Latest / Honey Badger Radio / Rachel Wilson Ends the Debate, Feminists most affected

Transcript

Rachel Wilson Ends the Debate, Feminists most affected · Honey Badger Radio

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Good morning, good evening, good afternoon, wherever you may be,
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio.
• 0:05
  Speaker 2: My name is Brian.
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: I'm here with Allison, and this is Maintaining Frame. Rachel
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Wilson ends the debate, Feminists Most Affected, where we're going
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: to be— well, this was a request from Richard, our favorite
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: guy who makes requests— We're going to be looking at
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: two debates.
• 0:23
  Speaker 3: Oh, trust me.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: This is a full debate.
• 0:28
  Speaker 3: This is not Richard's request. Richard's request is Byrony.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Oh, you're right.
• 0:38
  Speaker 4: It is.
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 0:39
  Speaker 3: No, no, this is, this is, uh, this is nobody's request.
• 0:43
  Speaker 3: This is just something I dug up with my, um,
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: My voyage into the underbelly of... Well, I guess this
• 0:53
  Speaker 3: isn't underbelly stuff. This is the overbelly.
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: Is there an overbelly? The overbelly?
• 0:59
  Speaker 5: Yes.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: The unterbelly?
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: The uberbelly?
• 1:03
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Okay.
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: So anyway... There is.
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: An uberbelly in this. There is actually an uberbelly.
• 1:15
  Speaker 3: A mega belly even.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:17
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: Okay, so I'm sorry. I misspoke. Yes, you're right.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: Richard made the Bryony Claire request.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: Not the.
• 1:27
  Speaker 3: Which we'll attempt on Sunday. But yeah, this is... This
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: just came from me. I found it. This comes from
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: my tism, not someone else's.
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: This comes from the annals of cringe. Yeah.
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: Well, I don't think Rachel will necessarily... No, no.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Rachel's not that cringe.
• 1:49
  Speaker 3: No, no. But the other two might be ample sources
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: of cringe, among other things, that they might be amply
• 2:00
  Speaker 3: supplied of. Again, one of them is quite ample. Yeah,
• 2:06
  Speaker 3: but also vague. She comes from the vague dimension. Comes
• 2:12
  Speaker 3: to us from the vague dimension.
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: Large.
• 2:16
  Speaker 3: And, well, it's almost like the.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Not at all in charge.
• 2:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the quantum, you can either know the position or
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: the velocity. For her, you can either know the size
• 2:29
  Speaker 3: or the location, but not both in her universe. But anyway,
• 2:33
  Speaker 3: that's really esoteric. So let me get into... the things
• 2:38
  Speaker 3: if you like this then yes if you like i
• 2:40
  Speaker 3: was about to if you would like to do do
• 2:43
  Speaker 3: the things now if you would like to send us
• 2:45
  Speaker 3: a comment you can do so at feed the badger.com
• 2:48
  Speaker 3: slash just the tip that's feed the badger.com slash just
• 2:51
  Speaker 3: the tip very best way for you guys to send
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: us a comment and a tip with that comment because
• 2:57
  Speaker 3: youtube doesn't take its gigantic cookie monster bite out of
• 3:01
  Speaker 3: both So once again, that's FeedTheBadger.com slash JustTheTip. We are
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: also doing our monthly fundraiser with three full days left.
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: So if you want to support us, now is the
• 3:11
  Speaker 3: time at FeedTheBadger.com slash support. We have, I think, 3,800
• 3:17
  Speaker 3: to go. And so long way to get there.
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: Well, not too long. Now that you say that, I
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: keep forgetting to look into it, but there should be
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: a way to have like a, fundraising tracker on the
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: screen so people can see it.
• 3:34
  Speaker 3: Oh yeah, you're right. There should be.
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: And we've never done it.
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: I don't know if like... If that's worth it?
• 3:41
  Speaker 3: Yeah, probably.
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: It's probably worth it. I'll look into it. I'll look
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: into it. I'll look into it.
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: Probably it involves... It probably.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: Involves connecting it to Feed the Battery app.
• 3:52
  Speaker 3: Or just having... I could probably export.
• 3:58
  Speaker 3: Some short code and give it to you.
• 3:59
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: If it's something you can turn into a browser source,
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: then I can import it into OBS easily.
• 4:05
  Speaker 3: Well, it already is a browser source. I just have
• 4:07
  Speaker 3: to hand you the link, right? Yeah.
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: There you go.
• 4:09
  Speaker 3: But anyway, okay. But that, that is, that is show,
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: you know, we, we show you everything guys. We're completely transparent. Um,
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: and so once again, feed the badger.com slash support, if
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: you would like to support the show and badger nation. Online,
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: if you want to join us in our community, um,
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: And watch my travels into the desert of feminism in
• 4:35
  Speaker 3: search for their sources of anything, anything that they assert.
• 4:40
  Speaker 3: And the honest answer is their sources. Feminist sources amount to,
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: I feel it, therefore it is. That's what they've added
• 4:50
  Speaker 3: to the sum total of human knowledge.
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: That is the sum of it.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: Yep. All right.
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: So shall we get into it? I mean, like, honestly,
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: when you when you truly understand what feminism is, it's
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: really interesting to watch them debate because they have never
• 5:06
  Speaker 3: in their history actually based anything on facts or like
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: the way that you're supposed to. Like facts are supposed
• 5:15
  Speaker 3: to direct you towards an understanding of reality. they started
• 5:19
  Speaker 3: with a feeling of resentment and then cherry picked a
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: bunch of legal things in the past to justify it.
• 5:26
  Speaker 3: That's how they work, right? So debate is an interesting
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: thing with an animal such as that. I just wanted
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: to point that out. It's like trying to run a
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: race or win a race against a seal and except
• 5:44
  Speaker 3: it's judged by seals. The race is judged by seals
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: and it's a foot race, right? So you're on dry land.
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: Of course you're going to win because humans are, you know,
• 5:54
  Speaker 3: we walk on dry land and seals don't, but the
• 5:57
  Speaker 3: seals are the ones judging it. So anyway, okay. It
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: isn't a honey badger radio without some weird analogy that
• 6:07
  Speaker 3: doesn't make any sense from Alison. Okay. Let's get going.
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: All right, so what do you want to start with?
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Do you want to do Rachel Wilson versus Not So
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: Erudite or Rachel Wilson versus.
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: Versus the vague blob?
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: The other one.
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: The other. I forget her name, but she doesn't have
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: a presence.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: What did you call her?
• 6:27
  Speaker 3: Galactus?
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: No, no, yeah. Galactus.
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: No, Amanda.
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: That's her name.
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: Okay, all right.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: Amanda. Which one? Like the Amanda clip that you gave
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: me is about 13 minutes long.
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: The Not So Erudite is the full debate. It's two hours.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: But I did get Ivory Mind to give us some
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: noteworthy time codes.
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: Moments?
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 6:52
  Speaker 3: You know what? This might end up being longer than
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: just one show. Let's start with which one was better?
• 6:57
  Speaker 3: Not So Erudite or.
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: Better?
• 6:59
  Speaker 3: The Gigantus Quantum Particle.
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: What do you mean by better?
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: Like funnier?
• 7:06
  Speaker 3: Funnier? Okay, let's go with that. I understand that the
• 7:10
  Speaker 3: qualifications are difficult.
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: The Amanda debate is funny, frame one.
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: It starts off, I'm already laughing.
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: I get your problem because with debate you want facts
• 7:26
  Speaker 3: and sparring wit or sparring intellect. And with feminists, all
• 7:33
  Speaker 3: you get is repetition on the assertion that my feelings
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: are real. So, yeah, sure, let's go with Amanda. Let's
• 7:40
  Speaker 3: go with funny.
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: All right, let's start with Amanda.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: This one, I, yeah, it's not that long, so we
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: can just, this is a clip from a longer debate.
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: So let's see if the audio works. Yes, it does.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Okay, so let's just go ahead and play this bit.
• 7:56
  Speaker 6: The facts support the argument that feminism is better for society.
• 7:59
  Speaker 5: Well, do you think feminism.
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: Yes. Done.
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: We're done here.
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: Wait, what facts did she supply? Did she just saying
• 8:13
  Speaker 3: the facts supported or just did she supply facts?
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: She's well. Oh, first of all, how dare you ask
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: a woman to provide anything? She doesn't owe you her labor, but.
• 8:27
  Speaker 3: I'll find out. So this is just her slapping the
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: glove down, huh? Yeah, I think she's just slapping the
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: glove down.
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: Okay, all right.
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 8:36
  Speaker 5: Can you ask me questions then? Like, where do you
• 8:41
  Speaker 5: feel I'm failing to address your arguments?
• 8:44
  Speaker 4: Because I said feminism is better for society because this
• 8:51
  Speaker 4: is what feminism is.
• 8:52
  Speaker 6: It's equality, okay? It is equal opportunities and dignities. It
• 8:57
  Speaker 6: is not about sameness.
• 8:59
  Speaker 5: You keep going back to saying, how has that made
• 9:01
  Speaker 5: things better? So you're saying, I think these things are good.
• 9:05
  Speaker 5: I prefer them, but how has it improved society? And
• 9:08
  Speaker 5: can you give me some, because.
• 9:09
  Speaker 4: It's opened up a lot of opportunities for women to
• 9:12
  Speaker 4: do things like, Oh, I mean, we talked about, you
• 9:14
  Speaker 4: talked about this with Craig, write the code to put
• 9:17
  Speaker 4: us on the moon, you know, in what?
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: Okay. All right. So opening up equality is, has opened
• 9:29
  Speaker 3: up opportunities for women. All right, but what if that's
• 9:34
  Speaker 3: not actually, what if you're not somebody who thinks that
• 9:37
  Speaker 3: just opening up opportunities for women equals advantaging society, right?
• 9:44
  Speaker 3: First of all, what this usually comes off of is
• 9:49
  Speaker 3: this idea that if women are amply supplied with resources,
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: they will produce children, right? Okay, that's where that comes from,
• 9:56
  Speaker 3: that desire to give women stuff. So it was never equal.
• 10:01
  Speaker 3: that was really the aim it was just giving women
• 10:05
  Speaker 3: more resources because throughout our history that translated to more
• 10:09
  Speaker 3: children doesn't seem to now because the resources in the
• 10:13
  Speaker 3: past were actual you know food food yeah Safety, hides,
• 10:21
  Speaker 3: bone instrument.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: Don't say food.
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: Amanda might hear you.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
• 10:28
  Speaker 3: Amanda's amply surprised, but she doesn't seem to have produced
• 10:32
  Speaker 3: any children. Yeah, but she hasn't produced any children, I'm guessing.
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: Well. But yeah.
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: I'm not going there.
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's keep going.
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: I don't know who this person is. I'm not, I
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: don't know who this is.
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: There's always.
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: Like I tried to find her presence online and there's
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: no presence. So this could have just been a random
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: feminist woman that just was like, I'm going to destroy
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: Rachel in a debate. And modern day debate doesn't turn
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: anybody away. Like literally most of their debates are like
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: flat earther debates or atheism debates. Like that's the majority
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: of them. Nobody watches those.
• 11:13
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 11:15
  Speaker 3: How come we haven't been on there?
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: I haven't really.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: I don't know. Why? Well, I guess it's just like
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: a clout chasing thing. I guess I could do that
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: or we could try to do that, but I don't know.
• 11:26
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: I could try to reach... I mean, we went to
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: MythCon and they, I believe, organized it.
• 11:33
  Speaker 3: Oh, okay.
• 11:34
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 11:35
  Speaker 3: I mean, I just posed the question. I didn't mean
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: we need to create a strategy. But yeah, that's... No,
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: I just.
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: She could have just been.
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: Dragged up from somewhere. They did some deep sea dragging.
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: She's on a beach and was like, I want to
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: debate Rachel. Oh God. All right.
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: Let's keep, I'm going to be really mean. I'm just
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: letting you, I'm going to be really petty today. All right.
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: Let's keep going.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: Let's keep, cause I want to get into the, so
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: she's okay. So it's not like I'm not listening. So
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: Amanda is trying to claim that Rachel is claiming that
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: what feminism is trying to do is create sameness between
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: men and women. And she's saying that's not true, even
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: though I think we can find evidence to say that
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: it kind of is, at least rhetorically, but that they're
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: just looking for equality, which of course is that it's
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: the Mott and Bailey strategy. You can't possibly criticize equality,
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: could you? Actually, I could. But I guess no one's
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: ready for that conversation.
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: But anyway.
• 12:42
  Speaker 3: No, lots of people are. I think people are increasingly
• 12:45
  Speaker 3: ready for that conversation. Yeah, I think they are. Ultimately,
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: the truth is if giving women equality and giving women
• 12:53
  Speaker 3: access to all of these jobs results in a smoking
• 12:57
  Speaker 3: crater of a society, nobody has benefited, including women. We
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: have this instinct, again, to ply women with resources. And again,
• 13:06
  Speaker 3: it isn't about equality. It's just exploiting that instinct, that
• 13:09
  Speaker 3: custodial instinct towards women collectively. And it never really was
• 13:15
  Speaker 3: about equality because if it was men would be in
• 13:17
  Speaker 3: that equation somewhere and they just aren't. But anyway, so
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: it's really about providing provisioning women and they call it
• 13:25
  Speaker 3: equality because that's the fig leaf that they put over
• 13:29
  Speaker 3: just bear provisioning, right? That's just the word that makes
• 13:34
  Speaker 3: it sound more, you know, socially acceptable or more justified,
• 13:39
  Speaker 3: more righteous, but it really is just provisioning women at
• 13:43
  Speaker 3: the expense of men. That's what it is functionally. In
• 13:47
  Speaker 3: terms of praxology, it is what it do. Even on
• 13:52
  Speaker 3: the surface, what we're arguing has nothing to do with equality.
• 13:56
  Speaker 3: Not on the surface, because the surface is where the
• 13:58
  Speaker 3: definitions lie. On the observed effects, what we're arguing about
• 14:03
  Speaker 3: has nothing to do with equality. At some point, we
• 14:06
  Speaker 3: have to Test, pressure test all of these assertions against
• 14:09
  Speaker 3: what they are delivering in reality. And at some point
• 14:12
  Speaker 3: we have to say, well, you can say what you like, lady,
• 14:16
  Speaker 3: but what's happening here isn't equality. It's provisioning of women.
• 14:20
  Speaker 3: So the real question is, can we provision women in
• 14:23
  Speaker 3: this way and continue to sustain a society that can
• 14:26
  Speaker 3: provision women at all? And the answer is no. And
• 14:32
  Speaker 3: the reason why I say all this is because when
• 14:35
  Speaker 3: we start this argument of, oh, equality, not equality, we're
• 14:38
  Speaker 3: already adopting the frame. And the frame is not correct
• 14:43
  Speaker 3: on its face. Again, if they're going to assert equality,
• 14:48
  Speaker 3: then they need to prove that they actually look at
• 14:50
  Speaker 3: the male side, and they don't. So this is not equality.
• 14:54
  Speaker 3: It's provision of women. So again, it all comes down
• 14:58
  Speaker 3: to– I refuse the.
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: Frame on its face. Yeah, it starts from the presumption
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: that equality equals women need more.
• 15:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: It starts with the assumption. And a lot of people, unfortunately,
• 15:10
  Speaker 2: fall for that trap.
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 15:13
  Speaker 3: I mean, it's the funny thing is the Mott is
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: the Bailey is the Mott. And, you know, with this argument,
• 15:21
  Speaker 3: it's going to keep circling this until someone calls it
• 15:25
  Speaker 3: out and literally says to these people. That literally says
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: to these people, what you're arguing about is not equality.
• 15:33
  Speaker 3: You are arguing about female provision.
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: Or like a satellite, or if it's a planet. I'm
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: not saying that for any particular reason.
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: When are we going to be honest about what the
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: argument actually is? Challenge them. Hold them to it. Until
• 15:52
  Speaker 3: they have looked at the situation for men... To the
• 15:56
  Speaker 3: same degree is that you don't you don't assert equality
• 15:58
  Speaker 3: until you've measured both sides and they haven't. So you
• 16:02
  Speaker 3: keep them to it. Have you measured male side? No,
• 16:04
  Speaker 3: they haven't. They've denied and buried it. So this isn't
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: about equality. It's about providing for women. Okay, let's keep going.
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: All right, let's keep going.
• 16:17
  Speaker 6: She wouldn't have been able to do it.
• 16:18
  Speaker 5: That'd be cool if that really happened.
• 16:20
  Speaker 6: You really think Margaret Hamilton did not write the code
• 16:22
  Speaker 6: to put us on the moon?
• 16:23
  Speaker 5: No, you can look it up right now and find
• 16:25
  Speaker 5: out that she was just one person on a team
• 16:28
  Speaker 5: of many, many people, most of whom were men, who
• 16:30
  Speaker 5: did all of the work. And that just because she
• 16:33
  Speaker 5: happened to be in the bullpen with a bunch of
• 16:35
  Speaker 5: men doing a little bit of clerical work does not
• 16:38
  Speaker 5: mean she wrote the code.
• 16:39
  Speaker 4: Okay, writing code is not clerical work. Writing and developing
• 16:42
  Speaker 4: code with a team is not clerical work. And it
• 16:45
  Speaker 4: was feminism that allowed those men to take her seriously
• 16:49
  Speaker 4: and take her opinion into account so that they- No,
• 16:52
  Speaker 4: it wasn't.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: What are you talking about? So do you know what
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: her argument is? She's basically bringing up this anecdote of
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: this woman that was part of a team that essentially
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: did all of the team, did the work, that involved
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: a lot of like, you know, I guess complex, you know, math, mathematics, theory, uh,
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: physics and stuff so that they can put a man
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: on the moon.
