21
  Speaker 2: Can you honestly say that a single motherhood is an
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 2: abusive choice? Like if you choose, if you are, go ahead,
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 2: If you are not, like you're not having a child
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 2: with a man who is committed to you and committed
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: to the idea, why are you having a kid?
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 3: No?
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 1: I get that, but like in Rachel's case, it wasn't like,
• 1:12:47
  Speaker 1: you know, I'm not saying that that's the case.
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 2: Like it sounds like she's talk about, yeah, she got
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 2: a commitment, man wanted a child, and something really went sideways,
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 2: and that happens. But that is not the no.
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: No, And again I can condemn behavior without hating the person.
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 1: But we're talking about that, right, hate to say not
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: the sinner so but but I mean that's what it
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: is though, because like, ultimately, whether or not a single
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: mom made the choice to become a single mom was irresponsible,
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: was you know, immature? And this is like, yes, this
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 1: is a very common problem. And I think that there
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 1: should be ways to like curtail that behavior. And I
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 1: don't like that behavior, and I don't like the consequences
• 1:13:35
  Speaker 1: of that behavior. That doesn't mean I hate them. So
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: if somebody says to me, you hate single moms, I'm
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 1: just saying, no, I hate single motherhood. I hate the
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 1: idea that there are children being raised without fathers, But
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 1: I don't hate those women, even if they did it
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 1: to themselves. I think that there there should be, you know,
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 1: some acknowledgement of this as a reality. There could be
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 1: shame if that will help to tail the behavior, and
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 1: but then ultimately there has to be something done about that.
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: And once the child is in the world with the
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 1: single mom, there's something has to be done about that
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 1: situation too. So if if someone if there's a way
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: to take care of it so that that child grows
• 1:14:16
  Speaker 1: up and they're semi functional and they don't end up
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 1: joining a gang or getting pregnant as a teenager or
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 1: going to jail or whatever, then that's we're all better
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: for that. So yeah, I mean, it's a it's like
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 1: it's it's not as simplistic as Charlie makes it out
• 1:14:31
  Speaker 1: to be. But Charlie's trying to score points. She's not,
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 1: you know, that's that's what she's doing.
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 2: So well, can we like it can be I mean,
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 2: you can at any point decide to change the trajectory
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 2: of your life, yes, and be lauded for that.
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 2: And you can be a person like like Andrew who
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 2: decides to help somebody out who is sort of put
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 2: themselves in or through no fold of their own, has
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 2: ended up in a bad situation. You can be lauded
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 2: for that too. Okay, let's let's hear what goes on,
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 2: all right, So.
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 4: The basis of anyone, the basis of Andrew's platform is
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 4: essentially to make women look stupid and humiliate them.
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 2: A threat narrative right there, bad intent, aggression. And of
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 2: course we can't acknowledge Andrew's vulnerability. Remember that one instant Kathy,
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 2: I think Kathy Young wasn't you know Kathy Young Kathy
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 2: Newman versus Peterson. Yes, yeah, you're confused, And he said, well,
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 2: what about my experience? You know, it's been very uncomfortable,
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 2: and she was just like sat there and blinked for
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 2: a while. That's because he threw his vulnerability into the ring.
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 2: And that's like not something that women expect from men,
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 2: because men are not allowed to do that, because that
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 2: means you're threatening your identity of useful to women and
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 2: that and men are always supposed to be beholden to
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 2: that identity. They're always supposed to be defensive around that identity,
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 2: and to treat any kind of threat to that identity
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 2: is more important than anything else, which is maybe a
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 2: little bit why Andrew pivoted into defending it. But yeah,
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 2: that was that was like, that is the first time
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 2: I think that might be the only time I've seen
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 2: a man force a woman to acknowledge his experience of
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 2: her behavior in public like that. And again, like Kathy
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 2: Newman nearly went total blue screen of death as a
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 2: result of it. It's fascinating, but that's not what's happening here.
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 2: But what's happening here is that she's reframing everything again
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 2: in terms of threat, that Andrew's a threat to women
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 2: because he deliberately goes out to humiliate them, et cetera.
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 2: So let's let's let's see what how Rachel responds strongs,
• 1:17:04
  Speaker 2: he doesn't.
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: Even need the help, but go on, sorry, sorry.
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 2: What the heck? They have their own technical difficulties.
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 1: He has a soundboard like I do. That's all.
• 1:17:24
  Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, I lost my train of thought.
• 1:17:30
  Speaker 3: The whole world, the little world.
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 1: You were saying that Andrew's whole purpose is to make
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 1: women look dumb and stupid.
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 4: But that's how his like, that's how his his thing
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 4: works as he goes on debate shows. A lot of
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 4: the time it's young women, people with no formal debate experience,
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 4: such as mine, why do they.
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 1: Go into it? So now she's putting herself in the
• 1:17:50
  Speaker 1: same category as those are the women, the people with
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 1: no debates experience, such as myself. So now she's one
• 1:17:57
  Speaker 1: of those hoes whatever podcast. But that puts her in
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 1: the vulnerable position even though she chose to go on
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 1: here and do this one on one.
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 2: It doesn't matter.
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it matters. It does not.
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 2: And this is why they always go after Oh, you
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 2: can't you can't talk about women putting themselves in a
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 2: vulnerable position because that reframes a woman's vulnerability from a
• 1:18:20
  Speaker 2: power in and of itself to something she needs to
• 1:18:23
  Speaker 2: take responsibility for, not men. Right, that's and so it
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 2: does like her mindset, it doesn't matter that she's putting
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 2: herself into that position. What matters is that she's vulnerable,
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 2: and Andrew isn't responding the way a useful man should respond, right,
• 1:18:39
  Speaker 2: And that's the narrative framing that she's creating, and it
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 2: is powerful. But let's see how Rachel responds.