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: And, um, we're still talking about.
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: Celestial bodies here, but, and she's saying that it was
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: feminism that made that possible. This is another one of
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: these things of like feminist stealing valor from women. And
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: also saying, this is also creating division or an attempt
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: to create like an antagonistic, myth that this woman would
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: not have been allowed, would not have been taken seriously
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: were it not for feminism.
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: Like those men would not have listened to her. That's
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: just ridiculous.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: It's obvious it's ridiculous. And it's a condemnation of men again,
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: because it assumes that only feminism can, can make men reasonable,
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: can make men cooperative, can make men want to hear
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: women out.
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: Only feminism makes that possible. So according to her, I'm going.
• 18:10
  Speaker 3: To float an idea.
• 18:12
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 18:13
  Speaker 3: And I'll just get, I'll get you guys reaction. Does
• 18:17
  Speaker 3: feminism make women more credible or less? Think about it guys.
• 18:24
  Speaker 5: Really?
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: No, honestly. Okay.
• 18:27
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 18:27
  Speaker 3: When you hear a woman is a feminist, do you think, Oh,
• 18:32
  Speaker 3: she's got her shit together. She really will know her stuff.
• 18:36
  Speaker 3: Or do you think this is a woman who's going
• 18:38
  Speaker 3: to use moral, blackmail to get what she wants right
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: just just think about that right and also the timing
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: of this is incorrect uh okay so when when was
• 18:52
  Speaker 3: this this was in like the 50s or the 60s
• 18:55
  Speaker 3: on the moon right 60s.
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah 60s so assuming it actually happened and it wasn't.
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: Fake margaret i believe it was margaret that she's talking
• 19:05
  Speaker 3: about right i think so i'd have to i'd have
• 19:09
  Speaker 3: to double check again i'm terrible with names Who was
• 19:12
  Speaker 3: the female programmer on the space program?
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: Uh, it's probably a bunch of, definitely a bunch of
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: men that brought the computers around.
• 19:23
  Speaker 3: Margaret Hamilton. All right. So Margaret Hamilton would, uh, the
• 19:29
  Speaker 3: woman who brought us to the moon. Oh, good Lord.
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, of course. This is where it is everywhere, right?
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: Of course.
• 19:36
  Speaker 3: Ugh.
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: It's hard to like when they like make references because
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: they're referencing feminist sources. And if you don't think that
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: that headline is a feminist source, then. Yeah, I know.
• 19:50
  Speaker 3: It is a feminist source. Unfortunately, so Margaret Hamilton, now,
• 19:55
  Speaker 3: she would have been working in the 60s, which means
• 20:00
  Speaker 3: she's probably a product of the initiatives in the 50s, likely,
• 20:06
  Speaker 3: or even before, to get young people into science. It
• 20:11
  Speaker 3: was like the whole science hero initiative around the 50s.
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, there was like the nuclear age or whatever.
• 20:18
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and honestly, to be honest, it did also include women.
• 20:23
  Speaker 3: It did include women as scientific professionals. And that program,
• 20:29
  Speaker 3: but it was in the context of nationalism. So there
• 20:33
  Speaker 3: was the whole Sputnik scare, etc.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: Cold War, yeah.
• 20:37
  Speaker 3: Yeah. So in the context of nationalism, there was a
• 20:40
  Speaker 3: push to get young people into science, girls and boys.
• 20:44
  Speaker 3: And it had nothing to do with feminism at that point.
• 20:47
  Speaker 3: It had everything to do with nationalism and patriotic fervor.
• 20:52
  Speaker 3: And in fact, it did push or it did end
• 20:56
  Speaker 3: up increasing the number of women in the hard sciences
• 21:00
  Speaker 3: quite a bit to, I think, almost 30 percent. And
• 21:06
  Speaker 3: what's interesting about that is the thing that actually did it,
• 21:10
  Speaker 3: which was nationalism. It was serve your country by becoming
• 21:14
  Speaker 3: a scientist. And it was also showing scientists as being
• 21:18
  Speaker 3: very professional people. And then women went into it. And
• 21:24
  Speaker 3: that had nothing to do with feminism. Like literally nothing.
• 21:29
  Speaker 3: Nothing at all. It was about a narrative of serving
• 21:32
  Speaker 3: your country. And women responded to it, went into those fields.
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: It's kind of like, yeah, it's kind of like when
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: women started, were working in the factories in World War
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: II to help build ammunitions and bombs and stuff. That
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: wasn't feminism. That was just paid, that was basically a nationalist,
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: you know, organizing, right? Mass organizing. But feminists claim that,
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: which is why I have the We Can Do It
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: poster in my room, because I'm reminding myself and everybody
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: else that that was not a feminist invention.
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: That was a nationalist invention.
• 22:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so this nationalist kind of patriotic fervor got women
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: up to about 27%, I think, which is the highest
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: it's ever been. Now, I really suspect those numbers because
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: I think a lot of them are trans women or
• 22:24
  Speaker 3: women who are tangentially adjacent to the hard sciences. But anyway,
• 22:30
  Speaker 3: it got women into those fields. And they did work
• 22:34
  Speaker 3: in those fields throughout the 60s and 70s and 80s.
• 22:38
  Speaker 3: If you actually watch the old science fiction, they often
• 22:41
  Speaker 3: do have a female scientist in it. That's a big
• 22:44
  Speaker 3: part of the research of whatever is being pursued. So
• 22:48
  Speaker 3: this was like a cultural phenomenon. It had nothing to
• 22:50
  Speaker 3: do with feminism. Of course, feminists want to claim it
• 22:54
  Speaker 3: because they claim all kinds of valor that they don't
• 22:57
  Speaker 3: deserve and have nothing to do with, including the women's vote.
• 23:04
  Speaker 3: women's vote was won by the suffragists who were pushing
• 23:08
  Speaker 3: generally for the franchise. And also it was won in
• 23:13
  Speaker 3: the opposition of most women who thought it was unnecessary
• 23:20
  Speaker 3: and also kind of presumptuous to take that role away
• 23:23
  Speaker 3: from men. So most women were against the vote until
• 23:26
  Speaker 3: like the 1918, in which case the legislators are actually
• 23:31
  Speaker 3: the ones who sort of legislated it. And the reason,
• 23:35
  Speaker 3: one of the reason why, at least in the UK
• 23:36
  Speaker 3: was because they were basically universalizing suffrage after the world
• 23:41
  Speaker 3: war one. And one of the reasons why was because
• 23:45
  Speaker 3: the men who previously didn't have the vote had sacrificed
• 23:47
  Speaker 3: en masse in the trenches. And then because they had sacrificed,
• 23:53
  Speaker 3: the legislators were like, you know, well, since we're giving
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: it to men, I guess we'll give it to women too.
• 23:58
  Speaker 3: We'll just universalize it. And, um, And the reason why
• 24:03
  Speaker 3: I point this out is because people will talk about
• 24:06
  Speaker 3: how the vote, the franchise in the UK in 1920
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: applied to women 30 plus and men 18 plus. So
• 24:18
  Speaker 3: it went to everybody based on these age differentials. And
• 24:21
  Speaker 3: the reason why they created this age differential was because
• 24:26
  Speaker 3: if they hadn't, women would have created an immediate advantage
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: super majority voting bloc because of the amount of men
• 24:32
  Speaker 3: who died in world war one and ended up creating
• 24:37
  Speaker 3: the justification for both men's franchise and women's franchise so
• 24:42
  Speaker 3: the whole history is a lot more complicated than feminists
• 24:45
  Speaker 3: make it out but they like to turn everything into
• 24:48
  Speaker 3: feminists did it anyway let's let's continue all right.
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: Let's continue oh did i get a super chats or
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: anything no I just.
• 24:58
  Speaker 3: Want to make sure. Hey guys, send in those super chats.
• 25:01
  Speaker 3: Fridays are slow. And for some reason you guys don't,
• 25:04
  Speaker 3: you don't send them in when I'm talking. It makes
• 25:07
  Speaker 3: me feel.
• 25:08
  Speaker 2: Maybe they're just, maybe they're just enthralled.
• 25:11
  Speaker 3: I'm the worst thing about honey badger radio.
• 25:14
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 25:15
  Speaker 3: Anyway, feed the badger.com slash just the tip. Go send
• 25:18
  Speaker 3: them in. You must have ideas.
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: Hitting the play button now. I was just making sure
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: I didn't miss anything.
• 25:24
  Speaker 6: The code. put the men on the moon, advanced technology.
• 25:27
  Speaker 4: Again, another example of how feminism would not have arisen
• 25:30
  Speaker 4: without the technology, which you, for some reason, thought was
• 25:34
  Speaker 4: going to dismantle my.
• 25:35
  Speaker 6: Argument, yet I am telling you, no, this is true.
• 25:39
  Speaker 6: And feminism is good.
• 25:40
  Speaker 5: So what you're doing, well, what you've done just now
• 25:43
  Speaker 5: is admit that there would be no such thing as
• 25:45
  Speaker 5: this illusion, this idea, this beautiful fantasy called feminism if
• 25:51
  Speaker 5: men didn't create technology. And then use that technology to
• 25:56
  Speaker 5: enforce rights on women's behalf at their behest for them.
• 26:00
  Speaker 5: So ultimately.
• 26:01
  Speaker 6: That doesn't make it bad, Rachel. That does not make
• 26:04
  Speaker 6: feminism bad.
• 26:05
  Speaker 5: Well, it just makes it an illusion. It makes it
• 26:07
  Speaker 5: not real. It makes it simply a social contract we
• 26:11
  Speaker 5: have for now, which, by the way, I think is
• 26:13
  Speaker 5: completely unustainable and will end soon and be remembered as
• 26:16
  Speaker 5: a bad dream because... These birth rates are not sustainable.
• 26:19
  Speaker 5: Men are getting sick of this. They're checking out. They're realizing,
• 26:22
  Speaker 5: because here's what we need to do.
• 26:23
  Speaker 6: Yeah, there are a lot of incels. I saw a
• 26:25
  Speaker 6: lot of them at debate con.
• 26:26
  Speaker 5: Oh, yeah, there are incels. Lady, you said you didn't
• 26:29
  Speaker 5: want to do insults in this debate, so please don't
• 26:32
  Speaker 5: start calling men incels because I won't be able to
• 26:34
  Speaker 5: restrain myself.
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: She called them incels.
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: Where's that meme? Hold on a second. So Rachel knows
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: that men are checking out.
• 26:46
  Speaker 2: She brings that up. And Amanda says, yeah, I saw
• 26:49
  Speaker 2: there are incels. They're out there.
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: It's the meme. She did the meme. I'm going to
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: find it and I'll show you guys.
• 27:00
  Speaker 3: Yeah, they're liberal men, Amanda.
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: Incels.
• 27:04
  Speaker 3: I've actually done all of the regression analysis on the
• 27:08
  Speaker 3: GSS and the ACS and the CEW. And yeah, the
• 27:14
  Speaker 3: marriage penalty hits liberal men the hardest. It absolutely cuts
• 27:19
  Speaker 3: them out at the knees. So if any group of
• 27:22
  Speaker 3: men is having a sex relationship shortage, it's liberal men.
• 27:27
  Speaker 3: But I guess at least they feel like in some
• 27:29
  Speaker 3: kind of abstract sense, they're doing it for my lady. Anyway, continue.
• 27:35
  Speaker 2: No, it's fine.
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: I'm just looking for the I want to share the
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: meme because that's that's exactly what she just did.
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: So, OK, anyway.
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: I got a super chow from Officialverse Trad here for five.
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: And he says, an anarcho-capitalist question for Allison. Do you
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: feel there's a problem in the greater ANCAP meta where
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: ANCAP seem to think that custody is a state fiction
• 28:04
  Speaker 1: and guardianship is the thing that makes sense? According to
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: people like Rothbard, as far as I can tell, custody
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: is the falsifiable thing we want and guardianship is a
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: circular reasoning fallacy. On the part of the state, you
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: get to take care of the child because you took
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: care of the child.
• 28:22
  Speaker 3: Are you sure Rothbard is thinking about guardianship in the
• 28:25
  Speaker 3: context of actual family law? Because I'm not sure. I mean,
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: it's possible. I don't think Rothbard has covered family law.
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: So probably his definition of guardianship applies to his criticism
• 28:42
  Speaker 3: of monopolies or barbarism. state controlled finance. So anyway, if
• 28:48
  Speaker 3: you can give me the information of where he applies
• 28:51
  Speaker 3: that concept to family law, I'll take a look at it,
• 28:54
  Speaker 3: but regardless, it probably should, uh, continue on.
• 28:58
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 28:59
  Speaker 2: Let's keep going.
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: Rachel, Rachel versus Ahab, Rachel Ahab versus the, uh, except
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: Ahab didn't, didn't, or captain Ahab didn't.
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: Oh, no, no, this is not Ahab.
• 29:10
  Speaker 7: Okay.
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: This is the other character in that story. But okay,
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: let's keep going.
• 29:18
  Speaker 5: But let's talk about outcomes. If you think that feminism
• 29:21
  Speaker 5: is better for society, let's talk about the promises of feminism.
• 29:25
  Speaker 5: Do you think feminism has made women and children safer
• 29:29
  Speaker 5: as it promised to do?
• 29:30
  Speaker 6: I don't know if it promised that, but I do
• 29:33
  Speaker 6: think it has.
• 29:33
  Speaker 5: Oh, it absolutely did.
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: What?
• 29:37
  Speaker 3: No, Rachel, did she just say that feminism made women
• 29:43
  Speaker 3: and children safer?
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: Amanda says yes, it did.
• 29:48
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: Okay, but was that Amanda or Rachel?
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: Rachel asked her if she thought that it fulfilled the
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: promise that feminism made to make women and children safer.
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: And Amanda says, I don't think it promised that, but
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: I think it did.
• 30:10
  Speaker 3: Oh, okay. So I've got them a little bit reversed,
• 30:11
  Speaker 3: but okay.
• 30:15
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 30:15
  Speaker 3: No feminism.
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: Definitely not children.
• 30:17
  Speaker 3: No, not children. Not women.
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: No, not women.
• 30:23
  Speaker 3: And my, and my evidence of that is.
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: And not men.
• 30:29
  Speaker 3: No, not men. It doesn't make people safe. It's an
• 30:33
  Speaker 3: ideological regime that's about mate suppression and social control. Well, actually, totalitarian, really,
• 30:41
  Speaker 3: in a lot of ways, since it broke its no dissent. Luckily,
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: the feminist women don't know how to use guns and
• 30:51
  Speaker 3: probably couldn't march more than a block. So we're safe
• 30:55
  Speaker 3: in a military sense.
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: Guns give them the ick.
• 30:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah, but we're safe... We're safe in a military sense,
• 31:01
  Speaker 3: but in terms of all of the social levers of cohesion,
• 31:04
  Speaker 3: they got them. And specifically, when feminism has had a
• 31:11
  Speaker 3: choice between protecting women or making them safer and promoting
• 31:15
  Speaker 3: feminist ideology, it always defaults on feminist ideology. So if
• 31:20
  Speaker 3: you look at its behavior when it comes to, this
• 31:23
  Speaker 3: is the one I like to use, batterer intervention programs, right?
• 31:27
  Speaker 3: It has its own batterer intervention program based on the
• 31:31
  Speaker 3: Duluth model. And that has been proven to have zero efficacy,
• 31:38
  Speaker 3: if not negative efficacy. And what that means is it
• 31:41
  Speaker 3: doesn't stop men from battering women. In fact, in some places,
• 31:45
  Speaker 3: it might actually encourage them to do more of it.
• 31:48
  Speaker 3: But there are batterer intervention programs that do reduce recidivism
• 31:54
  Speaker 3: among men. So they do reduce the rate at which
• 31:57
  Speaker 3: men continue to be physically aggressive towards women. Those are
• 32:01
  Speaker 3: the ACT programs, so the actualizing your values. So they'll
• 32:06
  Speaker 3: teach men conflict resolution skills and emotional regulation and stoicism, essentially,
• 32:14
  Speaker 3: that brings their values, these men's values, in line with
• 32:17
  Speaker 3: their behavior. And these programs work under the assumption that
• 32:20
  Speaker 3: men's values are not actually abusing their dependence but actually
• 32:25
  Speaker 3: trying to support and protect them. And those programs work.
• 32:30
  Speaker 3: And they believe the exact opposite of the Duluth model,
• 32:35
  Speaker 3: which teaches men that their values are to abuse their
• 32:38
  Speaker 3: dependence in order to uphold patriarchy. And again, at best,
• 32:43
  Speaker 3: Duluth has got no effect. So what do feminists do
• 32:48
  Speaker 3: in response to these new interventions that actually protect women?
• 32:54
  Speaker 3: and reduce the rate of domestic violence against them. They suppress, ostracize,
• 33:01
  Speaker 3: and marginalize the people advocating them. They are trying to
• 33:05
  Speaker 3: get rid of them because it's not about women's safety.
• 33:09
  Speaker 3: It's about promoting feminist control everywhere they can. So right there,
• 33:16
  Speaker 3: where feminism conflicts with women's safety, feminism wins out when
• 33:21
  Speaker 3: it comes to feminist advocacy.
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: Yep. All right.
• 33:27
  Speaker 2: All right, let's continue.
• 33:28
  Speaker 5: The National Association of Women Lawyers, which was the lobbying
• 33:32
  Speaker 5: group that fought for no-fault divorce, and pretty much every
• 33:36
  Speaker 5: other major feminist organization, which had giant smear campaigns all
• 33:40
  Speaker 5: the way from the time of Prohibition all the way
• 33:43
  Speaker 5: up through the 1980s, which convinced most women that the
• 33:47
  Speaker 5: main threat to them in their lives was their fathers
• 33:49
  Speaker 5: and their husbands. And that this is why they needed
• 33:52
  Speaker 5: no-fault divorce. This is why they needed sexual liberation.
• 33:54
  Speaker 6: Do you have any evidence to support that?
• 33:56
  Speaker 4: Like, where are you pulling this?
• 33:58
  Speaker 6: I mean, I'm not like.
• 34:00
  Speaker 5: Saying, you know, this isn't true.
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: The propaganda campaigns?
• 34:02
  Speaker 6: What propaganda campaigns? What are you talking about?
• 34:05
  Speaker 5: The Congress for Cultural Freedom is one good example. This
• 34:07
  Speaker 5: was a CIA program. It was a Cold War program
• 34:11
  Speaker 5: where they were trying to contrast us in the West
• 34:13
  Speaker 5: with the, you know, Stalinist kind of Eastern bloc. mentality
• 34:19
  Speaker 5: and pushing women's liberation and feminism as part of the
• 34:23
  Speaker 5: Cold War. So this was a huge effort with over
• 34:26
  Speaker 5: 400 major media publications around the world. Gloria Steinem was
• 34:31
  Speaker 5: recruited out of Smith College to join this effort in
• 34:34
  Speaker 5: the 60s. She traveled to India and Europe to go
• 34:36
  Speaker 5: to youth festivals and help promote feminism there.
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Europe and India. We should not have exported
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: Gloria Steinem to those countries to spread this garbage. But
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: they did, I guess they did it because they were
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: trying to fight against the communists using communism to fight communism,
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: I guess. Okay.
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: But yeah, so that's what Rachel.
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: Was talking about.
• 35:01
  Speaker 5: It was same thing with her Ms. Magazine, Ms. Magazine.
• 35:05
  Speaker 5: If you, you said you read my book. So in
• 35:06
  Speaker 5: the beginning, I saw that in there with the CIA
• 35:09
  Speaker 5: actually helped create and push Ms. Magazine to To convince
• 35:16
  Speaker 5: women that they needed, you know, the sexual liberation, that
• 35:19
  Speaker 5: they needed abortion rights because they were being oppressed. So, yes,
• 35:23
  Speaker 5: this is. And again, like I said, during the women's
• 35:25
  Speaker 5: temperance movement, which people will say that's a Christian movement.
• 35:29
  Speaker 5: Not exactly true, though. People who were in charge of
• 35:32
  Speaker 5: the women's temperance movement and got prohibition passed were actually
• 35:36
  Speaker 5: like super left wing progressives of the progressive era.
• 35:41
  Speaker 3: They were.
• 35:42
  Speaker 5: Used the moniker Christian, but they were pretty radical. They
• 35:45
  Speaker 5: were like Quakers, Christian scientists. They were not like mainline
• 35:48
  Speaker 5: Lutherans or Catholics, for sure. They were the most radical
• 35:51
  Speaker 5: leftist kind of subversive Christians. They had massive propaganda campaigns
• 35:57
  Speaker 5: that were in pamphlets, newspapers, magazines. Time magazine was one
• 36:01
  Speaker 5: of the big ones with the Henry Luce Foundation to
• 36:03
  Speaker 5: convince women that Pretty much all the men were alcoholics
• 36:07
  Speaker 5: who were constantly beating their wives. This is why people
• 36:09
  Speaker 5: believe this stuff. People believe these myths and these lies
• 36:13
  Speaker 5: because of huge propaganda campaigns. pushed by NGOs with billions
• 36:17
  Speaker 5: of dollars.
• 36:18
  Speaker 3: Oh, it's worse. It's worse than that, right? When you
• 36:21
  Speaker 3: actually look at the foundational texts of feminism, I mean,
• 36:24
  Speaker 3: in the previous eras, it was almost naive. It was
• 36:27
  Speaker 3: almost sweet. You know, men beat their wives because of alcohol. No,
• 36:31
  Speaker 3: that wasn't good enough. That was not good enough demonization.
• 36:35
  Speaker 3: Go read the Red Stockings Manifesto. Literally, the formulation became that... Well, that.
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: Comes later because she's talking about basically like the.
• 36:45
  Speaker 2: The 19th century.
• 36:46
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the 19th century. Well, if she covers this, I
• 36:49
  Speaker 3: don't know. Do you want to just continue?
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: Well, I know she doesn't in this clip, but it's
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: in her book.
• 36:54
  Speaker 3: Okay, so let me fill in this.
• 36:55
  Speaker 2: It's in her book, but go ahead.
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: The Red Stockings Manifesto literally... I don't know if this
• 37:02
  Speaker 3: is in her book. I'd have to actually look, but
• 37:06
  Speaker 3: the Red Stockings Manifesto literally... It doesn't talk about alcoholism
• 37:12
  Speaker 3: or anything, right? as a contributing factor to men's malfeasance.
• 37:15
  Speaker 3: It literally places oppression of women at the point of
• 37:21
  Speaker 3: men protecting and providing for women. And the assertion is
• 37:25
  Speaker 3: that creates dependence, which itself is then oppression. So it's
• 37:30
  Speaker 3: not even a man getting drunk and beating his wife anymore.
• 37:34
  Speaker 3: It's a man not getting drunk, waking up at 5 AM,
• 37:37
  Speaker 3: going to work in the steel mill, Destroying his lungs
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: with toxic chemicals, coming home at 10 p.m., handing over
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: his pay packet, and that is men's oppression of women.
• 37:55
  Speaker 3: That's where they situated it in the 60s, in the
• 37:58
  Speaker 3: later half of the 60s.
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: Right there.
• 38:02
  Speaker 3: So it's not even men doing anything evil. It is
• 38:05
  Speaker 3: literally men protecting and providing for women. That is the
• 38:08
  Speaker 3: site of of oppression according to the Red Stockings, according
• 38:11
  Speaker 3: to the radical feminists. And the radical feminists were adopted
• 38:15
  Speaker 3: wholesale by every other feminist. The only difference is they
• 38:18
  Speaker 3: took away the bio-essentialism of the radical feminists, that this
• 38:22
  Speaker 3: was inherent to men. But actually, ironically, they're right. It
• 38:27
  Speaker 3: is inherent to men to protect and provide for women.
• 38:30
  Speaker 3: And when you associate that with oppression, damn, you've pretty
• 38:35
  Speaker 3: much condemned the male animal out of existence. There's nothing left.
• 38:40
  Speaker 3: There's nothing left. Like if men protecting and providing for women,
• 38:44
  Speaker 3: if men doing things for women is oppressing women by
• 38:47
  Speaker 3: creating dependency, thus oppression, there is nothing that men can
• 38:51
  Speaker 3: do except leave. But they can't do that either because
• 38:54
  Speaker 3: that's also misogyny. But that's where all of the emotional
• 38:57
  Speaker 3: labor accusations come from today. That's where all of.
• 39:03
  Speaker 3: The sprinkle, sprinkle, get that bag and all of the
• 39:07
  Speaker 3: mercenary attitudes come to come from today. Because if every
• 39:10
  Speaker 3: time a man provides for a woman that creates a
• 39:13
  Speaker 3: debt that he owes her, what does he do? He
• 39:15
  Speaker 3: provides more. He has to provide more and more and
• 39:18
  Speaker 3: more and more. It's a never ending treadmill. And so, yeah,
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: this is the temperance movement situated men's malfeasance in men
• 39:30
  Speaker 3: getting drunk the feminist movement situated it in men actually
• 39:37
  Speaker 3: providing and protecting for women and creating dependency thus oppression
• 39:42
  Speaker 3: so it's a it's like an order of like it's
• 39:46
  Speaker 3: an almost incomprehensible escalation in bad faith.
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: Don't you think Yeah, absolutely. But yeah, I agree. I'll
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: just leave it at that. I got a super chat
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: from Master Goa who gives us $ 10.
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: Thank you. And says, I like Allison's model. It's adorable.
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: Is this a honey badger? Also, you both should talk
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: to Eve Kanaan. You would probably like Eve. I dropped
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: her link on HBA general discord just a few minutes ago.
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: Thank you, Massagoa.
• 40:17
  Speaker 2: I will look at it. What room did you drop
• 40:21
  Speaker 2: it in in the Discord?
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: Is it just like main chat grunts or the community zone?
• 40:27
  Speaker 2: Where did you put it at? Because there's a lot of.
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: Rooms here and I can't find anything.
• 40:31
  Speaker 3: Okay, wait, wait, wait. Let's see.
• 40:33
  Speaker 2: Maybe you tagged us in it?
• 40:34
  Speaker 3: Yeah, tag those in it.
• 40:38
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it is a girl dressed in a Badger costume.
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: It's Badger Chan. So, thank you.
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: I might redesign her a little bit more, I don't know,
• 40:50
  Speaker 1: like on the cute side and less on the sexy side.
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: So I've been thinking about doing that for a while.
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: More like in a big baggy onesie or.
• 41:00
  Speaker 2: Something, you know? So, okay. Covering her up like Sharia.
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: All right, let's continue. Thank you for the super chats.
• 41:09
  Speaker 5: Do we need more evidence or no?
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: No.
• 41:12
  Speaker 6: Well, a lot of that was bare assertion. But what
• 41:14
  Speaker 6: I'm going to say, Rachel.
• 41:15
  Speaker 5: That's not bare assertion. What the fuck?
• 41:21
  Speaker 3: What is the point of this? Like I said, this
• 41:23
  Speaker 3: is just you're arguing a person that thinks their feelings
• 41:27
  Speaker 3: are facts.
• 41:28
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 41:29
  Speaker 3: And what she's saying is that the feminist position is this.
• 41:33
  Speaker 3: And the feminist position makes me feel good. And your
• 41:36
  Speaker 3: facts don't make me feel good. Therefore, they're just bare assertions.
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: Yep. What do you do?
• 41:44
  Speaker 3: What do you even do? It's like some kind of
• 41:46
  Speaker 3: blob monster that every attack just rebounds off of it.
• 41:51
  Speaker 3: It's like, no, my feelings are the only epistemological necessity
• 41:56
  Speaker 3: in the world. Okay, let's see how Rachel deals with this.
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I know. There is something to learn here.
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: Thank you.
• 42:06
  Speaker 1: I didn't realize he put it in my Discord, not
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: the other one.
• 42:10
  Speaker 2: I got the link. Thank you, Master Goa. Okay.
• 42:13
  Speaker 5: I mean, I didn't bring slides, but you can look
• 42:16
  Speaker 5: it up after and tell me if any of that
• 42:18
  Speaker 5: was wrong. I've written extensively on all of this stuff.
• 42:21
  Speaker 6: I'm reading your book, Rachel. I know that you've written
• 42:24
  Speaker 6: about it.
• 42:25
  Speaker 4: What I'm going to say right now is that we
• 42:28
  Speaker 4: talk about framing. You're saying these people convinced women. They
• 42:33
  Speaker 4: forced them to think this way.
• 42:34
  Speaker 6: We can't know for sure.
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: It's propaganda.
• 42:38
  Speaker 5: That's how, it's the same way we get the Americans
• 42:40
  Speaker 5: to support World War II when nobody wanted anything to
• 42:42
  Speaker 5: do with it was propaganda, right?
• 42:44
  Speaker 6: Well, and it's being attacked too. That had something to
• 42:47
  Speaker 6: do with it, but.
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 42:49
  Speaker 5: And I, I don't know if you know that, well,
• 42:51
  Speaker 5: we won't get into that, but yes, propaganda is always
• 42:54
  Speaker 5: used to sway public opinion. It's most of politics is
• 42:58
  Speaker 5: just information war and propaganda.
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 43:01
  Speaker 4: What I'm saying, though, is you frame it as propaganda
• 43:04
  Speaker 4: convincing women of something.
• 43:06
  Speaker 6: I go back to Ibsen. You say this isn't reality.
• 43:09
  Speaker 4: Well, Ibsen actually based that character off his friend.
• 43:12
  Speaker 6: That's an anecdote.
• 43:15
  Speaker 5: Nobody's nobody's saying that there isn't an abusive husband now
• 43:19
  Speaker 5: there's abusive husbands i had one okay well it wasn't
• 43:22
  Speaker 5: there are abusive husbands there are bad men however it's
• 43:26
  Speaker 5: not historically accurate that all the women were being beaten
• 43:29
  Speaker 5: and abused by alcoholics.
• 43:31
  Speaker 4: When did anybody or when did i say that so
• 43:34
  Speaker 4: because you're.
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: Oh she's moving the goal posts um OK, she's just
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: like like hear Rachel's argument. But I don't think she
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: has like an argument to counter. No, she doesn't.
• 43:47
  Speaker 3: She uses a position like that's it. She's just going
• 43:50
  Speaker 3: to reassert her position and try to like it. You
• 43:52
  Speaker 3: got to you got to understand she wants the high
• 43:55
  Speaker 3: ground and she wants to destroy Rachel's ability to access
• 43:59
  Speaker 3: any high ground. And she does not recognize that arguments
• 44:01
  Speaker 3: build high ground. In a world of objective facts and
• 44:07
  Speaker 3: trying to develop an understanding of reality that interfaces with reality, arguments, logic, facts,
• 44:15
  Speaker 3: they're what build a position. She doesn't recognize that. Amanda
• 44:20
  Speaker 3: does not recognize that. She is a relational web thinker.
• 44:24
  Speaker 3: Everything is position and it cannot be built through argument.
• 44:28
  Speaker 3: It has to be built through consensus. Right. That's why
• 44:31
  Speaker 3: feelings are the currency of the relational web, because feelings
• 44:36
  Speaker 3: indicate a consensus.
• 44:39
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 44:39
  Speaker 3: And so Rachel is trying to do the slightly Spurgey thing.
• 44:44
  Speaker 3: And I don't mean that as a throwing shade of
• 44:46
  Speaker 3: let's build an argument to create a common ground.
• 44:49
  Speaker 2: She's a little bit Spurgey.
• 44:51
  Speaker 3: And this woman is going to no sale that stuff.
• 44:54
  Speaker 3: She's going to no-sell. In fact, I don't even think
• 44:57
  Speaker 3: they're in the same epistemological realm at this point. Instead,
• 45:04
  Speaker 3: I'll look at Rachel's argument. I think the idea that
• 45:11
  Speaker 3: feminists are framing all men as beating their wives, no,
• 45:18
  Speaker 3: they're well beyond that. And I explained that extensively a
• 45:23
  Speaker 3: few minutes ago, that feminists literally situate male evil in
• 45:29
  Speaker 3: allegedly making women dependent on them by providing and protecting
• 45:33
  Speaker 3: for them. That's where it is. So it's not even
• 45:38
  Speaker 3: beating and sexual violence. Sexual violence and beatings of women
• 45:43
  Speaker 3: are just how they maintain an aspect of women's dependency.
• 45:48
  Speaker 3: But the evil is in women. the dependency, inducing the dependency,
• 45:53
  Speaker 3: allegedly inducing the dependency on women. We need to move
• 45:58
  Speaker 3: the argument to where it actually is. Feminists think that
• 46:02
  Speaker 3: men protecting and providing for women is oppression. Beating and
• 46:09
  Speaker 3: sexual violence is just a contributing factor that maintains the oppression.
• 46:17
  Speaker 3: It is some profoundly sick shit, but it's almost like
• 46:22
  Speaker 3: saying that all men are evil or like evil men
• 46:26
  Speaker 3: represent all men is less deceitful and dishonest about what
• 46:33
  Speaker 3: men are than saying even the good men are oppressing
• 46:37
  Speaker 3: women through their goodness. It's like that's where we're at.
• 46:43
  Speaker 3: Even men who are sacrificing women are oppressing them through
• 46:46
  Speaker 3: their sacrifice.
• 46:47
  Speaker 1: Yes, they are.
• 46:49
  Speaker 3: Which is where all the patriarchy hurts men too.
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 46:56
  Speaker 3: People need to evolve their thinking around feminism. It's not
• 47:01
  Speaker 3: even the all men until it's no men. It's not
• 47:05
  Speaker 3: even the, oh, this criminal man represents all men. It
• 47:10
  Speaker 3: is the good that men do. is oppression, right? The
• 47:15
  Speaker 3: good that men do is oppression.
• 47:17
  Speaker 1: Because it makes women who don't do anything look bad
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: and therefore feel bad about themselves.
• 47:23
  Speaker 3: Well, it creates a potential obligation of even just gratitude
• 47:28
  Speaker 3: or even a lack of blamelessness. Yeah, you're right. It
• 47:31
  Speaker 3: makes them look bad. It makes them look like they are, well,
• 47:37
  Speaker 3: first of all, it's dependent.
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: They're not inspired by people doing great things. It actually
• 47:42
  Speaker 1: angers them, I think. Because when, you know, men going
• 47:46
  Speaker 1: out every day and keeping everything running is heroic.
• 47:49
  Speaker 2: It's heroic sacrifice.
• 47:52
  Speaker 5: It is.
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: I mean, like they would probably not agree if you
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: told them, but that's because they're not looking at like
• 47:59
  Speaker 1: what their small contribution does in the larger picture, because
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: it is, we are living in a time of men's cooperation,
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: making all this possible. whether they're aware of it or not,
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: it's like everyone's doing their little role and it all
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: comes together. And women like this, who I assume are
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: not the most active, they're probably really resentful of that
• 48:21
  Speaker 1: because yeah, they feel like, like you said, they feel
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: like they should be grateful, but they're not.