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 4: Looks stupid, clip farm and then gain money and notoriety
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 4: this way, he doesn't engage in real, thoughtful debate. I've
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 4: seen people walk off from debating him because she's.
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 7: You can't just shot down five hundred things.
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 2: So, okay, did you not have agency?
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 7: The do you not have agency when you accepted this
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 7: debate with Andrew?
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah?
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 6: I did?
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 7: Okay, How then what did he do wrong?
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 5: Do you want him to treat you like?
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 4: Oh?
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 6: Like because you're a feminist, So do you want him
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 6: to only debate men? Because if he did that.
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 7: You'd say, oh, he's a misogynist.
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 6: You won't even debate women because he doesn't take them seriously.
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 7: Enough or whatever.
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 3: Like you guys, Yeah, this is.
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 6: This is.
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 2: She doesn't give a crap about principles or hypocrisy. She's
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 2: just operating on a threat narrative frame. So she's thinking
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 2: about what's going on and how to reframe it in
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 2: terms of I'm vulnerable, Andrew is a threat and he's
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 2: also the devil. But let's see, like and Andrew, like
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 2: I understand the impulse that Rachel is doing because she
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 2: probably is a woman who wants to operate in the
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 2: position of honor and logic to a degree at least now,
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 2: you know, like whatever has happened to her in the past,
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't. What I meant by that is,
• 1:20:06
  Speaker 2: I don't know, you know, at this point in time,
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 2: I don't know.
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 1: I mean like I don't know, Like like it doesn't matter.
• 1:20:13
  Speaker 1: We're not We're not to get into Rachel's whole history
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: like people exactly have in their past.
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
• 1:20:19
  Speaker 2: You know, there now is logic, reason and accountability. And
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 2: that's not the framework that she's that this woman is
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 2: operating in. She is purely operating in the threat narrative
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 2: framework of I am vulnerable, and I'm going to present
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 2: everybody I don't like it's a threat who has negative
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 2: intent and thus destroy them socially. So let's see what
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 2: she how her responds to that, how she responds to that.
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 7: Stupid Andrew can't make you look stupid if you're not.
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 5: And I would go on here, and I would.
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 6: Make you look ten times stupider because you're really really uninformed,
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 6: but really really confident about everything you say.
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 5: You do sound like a person with.
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 7: A college education.
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 6: My homeschooled thirteen year old can.
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 5: Explain, per capita. Okay, you are not a very smart person.
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 6: You're the one who put yourself in this position, and
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 6: since you lost and you got humiliated, you thought the
• 1:21:15
  Speaker 6: thing to do would be attacked me.
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 5: And okay, so let's go there.
• 1:21:19
  Speaker 6: Where did you get the idea that I'm permixed you with?
• 1:21:23
  Speaker 1: All right? So she said, you know you were losing,
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 1: so you came after me. So you tried to attack
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: Andrew through me?
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 2: Yeaheah, go ahead, No, no, Sirry, I apologize.
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 1: No, no, it's okay. I'm all I will say, like
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: real quick though, this is a real like this is
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 1: what a good woman will do. He like goes to
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 1: bat for him, And that seems like a very rare thing. Wow,
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: just like saying, whatever you think about Rachel, you know
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: she's got Andrew's back, and that's kind of like that
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 1: seems to be a rare thing, at least in this space.
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 1: You know, I mean, I know that Allison has Jonathan's back,
• 1:22:03
  Speaker 1: and Karen has her Man's back and Hannah. But like
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 1: generally this is rare, a rare thing.
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and you're right, even rare for like
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 2: a red pill space. Yeah, red pill groups have been
• 1:22:16
  Speaker 2: imploded by a psycho woman.
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 4: Okay, well, that you're promiscuous. Sorry, you just also said
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 4: a bunch of shit that I was trying to keep
• 1:22:27
  Speaker 4: track of.
• 1:22:28
  Speaker 7: You said that I'm promiscuous.
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 1: So she's looking with a.
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 4: Lot of people, right, I would say that I think
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 4: that having children with multiple men is uh. I think
• 1:22:43
  Speaker 4: that that is more significant then.
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 7: Okay, well, I think I.
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 6: Think it would be if and I know why people
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 6: are humans.
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 7: I do understand why people are human. They're just wrong
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 7: in your assumption.
• 1:22:54
  Speaker 5: It would be wrong if I had been sleeping with lots.
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 6: Of people, if I had been carelessly getting with random people.
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 5: That's not the case.
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 7: I just spent my entire adult life.
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 6: Only in three long term committed relationships, one of which
• 1:23:08
  Speaker 6: is an almost twenty.
• 1:23:10
  Speaker 5: Year relationship with Andrew.
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 7: Now we're like eighteen years then. I've been married since
• 1:23:14
  Speaker 7: twenty twelve. Prior to that, I was married for four
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 7: years as Andrew had to.
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 5: Unfortunately explain that ended not.
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 6: Even because I left, but because he beat the crap
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 6: out of me and was being pursued.
• 1:23:27
  Speaker 5: By the law and left the state. Until it was
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 5: like a band.
• 1:23:31
  Speaker 7: The first one was my high school boyfriend, all right.