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: They're resentful.
• 48:30
  Speaker 3: They're resentful. They'd rather be resentful than grateful. For some reason,
• 48:35
  Speaker 3: gratitude is just too onerous.
• 48:39
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 48:41
  Speaker 3: Okay, let's... All right.
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: I got a super Rumble rant and a super chow.
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: So Rumble rant from NovaFan21 for a dollar. He says,
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: don't worry, guys. All we need is facts and logic
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: and we can win against feminism. After all, facts don't
• 48:52
  Speaker 1: care about your feelings. Feminists, my feelings don't care about facts.
• 48:56
  Speaker 1: You know, it's funny you said that because Lauren Southern,
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: a while back, made a video about that where she
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: said feelings don't care about your facts.
• 49:05
  Speaker 2: Interesting.
• 49:06
  Speaker 1: I mean, I knew.
• 49:08
  Speaker 2: that to some degree that was true.
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: Like the people we were arguing with, they were never
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: going to adopt our position or not even adopt, but
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: like listen to our position. because they already have theirs
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: and they're just trying to like, it's not even really
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: defend it so much as shame people for having a
• 49:26
  Speaker 1: problem with it.
• 49:27
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 49:27
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 49:28
  Speaker 5: Yeah. Yeah.
• 49:36
  Speaker 3: Because it's pure relational web thinking. It's all about consensus.
• 49:39
  Speaker 3: It's all about where you stand in relation to the web.
• 49:43
  Speaker 3: And it doesn't accept, like it doesn't allow in argument
• 49:53
  Speaker 3: based on objective reality. And I honestly think that what
• 49:57
  Speaker 3: we're watching is when women's relational web grabs up a
• 50:02
  Speaker 3: whole bunch of men, and usually it's eunuchs as well,
• 50:06
  Speaker 3: and then detaches from the substrate of how a society
• 50:10
  Speaker 3: is run, that's when everything collapses. There's a book called
• 50:18
  Speaker 3: The Collapse of Complex Civilizations, and it talks about how
• 50:22
  Speaker 3: complexity increases until it has no return, and then it
• 50:26
  Speaker 3: starts sort of choking off the actual working actions of
• 50:31
  Speaker 3: a society. But the author never gave an explanation for
• 50:36
  Speaker 3: why complexity seems to increase monotonically with societies. I think
• 50:40
  Speaker 3: it's because women's relational web detaches and then starts eating
• 50:45
  Speaker 3: its own ass about signaling rather than doing. And suddenly
• 50:52
  Speaker 3: everything is about inputting reports in the perfect calligraphy and
• 50:58
  Speaker 3: doing the ritual of the harvest. with greater and greater
• 51:02
  Speaker 3: elaborateness and no understanding of the, how actions affect consequences mechanically,
• 51:09
  Speaker 3: because that requires more male thinking. So everything becomes, let's,
• 51:14
  Speaker 3: let's read the star charts to discover when we should
• 51:17
  Speaker 3: plant the harvest. And should we, should we put in this,
• 51:24
  Speaker 3: this irrigation channel? Well, let's consult the, the goddess of
• 51:30
  Speaker 3: the harvest. Oh, no, she says no, but my plants
• 51:33
  Speaker 3: don't have water. Well, you know, it just won't work.
• 51:37
  Speaker 3: She'll get angry, right? And it becomes more and more
• 51:41
  Speaker 3: complex and bureaucratic and superstitious and about where you are,
• 51:46
  Speaker 3: the position and everything, probably where astrology came from. And
• 51:51
  Speaker 3: then it just chokes everything to death. It just chokes
• 51:54
  Speaker 3: the actual doing of things to death. All right, let's continue.
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: Then I got a super chow from Official vs. Trad,
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: and he gives $ 5 and says, just like how issues
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: such as the sentencing gap, due process, and police brutality
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: are men's issues as much as racial minority issues, I
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: think it's funny how everybody knows drugs are banned all
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: the time using racist propaganda, and nobody notices alcohol was
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: banned with misandrist propaganda.
• 52:23
  Speaker 2: All right, thank you for that. Yes, it's true. I.
• 52:27
  Speaker 2: Well, never mind. Let's get into it. But yes, I agree.
• 52:31
  Speaker 5: You said feminism.
• 52:31
  Speaker 3: I said oppression.
• 52:34
  Speaker 6: Which is not.
• 52:34
  Speaker 5: You said feminism is protecting women.
• 52:36
  Speaker 3: Oh, good Lord. She should just be yeeted from the
• 52:40
  Speaker 3: debate for that freaking vocal fry.
• 52:43
  Speaker 2: Well, good luck with that.
• 52:45
  Speaker 3: Are you too exhausted?
• 52:46
  Speaker 1: Somebody get a crane over here. We got to yeet
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: this woman from the debate.
• 52:51
  Speaker 3: Brian, she's too exhausted. She can't even.
• 52:55
  Speaker 4: I know.
• 52:56
  Speaker 3: She's basically performing contempt for the position that Rachel is occupying.
• 53:02
  Speaker 3: She's saying, why are you even here?
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 53:07
  Speaker 2: She's like, I don't know.
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: I don't know. But it's entertainment.
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: It's entertainment. That's all I'm going to say.
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 53:17
  Speaker 2: Amanda Harpoons. Here we go.
• 53:19
  Speaker 6: She said it's better for society. I didn't say it
• 53:22
  Speaker 6: protects women.
• 53:23
  Speaker 5: Then be specific and tell me what it does that
• 53:25
  Speaker 5: makes it better.
• 53:26
  Speaker 1: It's just better for society. Just better.
• 53:29
  Speaker 2: Don't question this.
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: It's better. It's better because I'm happier. And I don't
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: like that you are challenging that.
• 53:37
  Speaker 6: What do you mean? What it does is it grants
• 53:39
  Speaker 6: women personhood. It grants women individuality and personhood.
• 53:43
  Speaker 5: You don't think they had that prior to 1920?
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: Any persons is this.
• 53:47
  Speaker 4: Prior to 1920, when we got the very specific right
• 53:50
  Speaker 4: to vote.
• 53:52
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 53:54
  Speaker 5: What?
• 53:57
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: Somebody just give this, just turn over Solo and the Wookiee,
• 54:05
  Speaker 1: and then this will all be over. She'll go back
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: to Tatooine and run her business.
• 54:12
  Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: Let's keep going. I can't help it. It's funny.
• 54:15
  Speaker 2: She doesn't have arguments. I'm going to make fun of her.
• 54:19
  Speaker 5: Middle Ages.
• 54:20
  Speaker 6: We'll go there.
• 54:21
  Speaker 1: What?
• 54:23
  Speaker 6: Spanish Inquisition.
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: What?
• 54:24
  Speaker 3: What?
• 54:24
  Speaker 6: Wait, the Inquisition was going after women? Nobody expects the
• 54:26
  Speaker 6: misogynist Inquisition.
• 54:27
  Speaker 3: Oh, come on.
• 54:28
  Speaker 1: Jesus Christ. What do you even do? It's just Amanda, feminist.
• 54:51
  Speaker 3: Does she have any... Okay, it's, of course, Rachel Wilson, anti-feminist.
• 54:57
  Speaker 3: Did she write a book?
• 54:58
  Speaker 1: They just like invoking things like the Inquisition. That's just
• 55:01
  Speaker 1: one of those things people just... Oh, the Inquisition was bad.
• 55:04
  Speaker 1: Let's go with that. She could have said the Crusades. Yeah,
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: what was a bad time for?
• 55:10
  Speaker 2: The Crusades.
• 55:11
  Speaker 6: The Crusades.
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: Well, why?
• 55:13
  Speaker 3: Of the Middle Ages, huh?
• 55:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the Middle Ages.
• 55:20
  Speaker 3: What country in the Middle Ages? Are you talking about
• 55:23
  Speaker 3: Gallic law, Roman law, common law? Why don't we situate this?
• 55:28
  Speaker 3: Because this is very vague. It's a long stretch of time.
• 55:33
  Speaker 3: Lots of different evolution in law. You might want to
• 55:36
  Speaker 3: narrow that down some.
• 55:39
  Speaker 4: Right?
• 55:39
  Speaker 3: And that's the problem. Because... This allows women to think
• 55:44
  Speaker 3: in history in terms of extremely broad categories, which are completely,
• 55:50
  Speaker 3: they've constructed a history based on feminist categorization that doesn't
• 55:56
  Speaker 3: actually relate to anything that happened in history.
• 55:59
  Speaker 1: You should go back to when we discovered fire and
• 56:02
  Speaker 1: how that was oppressive to women. Well, because, you know,
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: we're clubbing women over the head with, With clubs and
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: dragging them off to their caves.
• 56:14
  Speaker 2: I saw it in a Tex Avery cartoon. I know
• 56:17
  Speaker 2: it's history.
• 56:22
  Speaker 7: Okay.
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: Should I keep going?
• 56:24
  Speaker 3: Well, okay. Because what she'll say is that women discovered
• 56:29
  Speaker 3: fire and then men took it from them.
• 56:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they took credit.
• 56:33
  Speaker 3: They took credit.
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: You don't find fire. Me have fire. Kicks her off
• 56:35
  Speaker 1: a cliff.
• 56:36
  Speaker 3: You know what happened? When Wen took credit for fire
• 56:41
  Speaker 3: for women, they made women dependent on the fire, which
• 56:46
  Speaker 3: was oppression.
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: Yes, they made them dependent.
• 56:49
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: I could see a cartoon of a caveman telling his cavewoman, look,
• 56:54
  Speaker 1: I discovered fire. Now you can be warm. And the
• 56:58
  Speaker 1: cavewoman trying to find a way that that's oppressive. So
• 57:00
  Speaker 1: you want me to stay in the cave instead of
• 57:01
  Speaker 1: go hunting saber-toothed tigers and mammoths like you? You want
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: me to stay here with the fire? the ice age
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: is coming.
• 57:08
  Speaker 8: Okay okay all right i just i.
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: I love you you know that the 10 plagues of
• 57:24
  Speaker 1: that that uh god laid on egyptians for ramses not
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: setting the people free it it affected women more you
• 57:31
  Speaker 1: know that right there were Because the firstborn sons that
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: were killed at the 10th plague, the mothers grieved.
• 57:38
  Speaker 3: I just want to point something out, okay? Have you
• 57:41
  Speaker 3: ever seen that video of the, I think she's a
• 57:47
  Speaker 3: female programmer, and she's watching someone put blocks into, it's
• 57:52
  Speaker 3: like a bucket with different shapes on the top. And
• 57:56
  Speaker 3: it's like a kid's game, right? You throw out all
• 57:59
  Speaker 3: the blocks and then you put the blocks back into
• 58:01
  Speaker 3: the bucket based on the shapes that they are. I
• 58:04
  Speaker 3: guess it's supposed to help kids learn geometry. And this
• 58:08
  Speaker 3: woman is watching this man play this kid's game. And
• 58:13
  Speaker 3: there's a little square hole. And he ends up putting, well,
• 58:17
  Speaker 3: he puts like the first square block in the square hole.
• 58:22
  Speaker 3: And then she's like, yeah, yeah, that's exactly right.
• 58:24
  Speaker 7: Oh, yeah.
• 58:25
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 58:26
  Speaker 3: And then, and then he puts the rectangle block, not
• 58:29
  Speaker 3: in the rectangle.
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: Hole, but in the square hole. Yeah. And she's like, okay, wait, wait.
• 58:34
  Speaker 3: Wait, wait, something might be going wrong, but I guess
• 58:37
  Speaker 3: that makes sense to some degree. Then he takes the arc,
• 58:42
  Speaker 3: like the half circle block, and puts it through the
• 58:44
  Speaker 3: square hole. And she's like, no, no, you put it
• 58:47
  Speaker 3: through the half circle. And then he takes the plus
• 58:50
  Speaker 3: block and puts it through the square hole.
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah, all of the blocks get in the square hole.
• 58:55
  Speaker 3: At that point, she's tearing her hair out because it's like, no,
• 58:58
  Speaker 3: put it in the hole shaped like a.
• 59:03
  Speaker 3: Circle, what are you doing? That face that that woman
• 59:07
  Speaker 3: had watching... the absolute just denial of the process is
• 59:15
  Speaker 3: the face that Rachel Wilson has right now. Just watching
• 59:20
  Speaker 3: this woman no-sail everything, I could feel the frustration.
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 59:27
  Speaker 3: Just like, what? What am I doing? What are you doing?
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: All right. Let's get to it before I make another
• 59:36
  Speaker 1: joke about Amanda.
• 59:38
  Speaker 5: Rachel, there's no such thing as magic. It doesn't matter
• 59:43
  Speaker 5: if you believe in magic. It matters if you know
• 59:46
  Speaker 5: that there were women.
• 59:47
  Speaker 1: Who called themselves witches.
• 59:51
  Speaker 5: They practiced witchcraft. They thought it was real. And those
• 59:54
  Speaker 5: were the people who performed abortions.
• 59:57
  Speaker 6: And most of the time- Yeah, you wrote about that, Rachel.
• 59:59
  Speaker 5: Yes, when they were doing witch hunts, it's because they
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 5: were going after the work providers.
• 1:00:04
  Speaker 4: Well, that's actually not entirely accurate. If you read, it
• 1:00:08
  Speaker 4: translates as like the witch's hammer or the hammer of
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 4: the witches.
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 5: I've got a copy of it right back there, yes.
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 6: Oh, you paid for it? It's in the public domain.
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 5: But anyway- I love having a real library with real books.
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 5: I don't want to rely on digital copies.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 2: As an aside, that's based, you should have physical media.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:00:25
  Speaker 3: Yeah, you should have physical media, but on the other hand,
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 3: there's a lot of stuff that I refuse to pay for.
• 1:00:30
  Speaker 1: I can understand that. But you can probably get it
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: used or something. Well, some things.
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 3: You have to.
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah.
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 3: All right, anyway, this seems to be some book shade
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 3: that's being thrown.
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 1: She's trying to say that the witch trials were oppressive
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 1: to women, and Rachel is saying that well, witches were
• 1:00:56
  Speaker 1: performing abortions.
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 2: So that doesn't end.
• 1:01:00
  Speaker 1: And we know that there are a lot of men
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 1: who are also accused of witchcraft and that women were
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 1: the ones that were the primary, let's say abusers of that. They,
• 1:01:09
  Speaker 1: they would like report often. They were, they were Karen's.
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 4: Yeah, go ahead.
• 1:01:17
  Speaker 3: If men, women were accused of witchcraft, men were accused
• 1:01:22
  Speaker 3: of heresy. So there's no separation here. And that means
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 3: that the reason why they separate it is they want
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 3: to make it overwhelmingly a female thing. Well, in that case,
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 3: then you have to deal with the fact that there
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 3: was an overwhelming, overwhelmingly a male genocide in terms of
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 3: the Inquisition. Because it was mostly men being accused.
• 1:01:44
  Speaker 1: Yes, well, the Inquisition was totally, I think it was
• 1:01:48
  Speaker 1: totally against men mostly.
• 1:01:50
  Speaker 3: 30% of the people accused of witchcraft were men. And
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 3: some places, the majority of the men, like in the
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 3: Scandinavian countries, the majority of the people accused of witchcraft
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 3: were men. And the vast majority of the people accused
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 3: of heresy were men during the Inquisition. So this general behavior.
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 5: It.
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 3: Actually targets men more. The accusation that men don't agree
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 3: with the predominant philosophy of the time targets men more,
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 3: as it always has. And I would like to add
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 3: that it wasn't the middle ages that invented hating witches.
• 1:02:29
  Speaker 3: Pagans hated witches.
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 6: Yes.
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 4: Yes.
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 3: Like the Roman empire hated witches.
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 3: They, they're, this is the, the, the Norse. Well, they didn't, they,
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 3: they were actually okay. Well, they didn't call them witches. The,
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 3: like the Volva, the, the, the wise CRS was fine.
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 3: But male witches in Scandinavian countries, they had a problem
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 3: with that.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 3: So this is hating witches is not a Christian thing.
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 3: If anything, Christians were like, well, maybe we should give
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 3: them some kind of due process instead of just chopping
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 3: their heads off. You know, Christians are like, yeah, let's
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 3: give them a trial first. That's the great irony. You know,
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 3: we look back in history and we're like, oh, the Christians,
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 3: they really hated witches. You mean the ones who actually
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 3: gave them a trial first?
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 3: And in some cases, if you were found to falsely
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 3: accuse a woman of witchcraft, you ended up suffering the
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 3: whatever penalty she would have. So they even had false
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 3: even recognized false accusations of witchcraft.
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 3: So, yeah, that's you want to pin that on Christian.
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 3: I don't think you really know. It doesn't go doesn't work.
• 1:03:45
  Speaker 3: The Christians actually gave witches trials.
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 2: I think Ivan the Terrible, too, was very much against witches.
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's keep going.
• 1:03:55
  Speaker 3: You'd think that at some point people would realize that
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 3: maybe witches were... If you actually read the original trials,
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 3: now I haven't read all of them because that's impossible,
• 1:04:03
  Speaker 3: but the few that I've come across and looked at,
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 3: like the details, these were unsavory people, guys. Yes. Like
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 3: he didn't, you weren't like a herbalist, you know, mixing
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 3: up polstices for your neighbor's horse legs. Like that wasn't,
• 1:04:21
  Speaker 3: you're an old woman who did stuff like that. That
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 3: wasn't the type of woman who ended up being accused
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 3: of witchcraft, right? It used to be, it would be
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 3: like women who, um, are found to actually be doing
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 3: hateful spells. So it's more like the intent of it.