• 1:23:33
  Speaker 1: So she explains that it's not because she's promiscuous, and
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 1: that she just is one of these people that, like
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 1: you said, was in a committed relationship and it went
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 1: sideways for whatever reason. Now she's not even trying to
• 1:23:48
  Speaker 1: defend her part to play in this, so we can
• 1:23:51
  Speaker 1: get into, like, we don't have to get into whether
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: or not she chose a man for the wrong reasons,
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 1: because we know women do that as well. They get
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 1: involved with men who are probably you know, antisocial, violent, whatever.
• 1:24:02
  Speaker 1: But the point is, though, is that she is basically
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 1: like explaining that her situation is nothing for Charlie or
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 1: Chuck here to make assumptions about, and it's incorrect. And
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: the thing is, too is it completely sort of dissolves
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 1: the what was implied by her suggesting that you know,
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 1: this whole marriage thing to Andrew, which is, you know,
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 1: you're a hypocrite because you got involved with a promiscuous
• 1:24:33
  Speaker 1: woman who has three kids from you know, different baby daddies,
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 1: and that makes you a hypocrite. And the red Pill
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 1: should you know, kick you out. And the Christian Nationalists
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 1: could kick you out or should kick you out, and
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: the Orthodox Church should kick you out. And you're fake,
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 1: and I don't need to listen to you. And I'm
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: also a victim of you, by the way, even though
• 1:24:52
  Speaker 1: I chose to come here. Yeah, debate you.
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 2: Well, she's just waiting for a way to reframe this
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 2: again in terms of Andrew's threat and his ill intense
• 1:25:02
  Speaker 2: So let's see what she does. Let's see how long
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 2: she with her five years, We had two children.
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 5: He had his own personal problems, and that did not
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 5: and that did not work out.
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 7: So I understand why people make the assumption. But the
• 1:25:16
  Speaker 7: truth is, I'm not promiscure.
• 1:25:18
  Speaker 5: I have an extremely low body count.
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 7: I've never had one right fance. I've never cheated on anyone.
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 7: I've never just carelessly or casually had sex ever.
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 5: So I've only ever been.
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 7: With men that I, at least at the time, felt
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 7: certain I was going to.
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 5: Be with forever and have a family with.
• 1:25:36
  Speaker 4: Maybe you should have nerved on the first two.
• 1:25:38
  Speaker 5: I didn't even nerved on the first two. I will admit.
• 1:25:42
  Speaker 3: I did wonder her hang on, Rachel, I did wonder
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 3: one thing.
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: If we're pausing there for the banana real quick, she had.
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 3: Slept with three men but had aborted all of the children,
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 3: would she still be promiscuous?
• 1:25:54
  Speaker 4: M she would have lived her life. It would have
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 4: been better for her if she if.
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 3: She had only slept with three men but aborted her children,
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 3: which she hang on, Rachel, Oh.
• 1:26:06
  Speaker 1: This is good. Rachel is gonna get this is good.
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 1: This is good. Alse I think you're gonna like this,
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: So he says to her. The wait, let me ask
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 1: you hypothetically, if Rachel had gotten pregnant three times, because
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 1: she has, but she kept the children. But if she
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 1: got pregnant three times and instead of having the children,
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: she aborted those children, would you still consider her to
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 1: be promiscuous? And Chuck here says, well, I think she
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: would have lived a better life, like it would have
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 1: been better for her if she had aborted those kids.
• 1:26:39
  Speaker 3: Okay, well shop for a second. It would it be
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 3: the case? Was that too abusive? Shut up?
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 1: Rachel?
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 3: Was that too abusive? Charlie? So, Charlie, this is good too.
• 1:26:52
  Speaker 1: He told his wife to shut up. Obviously they have
• 1:26:54
  Speaker 1: a good thing going, so he can do that. And
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 1: he's trying to like invite Charlie to like frame this
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 1: as a threat narrative with his wife in the room. Right,
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 1: So what do you think, I'm I'm I just told
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: my wife to shut up? Is that abusive? Like you
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 1: third party that doesn't know anything about my relationship? Are
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 1: you gonna tell us like that we're wrong for that?
• 1:27:15
  Speaker 1: I think that's pretty good.
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 3: But anyway, tell me if she had aborted her children
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 3: with those three relationships, would she be less promiscuous or not?
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 4: I think that frankly, in my opinion, her life would
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 4: have been better school.
• 1:27:29
  Speaker 3: Would she be less promiscuous Charlie, Yes, yeah, she'd be
• 1:27:32
  Speaker 3: less permitted. Yeah, these people, Rachel, Rachel, you should have
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 3: killed You should have killed our kids, Rachel.
• 1:27:41
  Speaker 4: Maybe she should have.
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 7: I wouldn't have been so it's less promiscuous if I
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 7: kill the children.
• 1:27:50
  Speaker 4: I mean, you're not killing children, You're having an abortion.
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 5: Did you just say to me? Did you just say
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 5: to me that my wife would be.
• 1:27:58
  Speaker 7: Better if I had born my children?
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 4: I mean, and if I were in your shoes, I
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 4: would have had a better time doing that.
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 7: Wow, I regret to inform me or that I love
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 7: all of my children. I would never on a.
• 1:28:20
  Speaker 6: Wive groom, I would never wish that they weren't born,
• 1:28:23
  Speaker 6: even if there was some mild inconvenience to me along
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 6: the way, or maybe I had to do a little
• 1:28:29
  Speaker 6: work to raise them.
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 7: I love my children. I would never wish that they
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 7: had not been born, and I'm certain my life would not.
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 4: Would you deny? Would you deny that under patriarchy you
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 4: were seen as like a I hate that narrative.
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 2: She figured out where she's going in with a threat narrative.
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 2: Mm hmm.
• 1:28:50
  Speaker 1: Would you agree that under patriarchy?
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: Okay, she's trying to Again, what's interesting is she's and
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 2: this is what the sisterhood does. She's trying to herself
• 1:29:01
  Speaker 2: in a position of adjudicating or being responsible for Rachel's victimhood.
• 1:29:11
  Speaker 2: That's what she's doing right now. She's trying to say,
• 1:29:13
  Speaker 2: I understand your victimhood better than you do, which essentially
• 1:29:18
  Speaker 2: that's the way you neutralize another woman's opinion in the
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 2: threat narrative scheme of things, is that you can recognize
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 2: the victimhood of the other woman. So when you're creating
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 2: a threat narrative, you want to amplify your victimhood, your vulnerability.
• 1:29:35
  Speaker 2: If you say I am in position of being able
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 2: to see your vulnerability better than you do, that's like
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 2: a knockout in a threat narrative. In the threat narrative
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 2: battlefield between two men two women, you're basically saying to
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 2: that woman, you don't understand your own mind, and I
• 1:29:55
  Speaker 2: take your victimhood as my own. I have claimed you
• 1:30:00
  Speaker 2: the king on your chest page like you know, you
• 1:30:02
  Speaker 2: know what I mean, all right, I have claimed your
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 2: territory for my own. Okay, let's see what Let's see
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 2: what happens. Well, how the Rachel responds to this?
• 1:30:11
  Speaker 4: Would you deny that? That is, unfortunately the common the
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 4: common perspective.
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 5: I actually think it's people like you who think that
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 5: about me.
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 6: Andrew is a patriarch.
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 7: He is a patriarchist.
• 1:30:24
  Speaker 6: As you said, He's the one out here representing the patriarchy,
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 6: and he looked at my situation.
• 1:30:30
  Speaker 2: Yeah, so okay, now again I think that she's Charlie
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 2: is actually being successful here because it is patently true
• 1:30:41
  Speaker 2: that people men on that particular side of the aisle
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 2: do judge women like Rachel, Right, there's like, don't don't
• 1:30:49
  Speaker 2: marry single mothers, don't date single mothers, et cetera, et cetera,
• 1:30:52
  Speaker 2: et cetera. Now she could reframe it in terms of
• 1:30:57
  Speaker 2: her agency, in that I am happy that Andrew stepped
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 2: in and helped me, you know, overcome this aspect, you
• 1:31:08
  Speaker 2: know the mistakes that I made, or that if it
• 1:31:13
  Speaker 2: like the first relationship sounds like it was more of
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 2: less of a this is of a clearcut thing than
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 2: the second relationship. Like she could say something like that,
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 2: or she could say, you know, I don't think that
• 1:31:25
  Speaker 2: men on our side would judge me because of the
• 1:31:29
  Speaker 2: domestic violence that I experienced. But let's see, let's sorry,
• 1:31:33
  Speaker 2: let's let's see what she says. Let's see how she
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 2: frames it.
• 1:31:36
  Speaker 6: She is worth marrying because if I had been divorced
• 1:31:40
  Speaker 6: because I was a bitch, or because I was not submitsive,
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 6: or because I was a cheater, or because I was
• 1:31:46
  Speaker 6: mentally interestagious.
• 1:31:48
  Speaker 2: That's where she's going.
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 7: Normal reason that you do have a one I happened
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 7: to be an outlier.
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 2: Boredom is the usual reason. Boredom is literally, boredom is
• 1:32:01
  Speaker 2: the usual reason why women divorce. Boredom they just get bored.
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 2: They call it irreconcilable differences, but when they're in a
• 1:32:09
  Speaker 2: state with shared parenting, suddenly the very reconcilable differences become
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 2: very reconcilable. So I just want to put that out
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 2: there's boredom. That's the primary reason why women get divorced.
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 2: They get bored.
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 5: Okay, situation and despite the fact, and I've said this before,
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 5: I thought Andrew was way too this for me.
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 6: I tried to break up with them multiple times because
• 1:32:31
  Speaker 6: I thought he's got a great.
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 7: Life with no baggage.
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 6: Why was he you know, he could pick anybody, He
• 1:32:36
  Speaker 6: should pick someone else other than me.
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 5: That was my opinion.
• 1:32:39
  Speaker 6: He was the one who wood at me and said, no,
• 1:32:42
  Speaker 6: I really think your great wife's.
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 5: Material, great mom material. I know that based on the
• 1:32:47
  Speaker 5: fact that you're already a great mom.
• 1:32:49
  Speaker 6: Yeah, your situation isn't the best, but all things considered.
• 1:32:54
  Speaker 2: So she did, she did go there. She did express gratitude,
• 1:32:57
  Speaker 2: which is very powerful when it comes to threat neartives,
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 2: because threat nerves.
• 1:33:01
  Speaker 1: Are like and humility. Because she didn't, you know, it
• 1:33:05
  Speaker 1: wasn't like she was like, well this, these men need
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 1: to step up, and no, she said, I didn't think
• 1:33:10
  Speaker 1: I deserved this, Like I there was like, no, I
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: shouldn't have gotten this. I tried to break up with
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 1: him because it's like, no way is he gonna want
• 1:33:19
  Speaker 1: to be with somebody like me and all the baggage
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 1: that I have, And yet he still did. So I
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 1: think that's commendable and I think that that's got a
• 1:33:27
  Speaker 1: lot of value.
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 2: Hm anyway, sorry, oh sorry, yes, next, I'm the cats
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 2: making me not fine?
• 1:33:42
  Speaker 6: Was that awesome?