• 1:04:40
  Speaker 3: Or that family over the hills where travelers just keep
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 3: disappearing and they have a mysterious source of income. Or
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 3: women who are selling... dead babies like these were not
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 3: not these were not good people at least from the
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 3: the and admittedly i haven't read a whole bunch but
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 3: from the ones i read these were not these the
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 3: people accused of witchcraft yeah they were unsavory shall we
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 3: say and um it's almost like witchcraft became the the
• 1:05:14
  Speaker 3: catch-all for by god we we don't we can't figure
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 3: out what this person is doing but there's a lot
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 3: of bodies in their front yard um Anyway. Let's continue.
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: Let's keep going.
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 5: I want to have a real library. So yes, I
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 5: have the hammer of witches. Yes. Okay.
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 6: It specifically spells out how to find a witch and
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 6: everything basically listed.
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 4: In that book that does not have to do with
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 4: what they think was magic is labeled as demonic.
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 6: Women appearing in your dreams.
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: Demons.
• 1:05:54
  Speaker 5: Mm-hmm. And do you think that... Okay, do you think
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 5: those things... Again, this is where we have to look
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 5: at the historical lens. Do you think pagans didn't do that?
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: Not just like you just brought up.
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: Based!
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 1: I mean, again, like, if there are a group of
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: people and they call themselves witches, you guys, like, if
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: you think that that means... you know, like, I don't
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: know that they could like, like twinkle their, they twinkle
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 1: their nose and like something appears from nowhere, like some sitcom.
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 2: I think you're thinking about this the wrong way.
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 1: Like, you know, it's like, there are people who believe
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: crazy shit and they act on those beliefs and it's
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 1: the actions that are the problems, not what they believe,
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 1: not whether or not you believe what they believe, right?
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 1: Like if you live in an Islamic country, Islam is
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 1: real to everyone there. Even if you think it's silly So,
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 1: so you have to live with that. Like, that's just
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: the reality.
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 2: So anyway.
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 5: Do you think that men didn't do that to other men?
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 5: Do you know that about 20% of people who were
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 5: burned as witches were men? So yes, I do.
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 5: There were some men who were also.
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 2: That's a patriarchy hurts men too, that she could deflect
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 2: to though, but.
• 1:07:16
  Speaker 5: Persecuted in this way.
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 4: Can I show you the slide that says that men
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 4: benefit from feminism too?
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 5: They don't though. How do men benefit from feminism when they,
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 5: let's look at the state of family courts.
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 2: She's going to talk about family courts.
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 1: So now she's saying, see, Amanda here is saying, men
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 1: benefit from feminism because we don't burn them as witches anymore.
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 1: Thank goodness for that. You know, I was wrong about feminists.
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 1: I could have been accused of being a witch. I mean,
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 1: I do occasionally wear mismatching socks. That basically is sorcery. Anyway.
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 3: Oh, hey, you wear a wizard outfit in Repo.
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 2: I do wear a wizard outfit in Repo, but don't
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 2: tell anybody.
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 3: And your favorite level.
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 1: They're going to come after us.
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 3: Your favorite level is the Swift Room Academy.
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 4: There you go.
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it is.
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: It is.
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 3: Put him in the dunking stool.
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 1: If he floats, he's a witch. If he sinks, he's
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 1: a witch. Or he wasn't. So this is her argument, basically.
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: The fact that a good chunk of the people burned
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 1: at the stake or killed or whatever were men and
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 1: now they're not being killed because of feminism.
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 5: I think that men benefit from feminism in the family
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 5: court system.
• 1:08:52
  Speaker 6: I'm not sure where you're going with this.
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 5: Has feminism... How can you possibly.
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 1: Like, this is like the most straightforward argument. that you
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: could make and she doesn't know where it's going. Do
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 1: you think that feminism benefits men in the family courts?
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: I don't know what you're talking about. What are family courts?
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 1: What are those? What's family?
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 3: And this is the woman who says she's motivated by equality.
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 3: And she's like, what do you mean there's another side
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 3: to equality? There's only the woman's side. Yeah.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 5: Given men equal parenting rights?
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 4: Well, it gives the, yeah, the way family court works
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 4: is it takes the one who's worse and limits the
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 4: time with the children.
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 6: Oftentimes that is a female.
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 5: That's actually not true. So if you go to my
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 5: sub stack and read the article I wrote.
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 6: I'm not going to go to your sub stack.
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 5: You should, because you'd learn a lot. You could go
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 5: there and read my article, 45 Years of Data, proving
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 5: that men are not the threat.
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 6: Men are not the threat. It's women who are the threat.
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 6: Women who live with an unmarried partner that is the
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 6: child in their relationship. Heard it all, Rachel, and I
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 6: still disagree with it.
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 5: Is it wrong?
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 2: It doesn't matter if she disagrees.
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 1: She's just like, what is it?
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 2: I disregard your reality and substitute my own?
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 3: Yeah, these facts don't align with my feelings, Rachel. Why
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 3: are you asserting them, Rachel? What are you doing, Rachel?
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 3: These facts, I've checked them against my feeling. They are false.
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: All right, let's go.
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 5: No, it's not wrong.
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 6: No, it's not wrong. You just don't like it.
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 5: You just don't know. You listen.
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 3: You listen.
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 5: Because what feminism has done is it has exposed women
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 5: to more violence, not less women living with women living
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 5: with cohabitative partners and with other women have the highest
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 5: rates of the safest place for women. is in a
• 1:10:53
  Speaker 5: marriage with the biological father of their children, that male
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 5: is the least likely to... The least.
• 1:11:01
  Speaker 6: Likely to be reported, Rachel. You had the same debate.
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 3: You were debunked.
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 6: Yeah, Rachel, I'm not going to have this debate with
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 6: you again.
• 1:11:06
  Speaker 5: Show me where I'm wrong.
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 6: Because we're just talking past each other right now.
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 1: We're not.
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 5: You have to contend with this.
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 6: How is.
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: I don't know if you want to say anything to
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: that or you want to keep going. Um.
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 3: I'm actually reading a summary of the Hammer of Witches,
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 3: but you know what? I should probably not fall down
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 3: this rabbit hole while we're having this discussion. What was
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 3: the general gist of what they said?
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 2: Rachel said, well, you know what? I can go back
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 2: a little bit.
• 1:11:36
  Speaker 3: Sorry, guys.
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: No, it's okay.
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 3: The scent of data has attracted me onto them.
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's okay.
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 3: Go back a little bit.
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: I'll go back a little bit before this.
• 1:11:44
  Speaker 5: Okay, like right here. No, you listen. You listen. Because
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 5: what feminism has done is it has exposed women to
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 5: more violence, not less. Women living with cohabitative partners and
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 5: with other women have the highest rates of abuse. The
• 1:12:04
  Speaker 5: safest place for women is in a marriage with the
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 5: biological father of their children. That male is the least
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 5: likely to hurt.
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 6: The least likely to be reported, Rachel. You had the
• 1:12:15
  Speaker 6: same debate. You were debunked. Yeah, Rachel, I'm not going
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 6: to have this debate with you.
• 1:12:18
  Speaker 3: She wants to go with the reported thing? She wants
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 3: to go with reported. All right, okay. So our standard
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 3: of evidence is now surveys. Anonymous surveys, my dear. You
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 3: want to throw out the reported evidence. Anything reported to
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 3: the police, the suspect is, I don't know, biased against
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 3: women for some reason. Okay, let's throw out the reported evidence.
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 3: All right, then now you're dealing with 70% of non-reciprocal
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 3: domestic violence is perpetuated by women on other women or men.
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 4: Okay?
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 3: And the remainder, like 30% of non-reciprocal domestic violence is
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 3: perpetrated by men on women. Probably a significant number of
• 1:13:08
  Speaker 3: that is exactly the category of men that Rachel is
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 3: talking about. Boyfriends, shacking up, cohabitors, whatever. The dude she
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 3: pulled off the street who has.
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: Wade Wilson.
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 3: Yeah, Wade Wilson has a murder record. So there you go.
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 3: I'm not exactly sure what she thinks she's achieving here. Oh,
• 1:13:29
  Speaker 3: this is reported to the violence police. Well, okay, then, Amanda,
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 3: then we can't look at that evidence. Let's look at
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 3: the anonymous surveys. Oh, look at that. Women are more violent. Like,
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 3: what the hell is she even on?
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 3: Well, I know what she's on. She's like, I am
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 3: pressure testing these assertions based on how I feel about them.
• 1:13:53
  Speaker 3: I don't like them, yeet. Like, okay.
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 1: Mm-hmm. All right, I got another super chow. It's fine.
• 1:14:02
  Speaker 1: From Official Reverse Trad for 10, and he says, just
• 1:14:05
  Speaker 1: one last one. If women are supposed to be stay-at-home parents,
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 1: according to them, I don't understand how that implies dependency.
• 1:14:13
  Speaker 1: I assume that women aren't supposed to become a stay-at-home
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 1: trad wife at 16 on MTV. They're supposed to start
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 1: with an education, work history, and a nest egg to
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 1: protect themselves in a divorce. Also, if value is subjective...
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 1: then it's actually a fact that my feelings that feminism
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: is worth zero value is valid. Yeah, except that your
• 1:14:32
  Speaker 1: values as a man are not worth anything compared to women.
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 1: Women's opinions are more, they carry more weight. Duh, thought
• 1:14:40
  Speaker 1: you knew that.
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 3: I mean, honestly, now the term incel has really expanded
• 1:14:46
  Speaker 3: in scope. It's apparently any man who ever has a
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 3: negative feeling towards women ever or a woman.
• 1:14:54
  Speaker 1: Or even doesn't, just criticizes bad behavior that women exhibit.
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I mean, criticizing bad behavior, they don't understand that.
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 3: So it just has a negative feeling towards women. Because
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 3: they will translate some man saying, don't kill your kids into, oh,
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 3: this incel. He wants to oppress women by taking away
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 3: their choices and their bodily autonomy.
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 2: Heavy breathing.
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 3: Heavy breathing, yeah.
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 1: Okay. Okay.
• 1:15:28
  Speaker 3: And he wants to do it because he hates women.
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, of course.
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 1: I got a super chat from Master Goa for five
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 1: and he says, if they stop practicing witchcraft, we wouldn't
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 1: need to fire them at the stake.
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 2: Hashtag oppress all witches. Okay.
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 1: Let us continue.
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 3: Just one last statement.
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah.
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 3: Have you noticed how much this all resolves into auditing
• 1:15:51
  Speaker 3: emotions with women? You remember the whole arguments we had
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 3: with Natty and she would go after me for not
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 3: having the right emotions.
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 3: She'd be like, Oh, but we have to look, we
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 3: have to audit your emotional ledger to make sure that
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 3: you have standing to speak. I'm like, okay. I'm still a.
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 2: Little baffled by that because, well, I don't know.
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: I think it's just, it's baffling because she still thinks that,
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 1: she was acting like it's like, if I say we,
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 1: we should exercise reason, she's acting like I'm saying emotion
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 1: has apps.
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 2: Like I'm, I've just completely cut it off.
• 1:16:32
  Speaker 1: Like I just like, it's a toggle and it's like, no,
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 1: but I'm saying we have to exercise reason because we
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: can't let emotions dominate the, the discourse.
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 2: We have to be rational.
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 1: Like otherwise you might, I don't know, kill three of
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 1: your kids out of nowhere. Yeah. because you just didn't
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: stop and become rational because you just followed your feelings
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 1: you know when.
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 3: We allow feelings to dominate who is the one that
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 3: becomes the feelings that are central what the biggest.
• 1:17:07
  Speaker 1: Bully feelings everyone cares.
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 3: About I guess I guess that's the biggest bully in
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 3: the room wow what a way to make decisions.
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 1: I know the biggest bully in this room I'm just
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 1: saying when she goes to the beach she's the only
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 1: one that gets a tan um.
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 3: All right all right all right let's okay okay let's.
• 1:17:37
  Speaker 1: Keep going just talking.
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 6: Past each other right now you.
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 5: Have to contend with this how is women how is
• 1:17:44
  Speaker 5: feminism helping women how Because.
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 6: It gives us the choice of no-fault divorce. If you
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 6: don't like your husband and you're miserable, you can leave.
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 4: It gives us the opportunity to be seen intellectually for
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 4: what we are and to go be a CEO of
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 4: a corporation if we want to be.
• 1:18:00
  Speaker 6: It gives us the opportunity.
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 3: Women had businesses even back then.
• 1:18:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah. One of the first business women in the mid-1800s
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 1: was a Black woman.
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 1: Who owned her own business and her own slaves. Like
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 1: she owned slaves. So don't tell me it, like that's
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 1: literally the most, let's say unlikely assumption we would.
• 1:18:34
  Speaker 2: Make and yet it exists. But you know, Amanda, they just.
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 1: Think that if there aren't men rolling out the red
• 1:18:42
  Speaker 1: carpet for women and giving them every possible advantage and
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 1: resource that women cannot do it. And that's funny because
• 1:18:51
  Speaker 1: most men don't become CEOs either. Newsflash. Is that because
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 1: of patriarchy? I don't know.
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 3: Yes, because that's patriarchy. All women, the fact that most
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 3: women don't become CEOs is patriarchy oppressing women. The fact
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 3: that most men don't become CEOs is patriarchy backfiring, I think.
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 3: And again, because men go and work to protect and
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 3: provide for their woman, that's patriarchal oppression. And this is
• 1:19:27
  Speaker 3: the funny thing. And this is why I say that
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 3: feminism ate Marxism.
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 1: Allison, why are you giving me these layups?
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 3: Go ahead, spike it.
• 1:19:40
  Speaker 1: She had Marxism with extra cheese and bacon. All right,
• 1:19:44
  Speaker 1: but go ahead. Goddamn.
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 3: I have to say, I've never seen somebody on camera who,
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 3: whose silhouette is a perfect sphere.
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 2: I don't think that's, I don't, I think that is like,
• 1:20:03
  Speaker 2: I don't think there's a background.
• 1:20:05
  Speaker 1: I think that's just her. Like that's. Okay. All right.
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Okay.
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 3: So the Marxist feminists attempted to derive male like the
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 3: benefit that men get from sacrificing to protect and provide
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 3: for women, the material benefit. And they couldn't. They failed
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 3: for like 10 years. They tried and then they just
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 3: gave up and invented standpoint theory saying, oh, it's just
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 3: our feelings. Our feelings are what make everything right. Like
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 3: that's all the evidence we need. But it's hilarious to
• 1:20:44
  Speaker 3: watch them try to use Marxism to find the material benefit,
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 3: because that's the thing. With Marxism, you're supposed to find
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 3: the material benefit, and that's the oppressor. And that's what
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 3: they attempted to do, and they're just like, I can't
• 1:20:59
  Speaker 3: find the material benefit that goes to men for being
• 1:21:04
  Speaker 3: in a relationship with women and sacrificing for her protection
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 3: and provision. Yes.
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 5: Yes.
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 3: Because the material benefit goes to the woman. And based
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 3: on your own Marxist conjecture, what does that make her?
• 1:21:15
  Speaker 3: The oppressor. Now, this actually, I think, would indicate some
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 3: of the flaws in Marxist analysis, right? Plus, I think
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 3: that Marxism, and even to an extent, Austrian economic analysis
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 3: is really We need to update all of that basically
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 3: we need to stop looking at the economy through the
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 3: lens of like the 18th century because we got a
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 3: lot different shit going on now, but regardless the the
• 1:21:45
  Speaker 3: fact that you can't find the benefit to men in
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 3: the relationship between men and women might suggest you should
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 3: go to the drawing board or Uh, asserting that men
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 3: oppress women, but no, that's not what they did. They
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 3: kept driving forward with their feeling. So it used to
• 1:22:05
  Speaker 3: be the formulation was feeling then analysis to justify the
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 3: feeling then, um, action, but they did the analysis and
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 3: they found that the feeling wasn't justified, uh, So in
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 3: the second step, they said, OK, we got this feeling.
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 3: We did the Marxist analysis and apparently we're the oppressors. So, no,
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 3: that's not that can't be right. Well, we don't have
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 3: the feeling that we're the oppressors. Therefore, we're not. And
• 1:22:28
  Speaker 3: it's men. And we'll just go forward and start cherry
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 3: picking society, the history, cherry picking from the the not
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 3: the material reality of women in history, because once again,
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 3: they look at the material reality of women in history
• 1:22:43
  Speaker 3: and they find that it is better than men's. because
• 1:22:45
  Speaker 3: of course men are protecting and providing for women. So
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 3: we'll look at the legal reality of history and we'll
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 3: cherry pick it and we'll just slam it into kids'
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 3: heads until they agree that everybody just agrees that men
• 1:22:59
  Speaker 3: oppress women. All based on a feeling. And then when
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 3: it was found that that feeling had no evidentiary basis,
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 3: even in Marxist conjecture, they threw out Marxist conjecture, brought
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 3: in standpoint theory and said, our feelings justify our feelings.
• 1:23:16
  Speaker 3: And God was your uncle. On we go. 50 years later,
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 3: it was all just a feeling. A feeling that was
• 1:23:24
  Speaker 3: never cross-checked.
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 1: It was.
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 3: That's what's astounding. It was. Like Marxist analysis. Feminism met
• 1:23:34
  Speaker 3: Marxist analysis. And Marxist analysis said no, bitch. And they
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 3: threw out Marxist analysis. And they just kept going. Like,
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 3: I mean, can you freaking believe it? Feminism is the
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 3: thing that hit Marxist analysis. And even Marxist analysis was like, no,
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 3: this is no, no, stop.
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 5: Nope.