• 1:33:43
  Speaker 7: Isn't that cool?
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 6: What a good guy? And he was a great success
• 1:33:48
  Speaker 6: and he loved all the kids.
• 1:33:50
  Speaker 5: He never treated the older ones like they were any different.
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 6: Uh you know, he never there was never any drama
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 6: with him, like, you know, talking bad about their gay
• 1:34:00
  Speaker 6: or anything. He was a great Night's a great guy.
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 6: And it turns out that you're the one who thinks
• 1:34:06
  Speaker 6: I should have killed my kids. You would rather party
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 6: and have fun and get bullshit degrees than creation and
• 1:34:12
  Speaker 6: beings are going to go off.
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 3: And create the pature.
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 4: Yeah I would.
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 6: It turns out it turns out that you are the hateful, selfish,
• 1:34:20
  Speaker 6: awful one to lie about people.
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 2: She's making herself the victim again.
• 1:34:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but but Rachel also sort of like framed her
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: as the aggressor on her children.
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 2: Yes, well yes, yes, threat narrative. She's an aggressor on
• 1:34:40
  Speaker 2: my children. She wants them dead. She is the hateful one,
• 1:34:44
  Speaker 2: right like this is this is she's she's she is
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 2: actually fighting back the way women do. And let's see,
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 2: let's see if Charlie can salvage this or if she's
• 1:34:55
  Speaker 2: going down with her ship.
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 6: All right, you don't know what saying multiple people of millions,
• 1:35:03
  Speaker 6: you're willing to lie millions.
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 7: I know.
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 4: It that you did not shows merely go that far.
• 1:35:14
  Speaker 4: I've also already had people spread clips around me that
• 1:35:17
  Speaker 4: got hundreds of thousands of yews, and it.
• 1:35:19
  Speaker 3: Was okay, fine, I'm just just letting you know that
• 1:35:24
  Speaker 3: she was saying something accurate that millions of people would
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 3: likely see this.
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 4: Yes, and forget tomorrow.
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 1: No, here we are a month later and we're still
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 1: reacting to it.
• 1:35:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, although we get, we get, we we we end
• 1:35:39
  Speaker 2: up we're pretty slow on the uptake. So yeah, yeah,
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 2: maybe we should be faster about that. Get on the
• 1:35:45
  Speaker 2: hot takes a little bit more quickly.
• 1:35:48
  Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you start by watching other videos. Yeah, you
• 1:35:56
  Speaker 1: start by consuming content. Okay, so.
• 1:36:00
  Speaker 2: I read, I read research articles. You know I'm doing
• 1:36:06
  Speaker 2: like I'm trying. I spent like a couple of weeks,
• 1:36:09
  Speaker 2: well maybe a week downloading c cv csv files from
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 2: like the New New York Times on bestseller list. Like
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 2: I'm consuming stuff. It's just not pop call. Yeah, I know,
• 1:36:22
  Speaker 2: it's not pop culture stuff I need.
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 1: Well, this is in pop culture stuff. This is like
• 1:36:26
  Speaker 1: these are like debates and conversations happening in spaces that
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 1: are parallel or even connected to ours, and people send
• 1:36:35
  Speaker 1: us stuff. Who's did somebody send you this?
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 4: No?
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 2: I found I located it sort of came across it.
• 1:36:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah. The reaction to this, yeah, which.
• 1:36:47
  Speaker 2: Like I put it through Coral and I was like, yeah, yeah,
• 1:36:49
  Speaker 2: is there any actual.
• 1:36:50
  Speaker 1: Course, No, it's just it's it's just Hassan Piker. He
• 1:36:54
  Speaker 1: doesn't he doesn't have anything to add. He's he has machines.
• 1:37:00
  Speaker 1: That's all. He's got these machines. So, and he's black pilled.
• 1:37:04
  Speaker 1: That's another one I got to add to my soundboard.
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, but I'm sorry right now, that's fine, Okay,
• 1:37:17
  Speaker 1: So do what do we?
• 1:37:19
  Speaker 4: What do we?
• 1:37:19
  Speaker 1: Is there more? I think is this the endless?
• 1:37:22
  Speaker 5: Here?
• 1:37:23
  Speaker 1: I think we're like getting to the end of Charlie.
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 2: Actually rejoins with anything all right, because she has anything
• 1:37:28
  Speaker 2: after this?
• 1:37:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah okay, but that wasn't.
• 1:37:32
  Speaker 4: But again, at the end of the day, do you
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 4: guys feel that the work that you do.
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 2: Women? So she's just pivoted away from what she did.
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 1: Well, no, well yeah she's yeah. So now she's just saying, like,
• 1:37:46
  Speaker 1: do you think that what you're doing is good? Like
• 1:37:49
  Speaker 1: do you think women will actually listen or something? Yeah,
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 1: maybe it doesn't.
• 1:37:55
  Speaker 4: It's Christian nationalism. Then being repulsed and disgusted.
• 1:38:00
  Speaker 3: It's not all about women, is it. It's all about women.
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 4: I mean, if we're talking about helping women.
• 1:38:06
  Speaker 3: We're not just talking about helping women.
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 1: Though.
• 1:38:08
  Speaker 3: I think helping men is.
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 4: Helping helping men. I think helping men way from from well,
• 1:38:12
  Speaker 4: hang on healthy partners.
• 1:38:14
  Speaker 3: Normal healthy partners, which is too high or they've done that? Yeah, yeah,
• 1:38:19
  Speaker 3: you chance.
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 1: Okay, I'm just pausing there. Okay, was going to say something.
• 1:38:24
  Speaker 2: Yeah, no, let's listen to who.
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 5: Why I do this?
• 1:38:27
  Speaker 6: Yeah, go ahead, if I may, so the reason I
• 1:38:30
  Speaker 6: do what I do, which you said, you don't know
• 1:38:32
  Speaker 6: what I do, so I'll tell you. I write a
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 6: history book about the history of women's liberation, and I
• 1:38:38
  Speaker 6: regret to informing.
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 5: That you don't know anything about it.
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 7: You don't actually know how.
• 1:38:42
  Speaker 5: The movement happened, why the movement happened. You were under
• 1:38:45
  Speaker 5: the impression that women couldn't get educated.
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 6: I'm sure you're the average dope who thinks women, you know,
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 6: were change to.
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 7: The stove, couldn't leave the house.
• 1:38:54
  Speaker 6: You were just use and abuse by the evil patriarchy
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 6: who just for some reason wanting to.
• 1:38:58
  Speaker 5: Enslave them and make them in decide up.
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 6: With blah blah blah, the stereotypical bullshit. Did all you
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 6: female liberals and everybody else pretty much believe?
• 1:39:07
  Speaker 3: Well, I wrote a best.
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 7: Selling book correcting the historical record, and that's what I do.
• 1:39:13
  Speaker 5: I'm more of a historian.
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 7: And then I do argue with feminists like you, because
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 7: what you'll do to men like.
• 1:39:19
  Speaker 6: My husband and to Brian is instead of win the arguments,
• 1:39:22
  Speaker 6: which you cannot. You can't win the debate.
• 1:39:24
  Speaker 7: You don't know what you're doing.
• 1:39:26
  Speaker 6: You're an absolute boneheaded. So what you do is attack
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 6: them personally like you did Steven Crowder.
• 1:39:32
  Speaker 2: What she does is meritis.
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah, you can see right through it.
• 1:39:37
  Speaker 6: Yeah, Brian and Andrew, because that's what all of you
• 1:39:40
  Speaker 6: do after you leave the show, after you get your
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 6: ask kick, go over the place.
• 1:39:44
  Speaker 4: Well, BRI's ben So I'm not going to say about Brian.
• 1:39:47
  Speaker 1: I know it's just.
• 1:39:47
  Speaker 3: Andrew smokingmand bad.
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 5: I'm here to defunct your nonsense and keep families togeter.
• 1:39:53
  Speaker 5: I don't give a shit.
• 1:39:54
  Speaker 6: I'm not willing to sacrifice children's and children's lives on
• 1:39:58
  Speaker 6: the altar of.
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 5: Women's feelings anymore.
• 1:40:01
  Speaker 7: Women like you who think.
• 1:40:02
  Speaker 6: They're expendable, who think they need to be killed in
• 1:40:06
  Speaker 6: the wounds so that you can party, Women like you who.
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 7: Think that the family can be a bunch.
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 6: Of gay dudes having designer babies together, women like you
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 6: who destroyed society.
• 1:40:15
  Speaker 5: And made this world a nightmare.
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 6: I'm here to quit your ideas in the grave where
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 6: they belong, once and for all.
• 1:40:24
  Speaker 7: So I'm here to support the patriarch, and how like
• 1:40:26
  Speaker 7: kind of like the secretary to help the patriarchy.
• 1:40:29
  Speaker 5: And I just happen to be really fucking good at it.
• 1:40:31
  Speaker 7: So if you ever want to talk more.
• 1:40:33
  Speaker 5: Shift let me no one. I'll set up a debate
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 5: with you, and.
• 1:40:36
  Speaker 7: I'll make you look ten times stupider. Than even anger has.
• 1:40:40
  Speaker 5: Okay, you should put you're the one.
• 1:40:42
  Speaker 6: You're the one who should get back in the kitchen
• 1:40:43
  Speaker 6: because you're useless.
• 1:40:45
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 1: Oh wow, she can cook ramen. I don't know anyway, Yeah,
• 1:40:54
  Speaker 1: it gets it gets spicy.
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 2: But I wonder, I just I'm curious if she has
• 1:40:58
  Speaker 2: any rejoinder for this.
• 1:41:00
  Speaker 5: Okay, what do you contribute to society?
• 1:41:03
  Speaker 7: Nothing?
• 1:41:04
  Speaker 4: Well, I can't book, so they should probably not put
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 4: me back in the kitchen because I'd burn the house down.
• 1:41:10
  Speaker 4: You can learn, no no interest in it.
• 1:41:14
  Speaker 6: I'm gonna let you guys finish her off because I've
• 1:41:16
  Speaker 6: said everything that I need to say.
• 1:41:17
  Speaker 7: But ye know, well you shouldn't lie that's up about
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 7: people that you.
• 1:41:20
  Speaker 4: Don't know, Rachel, that's not very probably would well, I'm
• 1:41:26
  Speaker 4: not a Christian, Rachel. I would be interested in talking
• 1:41:29
  Speaker 4: to you if you ever wanted to debate, because I am.
• 1:41:34
  Speaker 4: I am interested in what you have to say about
• 1:41:35
  Speaker 4: women's liberation and the history of women's right.
• 1:41:38
  Speaker 3: Why is she going to debate you? Second you're out
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 3: of here. All are you going to do is talk
• 1:41:41
  Speaker 3: shit about her husband like he did Stephen Crowder when
• 1:41:43
  Speaker 3: he wasn't here.
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 4: Well, she said it, Yeah, Stephen, what am I going
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 4: to get the chance to talk to Stephen Crowder?