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 3: This is not correct. And they just yeeted it and
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 3: just kept on their merry way. Yeah.
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 1: Goddamn. I mean, anyway. All right.
• 1:24:15
  Speaker 2: I got another Rumble rant. Hold on.
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: NovaFan21 gave us a dollar and said, I heard the
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 1: reason why Amanda didn't do this debate for so long
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 1: was because she lived in two area codes at the
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 1: same time. Amanda was force-fed red pills and stored them
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 1: for later rejection.
• 1:24:33
  Speaker 3: Yikes.
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 3: Let's Oh god This has become.
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 1: I know it's so mean I'm sorry She doesn't have
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: a lot of arguments that are very good But okay
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 1: let's keep going Let's try.
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 3: Let's face it She is the relational web So the
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 3: entirety of it.
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 2: She's the whole damn house.
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 3: Full of webs The whole damn wall.
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah There are so many filters. That's why you can't
• 1:25:06
  Speaker 1: see her very well. She's got so many filters going.
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: Her computer is going to crash. All right.
• 1:25:12
  Speaker 3: And this is what she ends up with?
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 4: There are probably women out there who wanted to. Most
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 4: of those women were actually nuns, surprisingly enough.
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 5: Exactly right. And let's talk about this is the framing again.
• 1:25:24
  Speaker 5: How many men do you think were getting PhDs in
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 5: the Middle Ages?
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 6: Probably not that many, Rachel, because it didn't really exist.
• 1:25:30
  Speaker 5: Almost none. PhDs were for a handful of the smartest people.
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 6: And the rest were out in the fields working, getting.
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 5: That's right. That's what I think.
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 6: Well, women were also in the dirt dying in childbirth.
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 5: Yes. It's almost like life was hard for everyone and
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 5: that women were not uniquely oppressed.
• 1:25:48
  Speaker 6: No one is saying it's not.
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 5: Women were not uniquely oppressed. So why did they need
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 5: to be liberated? What did they need feminism for? If
• 1:25:54
  Speaker 5: they weren't uniquely oppressed by men, what was the point
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 5: of feminism?
• 1:25:59
  Speaker 6: To elevate the entire society to include women. Men benefit
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 6: from it too.
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 2: How do you elevate women?
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: First of all, nobody's elevating that, but how do you
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 1: elevate society to benefit women? You'd only be, you can
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: only elevate women. Yes.
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 2: That's what you're, that's what.
• 1:26:19
  Speaker 1: You're ultimately trying to say, but you don't want to
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: say that, but that's the only way that works out.
• 1:26:25
  Speaker 3: Rachel is essentially asserting that X equals Y, right? Men
• 1:26:29
  Speaker 3: and women were equally hard done by in the middle ages.
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 3: And she's asserting that feminism is, creates equality, right? And
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 3: that improves society. But she's like, so by creating X
• 1:26:45
  Speaker 3: equals Y, feminism creates a better society. But Rachel's saying,
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 3: but X always equaled Y. And I don't think that's penetrating.
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 3: Perhaps Rachel needs to throw it harder.
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 1: Throw what harder?
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 3: The concept that... Oh, okay, okay.
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't think Amanda's prepared. She's probably exhausted by this.
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 4: By being able to be more open and be emotional
• 1:27:19
  Speaker 4: and staying at home.
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 6: If you want.
• 1:27:21
  Speaker 5: Hey men, when you get your children stolen from you
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 5: in family court, you can cry about it publicly.
• 1:27:28
  Speaker 3: Aren't you happy? Isn't that great?
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 5: Isn't that better?
• 1:27:31
  Speaker 6: They can go find support from A therapist or something.
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 5: They can find emotional support after getting railroaded in court
• 1:27:39
  Speaker 5: and getting their kids taken away because their wife decided
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 5: the neighbor next door is sexier. My wife decided the
• 1:27:46
  Speaker 5: neighbor next door is sexier. He made her feel hot.
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 5: And so she's leaving me and she's taking my kids,
• 1:27:51
  Speaker 5: but at least I can cry about it. Thanks, feminism.
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 1: She's like, yeah, duh.
• 1:28:00
  Speaker 4: And you can go to a therapist and keep from
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 4: wanting to commit suicide over Oh.
• 1:28:04
  Speaker 1: My God. My face went over here. You see that? She's, oh,
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 1: my God. Like, I don't know if, like, Amanda thinks
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 1: that she, like, got, she scored something there.
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 2: And all she's done is expose.
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: The whole thing, the whole game. Like, yeah, well, you know,
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 1: we're going to, like, completely destroy your life and we're
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 1: going to support that the whole way. At least you
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 1: can cry about it so you don't become toxically masculine.
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 3: But they don't even let that happen because if men
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 3: were to cry about.
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 2: It, Yeah, they would get called incels.
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 3: Yeah, they'd be called incels.
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah. We'd be back on that. All right. Okay.
• 1:28:52
  Speaker 3: No, we can do the next one.
• 1:28:54
  Speaker 2: That's the end of that video.
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 1: What was that?
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 2: What were we going to say?
• 1:28:59
  Speaker 3: We want to try doing the next one.
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 2: We want to do a little bit of not so erudite.
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know if we're going to get that
• 1:29:04
  Speaker 3: motion check.
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 1: She's a little easier on the eyes, but she's kind
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 1: of a mannequin.
• 1:29:08
  Speaker 2: So that is to say she's plastic.
• 1:29:14
  Speaker 1: I mean that literally. But at least she's a little
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 1: easier on the eyes than Amanda.
• 1:29:19
  Speaker 2: So comments. Our chat is roasting her, and it's great.
• 1:29:27
  Speaker 2: I'm here for it.
• 1:29:29
  Speaker 1: I'm here for it. Okay.
• 1:29:33
  Speaker 3: I will say this with Rachel Wilson. She demonstrates tremendous restraint.
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 3: I don't think I heard a your mama joke once.
• 1:29:45
  Speaker 1: You mean no, you're so fat joke? No.
• 1:29:47
  Speaker 2: When they started.
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 1: The debate, Amanda said that she would only come on
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: under the stipulation that they would not engage in personal insults.
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 1: I have no idea why she would open up with that,
• 1:29:58
  Speaker 1: but That was like her condition. And then she proceeded
• 1:30:04
  Speaker 1: to insult men shortly into that clip by saying, yes,
• 1:30:07
  Speaker 1: I have seen the incels. And Rachel was like, I
• 1:30:11
  Speaker 1: wouldn't go there if I were you. Like, really? Which
• 1:30:15
  Speaker 1: I agree with.
• 1:30:19
  Speaker 5: Anyway.
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 1: Let's do a.
• 1:30:21
  Speaker 3: Little bit of not so erudite. Although we might have
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 3: to finish this.
• 1:30:27
  Speaker 1: We might have to do a part two. to get
• 1:30:29
  Speaker 1: into not so erudite. So this is, Oh, I got another, uh,
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 1: super chat. Uh, roast dreams are a rare treat. I agree.
• 1:30:37
  Speaker 1: I like to have a little fun. Uh, Albatross says
• 1:30:40
  Speaker 1: she looks like the guy from Jurassic park who got
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 1: eaten by the Dilophosaurus.
• 1:30:43
  Speaker 2: Don't make fun of Newman.
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 1: Um, I like him. He's funny.
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 2: She's not funny. She's not even, see that thing.
• 1:30:53
  Speaker 1: If you're like a fat guy, you can make up
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 1: for it by being really funny or, Having a good personality.
• 1:31:01
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think women could, but I don't think
• 1:31:03
  Speaker 2: that woman has. Like, I don't know. She just needs
• 1:31:07
  Speaker 2: to go find her chin.
• 1:31:09
  Speaker 1: And, you know, keep it up. So, Newman. Anyway. So,
• 1:31:15
  Speaker 1: here is Not So Erudite versus Rachel Wilson. I'm going
• 1:31:18
  Speaker 1: to first check to see if the audio is working.
• 1:31:23
  Speaker 2: Okay, it is working.
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: All right. So... They're also debating, is feminism doing more
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 1: harm than good?
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 2: Which is the debate topic.
• 1:31:36
  Speaker 1: And I got some time codes, but if we're going
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 1: to do like a two-parter, do you want to just
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 1: get through like the coming up bit and then respond
• 1:31:43
  Speaker 1: to that?
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 2: Or how do you want to do it?
• 1:31:45
  Speaker 1: Because this one is two hours long, this debate.
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 3: All right, well... I really haven't... Okay, so what are
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 3: the pluses of responding to the coming up bit? I
• 1:31:59
  Speaker 3: don't know.
• 1:32:00
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's just like.
• 1:32:02
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's the stinger part, so I guess the
• 1:32:05
  Speaker 1: people who made the video thought it.
• 1:32:07
  Speaker 2: Was the most.
• 1:32:08
  Speaker 3: I see the logic. I see the logic. Okay, let's
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 3: do it. Let's do it.
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, okay. It's the click baby part.
• 1:32:15
  Speaker 5: Do you understand... how you can possibly have feminism in
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 5: a world. If you're going to keep interrupting me, I'll
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 5: just ask for time.
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: I'll just, I'll ask my question.
• 1:32:24
  Speaker 5: Cause if I, if I interrupt you, it's a big problem,
• 1:32:26
  Speaker 5: but apparently I can't speak. I need to participate in
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 5: order for this to be a conversation, Kyla. Pakistan's economy
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 5: sucks so bad, even though the birth rate is high,
• 1:32:34
  Speaker 5: is because they are a Muslim nation with the highest
• 1:32:38
  Speaker 5: rate of inbreeding in the world. Oh, I forgot brown people.
• 1:32:42
  Speaker 5: How did I not think of that? Your field of
• 1:32:44
  Speaker 5: psychology that you.
• 1:32:45
  Speaker 1: So she's basically saying, oh, you're racist, when Rachel rightfully
• 1:32:49
  Speaker 1: says that those countries have a high rate of inbreeding,
• 1:32:53
  Speaker 1: which affects... Well, inbreeding affects people. Is that controversial? And
• 1:33:00
  Speaker 1: they have the highest inbreeding in the world.
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 2: So, like, because Kyla is her real name, not so erudite.
• 1:33:07
  Speaker 1: She basically is saying that those countries have bad economies
• 1:33:15
  Speaker 1: because they don't have feminism. And Rachel is saying those
• 1:33:19
  Speaker 1: countries have bad economies because, and they have, despite the
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 1: fact that they have high birth rates because of inbreedings.
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: How about this?
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 3: They don't have feminism because they have bad economies.
• 1:33:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a good point.
• 1:33:39
  Speaker 1: You can only afford feminism. It is a parasite. Why
• 1:33:44
  Speaker 1: would it go to places where there's no potential to
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: take anything?
• 1:33:48
  Speaker 5: Yeah, exactly.
• 1:33:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah. So you can only have feminism with a robust
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 3: economy because... The detrimental effects of it are so immediate
• 1:33:58
  Speaker 3: and destructive towards an economy that's marginal.
• 1:34:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 3: That even the women recognize it. So, I don't know.
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 3: She's got the causality backwards. I see that... I don't know.
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 3: The stinger... Is this the stinger from the Channel Modern
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 3: Day Debate?
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:34:19
  Speaker 3: This is what they picked. This stinger is not... It's making...
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 3: this woman look more, uh, not so erudite look like the, uh, the,
• 1:34:30
  Speaker 3: the winner almost. I doubt that's the case.
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: However, what do you mean?
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 2: Oh, because of the clips they're choosing.
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 1: Um, I mean, I guess like if you, if you
• 1:34:42
  Speaker 1: are the kind of person that's going to be moved
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: by her suggestions that Rachel's being racist by saying, Oh,
• 1:34:50
  Speaker 1: I forgot Brown people. I guess, but I mean, and
• 1:34:52
  Speaker 1: that's such a, like a simplistic way to react, but
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 1: I'm sure.
• 1:34:58
  Speaker 3: Honestly, it's the same. Like if it's strange coming from
• 1:35:02
  Speaker 3: a feminist, because the CEDAW maps, that's the discrepancy around
• 1:35:07
  Speaker 3: the world. Supposedly it's basically the map of feminism around
• 1:35:11
  Speaker 3: the world. Exactly. Maps to Brown people being the most
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 3: immoral and baddest to their women. So I'm not sure
• 1:35:20
  Speaker 3: where she's getting this idea. And Rachel's basically saying it's inbreeding.
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 3: And those brown countries that don't practice it don't have
• 1:35:31
  Speaker 3: bad economies or have better economies. And what not so
• 1:35:35
  Speaker 3: erudite is saying is, no, my ideology that exactly maps
• 1:35:42
  Speaker 3: to the darkest skin colors being the worst people on
• 1:35:45
  Speaker 3: the planet is the one that's correct. And also you're
• 1:35:50
  Speaker 3: a racist. That's the great irony of this. If you
• 1:35:55
  Speaker 3: look at the CEDAW map, which is the map of feminism,
• 1:35:57
  Speaker 3: and then you look at the map of skin colors
• 1:36:01
  Speaker 3: around the world, it is an exact one-to-one match. In
• 1:36:06
  Speaker 3: other words, her ideology shows that the darker skinned you are,
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 3: the more immoral you are. Yes. Along the feminist axis.
• 1:36:18
  Speaker 3: And then she has the audacity to point to Rachel saying, hey, actually,
• 1:36:24
  Speaker 3: I think it's this social factor that is race neutral.
• 1:36:31
  Speaker 1: Because there are white groups everywhere.
• 1:36:33
  Speaker 3: That there are white groups that also practice inbreeding.
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 3: It's this social factor. That's the problem. And she has
• 1:36:43
  Speaker 3: the audacity to call Rachel the racist. But that's a
• 1:36:48
  Speaker 3: little more difficult to set up, isn't it? But again,
• 1:36:51
  Speaker 3: you have to look at this from a relational web thinking.
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 1: Arguments- Oh, hey, Rachel Wilson's in the chat. Oh. Hi, Rachel.
• 1:37:01
  Speaker 1: She says, hey guys, thanks for this review. You'll like
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 1: this one because my whole argument is us, is I
• 1:37:08
  Speaker 1: guess an economic one, which I haven't done before. My
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 1: six minute opening maps out exactly what you were saying.
• 1:37:14
  Speaker 2: Thanks, Rachel.
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 1: About feminism needing prosperity in order to survive, but ironically
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 1: destroying prosperity and therefore making feminism impossible down the road.
• 1:37:23
  Speaker 2: Well, how long have you been lurking in our chat,
• 1:37:26
  Speaker 2: Miss Wilson?
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 3: But my point is that this stinger looks like it's
• 1:37:34
  Speaker 3: edited in such a way to make the not so
• 1:37:38
  Speaker 3: erudite appear to be more successful in the debate than
• 1:37:41
  Speaker 3: she necessarily was. And I'm looking at it from a
• 1:37:45
  Speaker 3: relational web perspective. And when you look at it from
• 1:37:52
  Speaker 3: a relational web perspective, also, you know, hi, Rachel, thanks
• 1:37:57
  Speaker 3: for dropping by. But when you look at it from
• 1:37:59
  Speaker 3: a relational web perspective, attacking Rachel's position feels like the
• 1:38:04
  Speaker 3: powerful argument, the powerful counter argument to whatever Rachel is saying.
• 1:38:13
  Speaker 1: I'm glad Rachel wasn't here when we were responding to
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 1: this other debate with Amanda, because I was really mean,
• 1:38:18
  Speaker 1: and I'm going to have to go to confession.
• 1:38:21
  Speaker 2: All right, anyways. Rachel, I know you're leaving. Thanks for
• 1:38:28
  Speaker 2: dropping by.
• 1:38:29
  Speaker 1: But remember i still wanted to get you on that
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: fireside chat you never got back to me that was
• 1:38:33
  Speaker 1: like years ago but maybe we'll work that out at
• 1:38:35
  Speaker 1: some point okay so yes allison i don't know the
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 1: the modern day debate guys i think they generally try
• 1:38:41
  Speaker 1: their best to stay neutral but they may have still
• 1:38:45
  Speaker 1: hold on to some of those old kind of like
• 1:38:49
  Speaker 1: I don't know how to put it, but there's like
• 1:38:51
  Speaker 1: certain thought terminating cliches that people can't let go of. So,
• 1:38:57
  Speaker 1: you know, let.
• 1:39:00
  Speaker 3: Me put it this way. Also stingers, even just, even
• 1:39:04
  Speaker 3: if they don't intend to slant the field, stingers would
• 1:39:08
  Speaker 3: tend to, and this is, this is a part, a
• 1:39:11
  Speaker 3: problem for our side generally tend to enhance or like
• 1:39:16
  Speaker 3: make it look, make the other side look better. because
• 1:39:21
  Speaker 3: they're doing this classification maneuver and the classification maneuver lands
• 1:39:29
  Speaker 3: quicker and it feels more impactful. When we're actually slowly
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 3: going through the evidence and building up our arguments and
• 1:39:38
  Speaker 3: making sure that they're supported step by step by step,
• 1:39:43
  Speaker 3: that feels less, people lose their attention, it loses people's attention. Whereas,
• 1:39:51
  Speaker 3: you know, like an accusation of racism, an accusation of misogyny,
• 1:39:56
  Speaker 3: it seems almost like a clever put-down. It's really what
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 3: it is, like in a lot of cases. Relational web
• 1:40:03
  Speaker 3: combat is attacking each other's position. Not the argument, but
• 1:40:10
  Speaker 3: the position in the web. So what Amanda has, or what,
• 1:40:14
  Speaker 3: it's not Amanda, not so erudite has done here, has
• 1:40:18
  Speaker 3: gone directly to... Rachel's credibility or her position to speak from.