• 1:41:48
  Speaker 3: But why would I ever write to Steve? Why do
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 3: you think it's okay on a public podcast that has
• 1:41:53
  Speaker 3: thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people watching right this
• 1:41:56
  Speaker 3: second to make those disparaging and horrible fucking reference to
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 3: Stephen Crowder. He's Look, maybe you can say that I'm
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 3: a bad man, that's Smoky Man bad, but you can't
• 1:42:06
  Speaker 3: say that about Steven Crowder. He's the opposite. Like that
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 3: guy is fucking He's one of the greatest guys I've
• 1:42:12
  Speaker 3: ever met in my life.
• 1:42:13
  Speaker 4: Well, first off, my misconsented, all.
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 1: Right, So I mean he is. It is good too,
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 1: because again he's sticking up for a guy who isn't
• 1:42:23
  Speaker 1: there to defend himself, yep, and he is putting her
• 1:42:27
  Speaker 1: in the He's basically saying, you have a platform that
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 1: millions of people are going to see, and you're using
• 1:42:33
  Speaker 1: it to slander a man who can't defend himself. And
• 1:42:37
  Speaker 1: I think that's you can say it about me because
• 1:42:40
  Speaker 1: I'm here, but you can't say it about him because
• 1:42:42
  Speaker 1: he's not.
• 1:42:43
  Speaker 2: So yeah, well, I think the threaten narrative is over.
• 1:42:50
  Speaker 2: I guess she just gave up on it or something
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 2: or descended into her own lacissitude. She doesn't seem like
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 2: she wants to make an effort for much, So that's uh, yeah, well,
• 1:43:03
  Speaker 2: I mean I think that it's uh, I don't think
• 1:43:07
  Speaker 2: we can actually get to the to the arguments that
• 1:43:11
  Speaker 2: were actually made in this.
• 1:43:14
  Speaker 1: Uh sorry, I mean I didn't really want it to
• 1:43:18
  Speaker 1: just be about this, but like the I just told
• 1:43:21
  Speaker 1: you that this is like what everybody was talking about.
• 1:43:23
  Speaker 7: Yeah.
• 1:43:24
  Speaker 1: The thing is is that a lot of the other
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 1: stuff doesn't have a ton of substance. I mean, I guess,
• 1:43:29
  Speaker 1: or let's put it another way, it's not like it's
• 1:43:34
  Speaker 1: it's not like it's something that we haven't talked about before. Yeah.
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean we're gonna be doing a lot of that.
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 1: We could do another one on some of the more
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 1: subsistuente claims from earlier in the video.
• 1:43:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. Maybe we can do that on Friday. So
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 2: I don't want to belabor this go too late. I
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 2: did a lot of work on actually reconstructing any kind
• 1:43:55
  Speaker 2: of an argument, because apparently this is just a fire
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 2: hose of not substantive points and I'm not calling out
• 1:44:04
  Speaker 2: Andrew because I don't think he's the reason why that's
• 1:44:09
  Speaker 2: that's the case, shall we say? But yeah, I managed
• 1:44:12
  Speaker 2: to reconstruct, you know, like a nine ten substantive arguments
• 1:44:18
  Speaker 2: that we could respond to and also look at from
• 1:44:22
  Speaker 2: a threat narrative framework as well to see what Charlie
• 1:44:26
  Speaker 2: Charlie is actually up to, because I don't think people
• 1:44:29
  Speaker 2: really get a good grasp on what she thinks she's
• 1:44:33
  Speaker 2: doing and what she's actually at what she's doing in
• 1:44:36
  Speaker 2: terms of framing things in terms of like the social
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 2: understanding of these issues. I don't think she actually is
• 1:44:46
  Speaker 2: failing as much as people think she is in that context.
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 2: But that's that's for another day. I want to give
• 1:44:54
  Speaker 2: a big thank you to everybody. I'm gonna do the
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 2: unless you have some final thoughts. Brian. While I struggle with.
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 1: My mouse, no, I got a super chat from the
• 1:45:04
  Speaker 1: Zerix thinking Zaranks gave us five dollars and said, I'm
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 1: glad she admitted she'd burn the house down. I would
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 1: have said she burned the water trying to make Ramen.
• 1:45:14
  Speaker 1: Thank you. She probably just orders in. You know, she
• 1:45:17
  Speaker 1: lives in California, so I'm sure she just gets carry
• 1:45:20
  Speaker 1: out or you know, despite being a lesbian, she probably
• 1:45:23
  Speaker 1: has guys that'll buy food for her. She's not a
• 1:45:26
  Speaker 1: bad looking young lady, so you know, there's no reason
• 1:45:29
  Speaker 1: why she wouldn't exploit it regardless. You know, there's a
• 1:45:32
  Speaker 1: simp born every minute. But yeah, thank you for that,
• 1:45:36
  Speaker 1: Zaraenx And I think that's it so well.
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 2: I mean, like what I would say about this is,
• 1:45:41
  Speaker 2: I think it's important to look through because I believe
• 1:45:44
  Speaker 2: that at least I do come from this from a
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 2: different perspective than Andrew or Rachel or Red Pills. I
• 1:45:52
  Speaker 2: don't think that conservatism or whatever brand of traditional and
• 1:45:57
  Speaker 2: I don't want to say traditional because he's in paleo patriarchy,
• 1:46:01
  Speaker 2: I think it was. I don't think that the umbrella
• 1:46:06
  Speaker 2: of conservatism or the umbrella of liberalism is going to
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 2: solve the issues that our society is facing. I think
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 2: men's issues, addressing men's issues is going to solve that.