• 1:40:26
  Speaker 3: So she's trying to discredit. She's trying to say, well,
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 3: Rachel has no position to speak from. And that kind
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 3: of combat comes across like in really short clips a
• 1:40:41
  Speaker 3: lot better, I think, than the slow argument. Because first
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 3: of all, you can't put a careful reasoned argument into
• 1:40:47
  Speaker 3: a slow clip, but you can put a zinger. But anyway,
• 1:40:53
  Speaker 3: that's what I'm trying to get at. And also, I'm
• 1:40:57
  Speaker 3: guessing when we go through this, we're going to see
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 3: a lot of threat narrative from not so erudite and
• 1:41:04
  Speaker 3: a lot of relational web maneuvering. Amanda tried to do
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 3: a bit of it. She was throwing shade. She was
• 1:41:12
  Speaker 3: trying to present Rachel as being not well read. And
• 1:41:19
  Speaker 3: then some other stuff that she was. It was very passive-aggressive,
• 1:41:24
  Speaker 3: but I'm guessing that not so erudite is going to
• 1:41:27
  Speaker 3: do way more of it. So we can probably analyze
• 1:41:31
  Speaker 3: that based on a relational web combat analysis as well
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 3: in terms of the arguments. And again, I'm going to
• 1:41:42
  Speaker 3: say something maybe that's controversial, but inviting relational web thinkers...
• 1:41:50
  Speaker 3: into important debates related to like foundational things like, uh,
• 1:41:57
  Speaker 3: the relationship between the sexes, economic policy, that kind of stuff.
• 1:42:02
  Speaker 3: It retards the process of developing those, um, of developing
• 1:42:07
  Speaker 3: any kind of consensus or understanding.
• 1:42:10
  Speaker 4: Yes.
• 1:42:13
  Speaker 3: And I, I hate to say it, but This woman
• 1:42:16
  Speaker 3: is not advancing the cause of human knowledge. She's regressing it.
• 1:42:21
  Speaker 1: No.
• 1:42:22
  Speaker 2: Well, Kyla, is that her name?
• 1:42:26
  Speaker 1: Kyla is very good friends with destiny. Maybe really good.
• 1:42:30
  Speaker 5: I don't know.
• 1:42:32
  Speaker 3: And it's all about, it's all about really gets around.
• 1:42:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I don't get it, Alison. I don't get it.
• 1:42:39
  Speaker 1: I don't get what we're seeing that guy, but how
• 1:42:42
  Speaker 1: much does it make? He's probably a millionaire. Oh, he's
• 1:42:45
  Speaker 1: probably doing really well. But, you know, I think Hasan
• 1:42:48
  Speaker 1: has more, and I don't think he's that successful, so...
• 1:42:52
  Speaker 1: I don't know.
• 1:42:53
  Speaker 6: What?
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 3: Well, Hasan is not white, right? Destiny's white.
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true.
• 1:42:57
  Speaker 2: I don't know if... Yeah, yeah.
• 1:43:00
  Speaker 3: Like, literally, you want to understand Destiny's appeal? All I
• 1:43:05
  Speaker 3: need to do is, you know, I've done the GSS, like,
• 1:43:08
  Speaker 3: the ACS, the CEW, like, all of these big surveys.
• 1:43:14
  Speaker 3: destiny's appeal is this to white liberal women or women,
• 1:43:17
  Speaker 3: liberal women, period. Destiny is peel is that he is
• 1:43:20
  Speaker 3: white and he is rich.
• 1:43:22
  Speaker 1: Well, the other thing though, is that like having associations
• 1:43:25
  Speaker 1: with people like him are good for your brand if
• 1:43:28
  Speaker 1: you're trying to come up. So I think like, uh,
• 1:43:33
  Speaker 1: Kyla benefits from associating with destiny. She wants to make
• 1:43:38
  Speaker 1: it big on, on social media too. She wants to
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 1: be a big influencer and, I think that she's like
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 1: on her way, but that's what she's doing. She's hustling
• 1:43:46
  Speaker 1: to be like the top influencer or one of them.
• 1:43:49
  Speaker 1: Rachel Wilson said, she's still in the chat. I thought
• 1:43:52
  Speaker 1: she had to leave, but it's okay. You're good. She said,
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 1: these are the exact people we have to debate because
• 1:43:58
  Speaker 1: all the other unaware people of the world think they
• 1:44:00
  Speaker 1: sound smart and follow them and copy them. That's exactly
• 1:44:03
  Speaker 1: what we're trying to destroy. Yes. Then Rachel says, the
• 1:44:05
  Speaker 1: main reason Andrew and I do these debates is to
• 1:44:08
  Speaker 1: demonstrate the fact that most people do not know how
• 1:44:10
  Speaker 1: to think And do not know why they believe the
• 1:44:13
  Speaker 1: things they believe. Yes.
• 1:44:15
  Speaker 2: Yes, that's true.
• 1:44:16
  Speaker 1: That's what we've been doing too. Although we don't debate
• 1:44:19
  Speaker 1: as much. We've been on Wick's channel a couple of times.
• 1:44:23
  Speaker 1: Never invited back. We never got invited back. Because Wick
• 1:44:29
  Speaker 1: was trying to get in good with people like Destiny.
• 1:44:32
  Speaker 1: He did it. Now he doesn't need to court his
• 1:44:36
  Speaker 1: enemies anymore. Put it that way. Rachel then says the
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 1: most consistent feedback we get from people is that we
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 1: change their whole lives because we change the entire way
• 1:44:44
  Speaker 1: they think.
• 1:44:45
  Speaker 2: And their whole worldview.
• 1:44:47
  Speaker 5: Nice.
• 1:44:49
  Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah.
• 1:44:50
  Speaker 5: All right.
• 1:44:51
  Speaker 1: So yeah, I think that, I think that not so
• 1:44:53
  Speaker 1: air diets kind of using destiny to like raise her profile.
• 1:44:56
  Speaker 1: And I think that they are both kind of using
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 1: each other. So it's not just, I don't think that
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 1: she's necessarily attracted to him.
• 1:45:04
  Speaker 2: I think it's just like, okay, what do I got
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 2: to do? It's the thing.
• 1:45:09
  Speaker 1: You know what? Yeah, really.
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 3: He's drunk. He's got an attention economy. He's got power
• 1:45:19
  Speaker 3: and clout. He's got money.
• 1:45:21
  Speaker 1: Yes.
• 1:45:22
  Speaker 3: And he's a white dude. Like, honestly, the liberal women,
• 1:45:28
  Speaker 3: none of their values are actually sincerely held. Okay, none
• 1:45:32
  Speaker 3: of them. They're all a fig leaf to the fact
• 1:45:35
  Speaker 3: that they are materially greedy. And it's greedy in terms
• 1:45:39
  Speaker 3: of attention and material goods.
• 1:45:41
  Speaker 1: That's it.
• 1:45:43
  Speaker 3: What did you call them, Brian? They're social climbers. Toxic
• 1:45:46
  Speaker 3: social climbers. So 100% destiny is going to get, he's
• 1:45:53
  Speaker 3: going to smash, shall we say. Because he has those things.
• 1:45:59
  Speaker 2: Who's gifting memberships? From Meadow Wolf. Thank you, Meadow Wolf.
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 1: He gifted 20 Badger livestream gift memberships. All right, sweet.
• 1:46:08
  Speaker 5: Oh, thanks.
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 1: I don't know what that means for us, but I'm
• 1:46:11
  Speaker 1: sure that those people will be happy.
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 3: Thank you.
• 1:46:14
  Speaker 1: Let's go.
• 1:46:15
  Speaker 3: I don't know what it means. Yeah.
• 1:46:18
  Speaker 5: Sorry, guys.
• 1:46:20
  Speaker 1: Go ahead.
• 1:46:21
  Speaker 3: Thank you for this gift that, oh, it's still difficult
• 1:46:26
  Speaker 3: to parse what it means. But anyway, so my point
• 1:46:29
  Speaker 3: is that, what was my point? Well, liberal women.
• 1:46:33
  Speaker 1: Social climber.
• 1:46:33
  Speaker 3: Yeah, they're social climbers. That's it. They're using this as
• 1:46:37
  Speaker 3: a tool, like monkey branching. Yes. None of this is
• 1:46:42
  Speaker 3: sincerely believed. If it was, I wouldn't be going to
• 1:46:46
  Speaker 3: the GSS, the ACW. I'm not going to keep repeating these.
• 1:46:50
  Speaker 3: Just assume that I have looked at a lot of
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 3: alphabet surveys. I wouldn't be going there and finding consistently
• 1:46:58
  Speaker 3: that being a liberal man... is incurring a marriage penalty.
• 1:47:04
  Speaker 3: So you have to earn significantly more than conservative men.
• 1:47:08
  Speaker 3: That doesn't mean that liberal men, married liberal men actually
• 1:47:11
  Speaker 3: earn more than conservative men because it's, um, essentially what
• 1:47:16
  Speaker 3: it is is you have to find out what income, uh,
• 1:47:20
  Speaker 3: liberal men have to be at to be as married
• 1:47:25
  Speaker 3: as conservative men. But still, when you, when you look
• 1:47:28
  Speaker 3: at that, that the actual pool of, of, uh, of
• 1:47:31
  Speaker 3: married men, liberal men don't have an advantage in terms
• 1:47:33
  Speaker 3: of income. But in order to get up there, they
• 1:47:37
  Speaker 3: have to, like, conservative men are something like, I guess,
• 1:47:43
  Speaker 3: 50% married at $ 9, 000 a year. To get the same number,
• 1:47:50
  Speaker 3: 50% married, to get a coin toss chance of being married,
• 1:47:55
  Speaker 3: a liberal man has to earn $ 38, 000. Yeah, I think
• 1:48:00
  Speaker 3: it was about $ 38, 000. It might actually be $ 28, 000. It's
• 1:48:05
  Speaker 3: like this ridiculously greater amount than a conservative man. So
• 1:48:10
  Speaker 3: liberal women, because this is assortative mating, liberal men tend
• 1:48:14
  Speaker 3: to pair up with liberal women, right?
• 1:48:17
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 1:48:18
  Speaker 3: Liberal women demand more money from liberal men to consider
• 1:48:23
  Speaker 3: being in a relationship with them. This means that none
• 1:48:26
  Speaker 3: of their values are sincerely held. Because if they were
• 1:48:29
  Speaker 3: sincerely held. and they were really counter-cultural, which they insist
• 1:48:34
  Speaker 3: that they are, then they would confer to liberal men
• 1:48:38
  Speaker 3: a marriage advantage. Think about it. Right? They don't. They
• 1:48:44
  Speaker 3: confer to liberal men a marriage disadvantage, a marriage penalty,
• 1:48:50
  Speaker 3: insofar as liberal men have to pay like $ 20, 000 more
• 1:48:53
  Speaker 3: a year to compensate for being a liberal man.
• 1:48:57
  Speaker 1: Okay?
• 1:48:59
  Speaker 3: So this is... This is not a sincerely held belief
• 1:49:02
  Speaker 3: in any capacity. It is a fig. They are materialists. Okay.
• 1:49:09
  Speaker 3: They are, they do not believe they virtue signal virtue
• 1:49:14
  Speaker 3: signaling materialists who are after clout and status.
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 1:49:21
  Speaker 3: They don't care about minorities. They don't care about trans women.
• 1:49:25
  Speaker 3: They don't really care about immigrants and, They just can't
• 1:49:28
  Speaker 3: connect the fact. So it's not even suicidal empathy. This
• 1:49:33
  Speaker 3: is just using these causes as an excuse and a
• 1:49:38
  Speaker 3: justification for their material social climbing and their greed. That's it.
• 1:49:46
  Speaker 3: Absolutely it. None of them sincerely believe any of this shit.
• 1:49:50
  Speaker 1: Yep.
• 1:49:51
  Speaker 3: It just feels better to say, hey, hey, I'm not
• 1:49:56
  Speaker 3: a gigantic greedy whore who's just after attention and money.
• 1:50:00
  Speaker 3: I actually care about the poor. I care about the minorities.
• 1:50:05
  Speaker 3: I care about trans women and immigrants. No, you're just
• 1:50:10
  Speaker 3: using those beliefs to ratchet yourself into a higher social
• 1:50:14
  Speaker 3: category than you otherwise would have access to. Or to
• 1:50:21
  Speaker 3: sit thinking that you deserve access to the top 10%
• 1:50:24
  Speaker 3: of men. And if you don't get it, it's because
• 1:50:27
  Speaker 3: men's fault somehow. Not because of you. Or not because
• 1:50:32
  Speaker 3: of your expectations being widely out of proportion to reality.
• 1:50:36
  Speaker 5: Right?
• 1:50:37
  Speaker 3: So anyway, it's a bit of a rant. I know
• 1:50:40
  Speaker 3: that I might have skated around a little bit there.
• 1:50:44
  Speaker 3: So take what you will.
• 1:50:46
  Speaker 2: We are getting a little.
• 1:50:49
  Speaker 1: tight on time. Let's see if we can just get
• 1:50:50
  Speaker 1: through the stinger bit and then we'll come back and
• 1:50:53
  Speaker 1: go through this more. I guess Rachel was saying that
• 1:50:56
  Speaker 1: after this coming up bit, there's her opening statement, which
• 1:51:01
  Speaker 1: I guess she thinks is like good to look at,
• 1:51:03
  Speaker 1: but I don't know.
• 1:51:04
  Speaker 2: We'll see how far we get.
• 1:51:06
  Speaker 5: Your degree in is so oversaturated. We have, and it's
• 1:51:09
  Speaker 5: almost all women. It's like 80, 80% women.
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 6: Not going to deal with the golf.
• 1:51:13
  Speaker 5: So we're just going to run from that one. I'll
• 1:51:15
  Speaker 5: just come back to it.
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 1: I'll write it down.
• 1:51:16
  Speaker 5: You have to, you're, Put a little Adderall, Adderall, Adderall. Rachel,
• 1:51:23
  Speaker 5: famous biologist here, by the way, knows a lot about CRISPR,
• 1:51:25
  Speaker 5: I'm sure.
• 1:51:27
  Speaker 1: Did you know that that's what the technology is called,
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 1: by the way?
• 1:51:29
  Speaker 6: It's CRISPR.
• 1:51:30
  Speaker 2: Oh, God, I hate this so much.
• 1:51:33
  Speaker 1: What do you call it when you're talking with someone
• 1:51:37
  Speaker 1: about a specific thing, like a concept that you're arguing about,
• 1:51:41
  Speaker 1: and they bring up a different thing, and then they
• 1:51:46
  Speaker 1: quiz you on it, Thinking that if you don't get that,
• 1:51:49
  Speaker 1: then you're going to fail at the primary thing. You know?
• 1:51:53
  Speaker 2: Do you know what I'm talking about?
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 1: Anyway.
• 1:51:59
  Speaker 3: What relevance does this have to anything?
• 1:52:01
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
• 1:52:03
  Speaker 2: But it's like, but do you know what this is?
• 1:52:04
  Speaker 2: Because I know what this is.
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 1: You don't know what that is? Oh, well, I guess
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 1: we can't talk about the other thing that has nothing
• 1:52:08
  Speaker 1: to do with the thing that I just challenged you on.
• 1:52:11
  Speaker 4: What?
• 1:52:12
  Speaker 1: No. It's irrelevant.
• 1:52:14
  Speaker 2: Anyway.
• 1:52:15
  Speaker 1: Thanks.
• 1:52:16
  Speaker 5: Mrs. Turner. Look, baby girl, you're going to love when
• 1:52:19
  Speaker 5: I go through your book. I love when she educates me.
• 1:52:23
  Speaker 6: When did Hypatia, who's Hypatia, by the way?
• 1:52:29
  Speaker 1: Who's Hypatia? Well, if I don't know the answer, then
• 1:52:32
  Speaker 1: we can't have a debate.
• 1:52:35
  Speaker 5: All right.
• 1:52:36
  Speaker 1: So that was the, that was the, that was that. Okay.
• 1:52:41
  Speaker 6: Okay.
• 1:52:43
  Speaker 2: Let's, uh, jump ahead.
• 1:52:46
  Speaker 3: Um, that that's not a, what I, you know what?
• 1:52:50
  Speaker 3: I think that I would hope that that stinger is
• 1:52:53
  Speaker 3: intended just to wet people's appetite.
• 1:52:55
  Speaker 1: It's supposed to, but I think what they did was
• 1:52:57
  Speaker 1: they just picked the bits that may have like been
• 1:53:00
  Speaker 1: the most combative and they were like, well, this, this
• 1:53:03
  Speaker 1: will get people hooked in, but there wasn't a lot
• 1:53:05
  Speaker 1: of substance there. So I didn't know what it was,
• 1:53:08
  Speaker 1: but it's fine.
• 1:53:09
  Speaker 3: Um, Okay, so I know we're pretty tight.
• 1:53:13
  Speaker 1: I think I need a cat sound for when we
• 1:53:16
  Speaker 1: go through these debates so I can hit it.
• 1:53:19
  Speaker 3: You're actually right. That would probably be.
• 1:53:23
  Speaker 1: What?
• 1:53:24
  Speaker 3: That would probably be a good thing to invest in,
• 1:53:27
  Speaker 3: a cat sound.
• 1:53:28
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like a catty sound for fighting cats so that
• 1:53:33
  Speaker 1: I can play that when people get catty. Otherwise, all
• 1:53:39
  Speaker 1: I have is, you know, So anyway, do you want to,
• 1:53:48
  Speaker 1: do you want to do a little bit of Rachel's
• 1:53:50
  Speaker 1: opening and then, or what?