• 1:46:19
  Speaker 2: Like I am a men's issues purist, I think that
• 1:46:23
  Speaker 2: it's not an issue, not just an issue of solving
• 1:46:25
  Speaker 2: these issues for men. I think our society has these
• 1:46:28
  Speaker 2: problems and we need to solve them, and we need
• 1:46:30
  Speaker 2: to focus on that or we are not going to
• 1:46:33
  Speaker 2: make progress. So I believe that other people from different
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 2: political positions, they say, my particular belief system is what's
• 1:46:41
  Speaker 2: going to solve the issue facing the world, and somebody
• 1:46:45
  Speaker 2: else might say my issue. But I think that that
• 1:46:48
  Speaker 2: occurs within a functioning, productive system, and I'm not sure
• 1:46:53
  Speaker 2: if we have that anymore. So I think that the
• 1:46:55
  Speaker 2: solution to what we see and the problems we see
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 2: is addressing men's issues full stop, like we got we gotta,
• 1:47:03
  Speaker 2: we got to addressmen's issues. We got to look at
• 1:47:07
  Speaker 2: the situation with a full understanding of what those issues are,
• 1:47:11
  Speaker 2: and we've got to start treating men as a resource
• 1:47:14
  Speaker 2: that deserve to be respected and cared for, and not
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 2: just because they're a resource, but also because they're half
• 1:47:23
  Speaker 2: the human race. And I don't I don't think it
• 1:47:26
  Speaker 2: speaks very well of us if we're incapable of extending
• 1:47:29
  Speaker 2: compassion to half of our numbers. So anyway, that's that's
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 2: my approach. I know it's different than conservatives, it's different
• 1:47:36
  Speaker 2: than other political positions because they would say the solution
• 1:47:39
  Speaker 2: is a branch of conservatism, whatever that is. A solution
• 1:47:44
  Speaker 2: is liberalism. Nope, the solution is actually taking care of
• 1:47:47
  Speaker 2: the men who are primarily responsible, the group of people
• 1:47:50
  Speaker 2: who are primarily responsible for the functioning of our society
• 1:47:53
  Speaker 2: at this point in time. Okay, having said that, I'm
• 1:47:58
  Speaker 2: going to do a big thank you to the great
• 1:48:01
  Speaker 2: indoors who put in one k.
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 1: Wow, thank you, great Indoors.
• 1:48:08
  Speaker 4: You did that.
• 1:48:11
  Speaker 2: He did that because the writer's retreat and I people,
• 1:48:16
  Speaker 2: and I just went through and watched the most horrendously
• 1:48:20
  Speaker 2: awful feminist film that I do not recommend anybody watch.
• 1:48:24
  Speaker 2: I think it's called Julian Dillman. It is three and
• 1:48:28
  Speaker 2: a half hours of as excruciating boredom punctuated by a
• 1:48:34
  Speaker 2: few moments of intense missingry. Don't watch it. I think
• 1:48:39
  Speaker 2: Sound and Lighting late voted it its top movie for
• 1:48:48
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty two. Do not believe them, my friends. It
• 1:48:52
  Speaker 2: is a terrible, terrible movie. Sight and Sound voted it
• 1:48:55
  Speaker 2: the top movie for twenty twenty two. Is not a
• 1:48:58
  Speaker 2: good movie. Don't watch it. If anybody, yeah, if if
• 1:49:06
  Speaker 2: anybody is in a position, well yeah, if anybody is
• 1:49:09
  Speaker 2: in a position where they have to gnaw off an
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 2: arm or watch this film, just consider that you have
• 1:49:18
  Speaker 2: two arms. So anyway, thank you. To the great indoors
• 1:49:23
  Speaker 2: for that, and thank you to everybody else to support it.
• 1:49:26
  Speaker 2: If you want to send a message, if you want
• 1:49:28
  Speaker 2: to tell voidcat to to you know, not do this,
• 1:49:34
  Speaker 2: you can do so it feed thebadgery dot com slash
• 1:49:36
  Speaker 2: just the tip at any point throughout the after the
• 1:49:39
  Speaker 2: show is over. You can also support the show at
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 2: feedbadger dot com slash support if you agree as I
• 1:49:44
  Speaker 2: do that what we need right now is to address
• 1:49:47
  Speaker 2: men's issues, because they're not just men's issues at this point.
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 2: There are society's issues, and society gonna go very far
• 1:49:54
  Speaker 2: if it keeps beating its plowhorse to death. And also,
• 1:50:00
  Speaker 2: so you know, a compassionate, truly compassionate spec you should
• 1:50:04
  Speaker 2: probably be able to extend compassion to half of its numbers. Anyway,
• 1:50:08
  Speaker 2: Feed the Badger dot com slash support to support us
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 2: if you want to do that, and you want to
• 1:50:12
  Speaker 2: keep this little guy this little girl in cans of food,
• 1:50:16
  Speaker 2: and I'll head it back to you Brian while I
• 1:50:17
  Speaker 2: attempt to do a squish.
• 1:50:19
  Speaker 1: All right, Well, if you guys like this video, please
• 1:50:22
  Speaker 1: hit like subscribe. If you're not already subscribed, hit the
• 1:50:25
  Speaker 1: bell notification, leave us a comment, let us know what
• 1:50:27
  Speaker 1: you guys think about what we discussed on the show today,
• 1:50:29
  Speaker 1: and please please please share this video because sharing is caring.
• 1:50:32
  Speaker 1: Thank you guys so much for coming on today's episode
• 1:50:35
  Speaker 1: of this We'll talk to you guys in the next one.