• 1:53:53
  Speaker 3: I mean, it's your, it's your, it's your time.
• 1:53:55
  Speaker 1: I got a little time.
• 1:53:57
  Speaker 2: So I'm going to jump ahead to three minutes.
• 1:54:00
  Speaker 1: And I think that's when she does her opening statements.
• 1:54:04
  Speaker 6: I'm just curious.
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 3: I'm curious where Hypatia of Alexandria comes in with all
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 3: of this.
• 1:54:09
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I don't know what that is.
• 1:54:11
  Speaker 6: Right.
• 1:54:12
  Speaker 3: What are we just randomly naming women from history? Okay.
• 1:54:16
  Speaker 1: Well, again, this is what she does. She'll just throw
• 1:54:20
  Speaker 1: concepts at you, philosophical concepts. And if you don't know
• 1:54:23
  Speaker 1: what they are, then it's supposed to discredit you. Are
• 1:54:26
  Speaker 1: you not aware of Agrippa's Trilemma, Allison? No, I'm not.
• 1:54:31
  Speaker 3: Sorry.
• 1:54:33
  Speaker 2: I guess we can't have this conversation then. I mean,
• 1:54:35
  Speaker 2: we can't even start.
• 1:54:43
  Speaker 1: You need a lot. You're going to need more than
• 1:54:45
  Speaker 1: Adderall to keep up with me. All right.
• 1:54:51
  Speaker 3: All right. Okay. Let's listen.
• 1:54:52
  Speaker 2: Let's go.
• 1:54:53
  Speaker 1: Let's go.
• 1:54:54
  Speaker 5: More harm than good. I'm going to say, of course,
• 1:54:56
  Speaker 5: that I think it's doing more harm. Let's take a
• 1:54:59
  Speaker 5: brief review of what we've gotten so far.
• 1:55:02
  Speaker 1: She's got slides.
• 1:55:04
  Speaker 2: There's another thing, too, is that I don't know.
• 1:55:06
  Speaker 1: A lot of times I noticed people like Rachel, they
• 1:55:10
  Speaker 1: bring like they have like a slideshow, they have receipts
• 1:55:13
  Speaker 1: and their opponents. They don't they don't usually prepare. I
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 1: don't know if Kyla did. I'm not going to say
• 1:55:18
  Speaker 1: that she didn't. But I just noticed this because they're
• 1:55:20
  Speaker 1: not really thinking about it in this way. It's like
• 1:55:22
  Speaker 1: you said, they're coming with the relational web aggression, the
• 1:55:26
  Speaker 1: emotional appeals and these kinds of things. So propaganda.
• 1:55:31
  Speaker 5: So feminism inverted the Western social order in roughly one
• 1:55:35
  Speaker 5: century through its six primary pillars and a seventh that
• 1:55:37
  Speaker 5: I'm gonna introduce to you today. We've got sexual liberation, abortion,
• 1:55:42
  Speaker 5: vilification of men, no-fault divorce, demonization of tradition, and either
• 1:55:47
  Speaker 5: rejection or reinvention of Christianity. Tonight, I'm gonna focus on
• 1:55:53
  Speaker 5: the measurable results of these pillars and introduce the seventh,
• 1:55:56
  Speaker 5: what I call the sheconomy.
• 1:55:58
  Speaker 3: So if we.
• 1:56:00
  Speaker 5: If we look at family structure collapse since feminism became
• 1:56:04
  Speaker 5: the dominant political ethos across the entire West, we've got
• 1:56:08
  Speaker 5: 40% of children in the United States no longer living
• 1:56:11
  Speaker 5: with both married biological parents. In 1945, that number was
• 1:56:15
  Speaker 5: only 10%. Children living without both married biological parents face
• 1:56:20
  Speaker 5: more than eight times higher risk of endangerment, standard maltreatment,
• 1:56:24
  Speaker 5: which is a fancy term for all types of abuse.
• 1:56:28
  Speaker 5: We have a fatherless epidemic, so roughly one-third of American
• 1:56:31
  Speaker 5: children live without their biological father. That's a three-fold increase
• 1:56:35
  Speaker 5: over the historical norm. They account for 90% of homeless kids,
• 1:56:39
  Speaker 5: 85% of kids with behavioral disorders, 70% of kids in
• 1:56:43
  Speaker 5: incarceration facilities, and 71% of adolescents in substance abuse treatment centers.
• 1:56:50
  Speaker 1: Also, the prisons are full of men who are were
• 1:56:57
  Speaker 1: born without fathers in the home. Something like over 90%
• 1:57:02
  Speaker 1: of men who are in prison for violent crime did
• 1:57:04
  Speaker 1: not know their father. So that's another, I don't know
• 1:57:08
  Speaker 1: if she's going to say that here, but I'm just
• 1:57:10
  Speaker 1: mentioning it because.
• 1:57:11
  Speaker 2: I did have the show.
• 1:57:13
  Speaker 1: I did a fireside chat with a lady in the
• 1:57:15
  Speaker 1: UK and this was like in America, it's probably worse,
• 1:57:18
  Speaker 1: but a lady in the UK that made, I think
• 1:57:22
  Speaker 1: she like, did an interview or something with the guy,
• 1:57:25
  Speaker 1: Charles Bronson, that, that famous criminal, not the actor.
• 1:57:29
  Speaker 2: Um, and we talked.
• 1:57:31
  Speaker 1: About that and she said that was like a large number,
• 1:57:33
  Speaker 1: like the most violent, the murderers, the rapists, like the
• 1:57:37
  Speaker 1: really violent guys, they, they didn't, they didn't have fathers either.
• 1:57:41
  Speaker 5: So anyway, let's look at unmarried births in the welfare trap.
• 1:57:47
  Speaker 5: In the United States, only about 5% of kids were
• 1:57:50
  Speaker 5: born to unmarried mothers in 1960. At present, that number
• 1:57:54
  Speaker 5: is 41%. At the same time, we've gone from $ 50
• 1:57:58
  Speaker 5: billion a year in annual welfare spending in 1950 to
• 1:58:01
  Speaker 5: now $ 700 billion per year. That's a 14-fold increase after
• 1:58:04
  Speaker 5: you had for inflation. By 2010, 90% of all cash
• 1:58:13
  Speaker 5: welfare payments and half of all food assistance went to
• 1:58:17
  Speaker 5: single-mother households. In 1940, only 6% of kids under age
• 1:58:21
  Speaker 5: six had mothers working full-time outside the home. Today, that
• 1:58:24
  Speaker 5: number is 58%. So you guys have probably heard all
• 1:58:29
  Speaker 5: of those kinds of stats from me a lot in
• 1:58:31
  Speaker 5: the past, but let's talk about the she-conomy, which is
• 1:58:34
  Speaker 5: the seventh pillar. And this is really consistent across all
• 1:58:38
  Speaker 5: Western nations.
• 1:58:39
  Speaker 1: This could be interesting because of your work, Allison, with
• 1:58:44
  Speaker 1: looking at the economic graph that's going on and how
• 1:58:49
  Speaker 1: feminism is being used for that. So could there be
• 1:58:53
  Speaker 1: a relationship between that and the she-conomy that Rachel's going
• 1:58:56
  Speaker 1: to bring up? Are you there?
• 1:58:58
  Speaker 3: There might be, there might be. Um, I, I was just,
• 1:59:01
  Speaker 3: I was pondering graph or graft.
• 1:59:05
  Speaker 2: Graft like a grift.
• 1:59:07
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 1:59:07
  Speaker 1: That's how you described it. Yeah. Yes.
• 1:59:10
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 5: 100%.
• 1:59:11
  Speaker 3: Like, um, there is a tremendous graft going on. And
• 1:59:17
  Speaker 3: I would say that it's facilitated by the feminist takeover
• 1:59:21
  Speaker 3: of HR and PR, um, And I mean, it's a
• 1:59:26
  Speaker 3: bit more of a, talking about complicated arguments, the economic,
• 1:59:32
  Speaker 3: the feminist underpinning of financialization is one hell of a
• 1:59:37
  Speaker 3: complicated argument. So I won't get into it, but yeah,
• 1:59:40
  Speaker 3: it might actually have a connection.
• 1:59:42
  Speaker 2: Well, let's hear what she says and maybe it's something
• 1:59:45
  Speaker 2: to ponder.
• 1:59:45
  Speaker 1: So let's see.
• 1:59:46
  Speaker 5: Regardless of what type of systems they have. As soon
• 1:59:50
  Speaker 5: as feminism is introduced, not only does it transform the
• 1:59:53
  Speaker 5: social order, it radically transformed Western economies, shifting them from
• 1:59:58
  Speaker 5: production-based systems that favor long-term stability into debt-driven consumer economies
• 2:00:03
  Speaker 5: that prioritize short-term gains. Proponents claim that the surge in
• 2:00:08
  Speaker 5: female labor force participation since the 70s has been good
• 2:00:12
  Speaker 5: because it expanded the GDP and created two-income households. That
• 2:00:17
  Speaker 5: view is incomplete. With the election cycle coming up, affordability,
• 2:00:23
  Speaker 5: housing shortages, inflation and labor shortages are gonna be talked
• 2:00:26
  Speaker 5: about a lot, so this is a good moment to
• 2:00:28
  Speaker 5: discuss this. So who actually builds the economy? When we
• 2:00:32
  Speaker 5: look at GDP across Western nations, men contribute about 60%
• 2:00:37
  Speaker 5: of the GDP and women contribute about 40%. But if
• 2:00:41
  Speaker 5: you look per capita, men generate 36% more GDP per
• 2:00:46
  Speaker 5: capita than women do. Women own 39% of U.S. businesses now,
• 2:00:53
  Speaker 5: but they only generate 6.2% of total business revenue.
• 2:00:58
  Speaker 3: Keep that one up here.
• 2:01:00
  Speaker 2: Where does that, wait, how? That's crazy.
• 2:01:03
  Speaker 1: So they own 39% of the businesses, but they only
• 2:01:06
  Speaker 1: generate 6% of the revenue. Very important.
• 2:01:12
  Speaker 5: It basically comes out that about 22% of all women's
• 2:01:16
  Speaker 5: efforts in the economy are either directly or indirectly subsidized
• 2:01:19
  Speaker 5: by men. Critical systems remain dominated by men. First world
• 2:01:25
  Speaker 5: living standards that allow feminism rest on complex physical systems
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 5: that largely cannot or will not be staffed by women.
• 2:01:33
  Speaker 5: Things like electrical grid maintenance, water treatment, food production, And
• 2:01:39
  Speaker 5: a society can survive a temporary shortage of marketing ladies
• 2:01:43
  Speaker 5: and HR women and kindergarten teachers, but it cannot survive
• 2:01:47
  Speaker 5: a shortage of power grid technicians or water treatment engineers.
• 2:01:51
  Speaker 1: Truckers or people in warehouses, farmers.
• 2:01:57
  Speaker 6: Yeah.
• 2:01:58
  Speaker 5: Male labor force participation has fallen to a historic low
• 2:02:02
  Speaker 5: of 69.5%. So that's almost one in three men are
• 2:02:07
  Speaker 5: out of the workforce right now. So what's the labor
• 2:02:10
  Speaker 5: force cost of abortion? One of the main things that
• 2:02:13
  Speaker 5: feminists care about. They don't care if they have every
• 2:02:15
  Speaker 5: other right. They care about abortion. It's their main measure
• 2:02:18
  Speaker 5: of women's freedom. We've had 63 million abortions in the U.S.
• 2:02:23
  Speaker 5: alone since Roe v.
• 2:02:24
  Speaker 1: Wade.
• 2:02:25
  Speaker 2: Eat your heart out, Mao. You fucking pussy.
• 2:02:29
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
• 2:02:35
  Speaker 5: Join the workforce today, we would have an additional 45
• 2:02:38
  Speaker 5: million workers in the US economy. We wouldn't have to
• 2:02:41
  Speaker 5: import them from other nations. The cost of abortion is
• 2:02:45
  Speaker 5: 425 times larger than the earnings that the mothers would
• 2:02:49
  Speaker 5: have lost by carrying the children to term. So yes,
• 2:02:52
  Speaker 5: women make a little bit more when they don't have kids,
• 2:02:55
  Speaker 5: but it's not even close to what you'd get if
• 2:02:57
  Speaker 5: they had children who grew up and joined the workforce.
• 2:03:00
  Speaker 5: So women's achievements in the economy are subsidized. Men pay
• 2:03:03
  Speaker 5: roughly 60 to 75% of income taxes. Progressive tax codes
• 2:03:08
  Speaker 5: mean the top earners, predominantly male, fund the vast majority
• 2:03:11
  Speaker 5: of public infrastructure, universities, and social programs. Women get 60%
• 2:03:17
  Speaker 5: of all higher education dollars because they are the majority
• 2:03:20
  Speaker 5: of students on campus now. But if you look at
• 2:03:22
  Speaker 5: fiscal return on that investment, governments get most of their
• 2:03:26
  Speaker 5: money back from this smaller pool of male laborers mostly
• 2:03:29
  Speaker 5: because They make more money and they work more hours.
• 2:03:34
  Speaker 5: So it's like a structural transfer where public services, education,
• 2:03:38
  Speaker 5: and grants that enable women to enter and remain in
• 2:03:40
  Speaker 5: the workforce are funded disproportionately by male tax dollars.
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 1: Famous as it ever was.
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 3: So I think that this may go on a little
• 2:03:50
  Speaker 3: too long for the end of this particular show. So
• 2:03:55
  Speaker 3: I think the main thrust of our economic argument is
• 2:03:58
  Speaker 3: that we moved from... economy based on like I would
• 2:04:05
  Speaker 3: call it substrate work to an economy based on debt
• 2:04:09
  Speaker 3: and I think that consumer debt and I Would say yes,
• 2:04:15
  Speaker 3: and it's worse than that. It's fundamentally even worse because
• 2:04:20
  Speaker 3: when women entered the workplace with feminism in tow and
• 2:04:25
  Speaker 3: So it wasn't just women in the workplace. It was
• 2:04:28
  Speaker 3: women with the belief that they are morally superior. The
• 2:04:32
  Speaker 3: way that they structure human interaction is going to improve things.
• 2:04:36
  Speaker 3: So they don't actually have to adapt to the way
• 2:04:39
  Speaker 3: men work. Men have to adapt to the way women relate.
• 2:04:45
  Speaker 3: I don't want to say work because it's not really work.
• 2:04:48
  Speaker 3: And that whole shift in how people relate to things
• 2:04:53
  Speaker 3: and activities is has caused a massive destruction of what,
• 2:05:00
  Speaker 3: like again, what I call the substrate work. So for example,
• 2:05:04
  Speaker 3: refining silver. The U.S. currently cannot refine silver. It has
• 2:05:09
  Speaker 3: the technological capacity. It does not have the financial underpinning
• 2:05:14
  Speaker 3: for refining silver. The U.S. cannot create heavy metal magnets.
• 2:05:21
  Speaker 4: It has.
• 2:05:23
  Speaker 3: access to that through my province for provinces work, but
• 2:05:27
  Speaker 3: it cannot actually do it because between the creation of
• 2:05:32
  Speaker 3: something or the the thing existing in reality and The
• 2:05:37
  Speaker 3: funding of it are so many layers of rent seeking
• 2:05:41
  Speaker 3: cronyism Contractors and and auctions and bids and all kinds
• 2:05:48
  Speaker 3: of financial instruments that by the time I you make
• 2:05:53
  Speaker 3: a single bolt, the bolt costs half a million dollars.
• 2:05:57
  Speaker 3: So the movement of women into the workforce corresponds with
• 2:06:04
  Speaker 3: divorcing things from getting things done. Like that whole argument. Remember,
• 2:06:09
  Speaker 3: Natty was saying a whole bunch of things and you
• 2:06:12
  Speaker 3: just cut through it and said it, but what do
• 2:06:14
  Speaker 3: we do? That is a main thing, right? What do
• 2:06:18
  Speaker 3: we do? How does this become a thing in reality?
• 2:06:22
  Speaker 3: It has gone from a focus on making things in reality,
• 2:06:27
  Speaker 3: making things, creating things, working with material reality to create
• 2:06:31
  Speaker 3: goods and services and infrastructure, to an economy that is
• 2:06:38
  Speaker 3: basically a symbolic churn. It's just the churn of symbols
• 2:06:43
  Speaker 3: and debt. Symbols and debt. Symbols and debt. Buying, selling debt. Buying,
• 2:06:48
  Speaker 3: selling Xerox copies of things. And this... I attribute to
• 2:06:54
  Speaker 3: the cognitive modality of the entire marketplace going from an
• 2:06:58
  Speaker 3: operative modality, which concerns itself with diagnosis, with mechanics, with
• 2:07:03
  Speaker 3: what does the thing do? How do I create this outcome?
• 2:07:06
  Speaker 3: How do I produce stuff? How do we make sure
• 2:07:09
  Speaker 3: that this stuff is wanted by someone? So that is
• 2:07:11
  Speaker 3: pure Austrian economics, right? How do we move these symbols
• 2:07:18
  Speaker 3: around with the greatest kind of velocity? So it's gone
• 2:07:24
  Speaker 3: from a operational process to a relational positional process, right?
• 2:07:30
  Speaker 3: Just moving symbols around. It's basically gone from an economy
• 2:07:33
  Speaker 3: based on, you know, like mining productivity services to an
• 2:07:39
  Speaker 3: economy based on astrology. Yeah, basically.
• 2:07:46
  Speaker 2: A Leo wouldn't kill their kids.
• 2:07:49
  Speaker 1: Sorry.
• 2:07:51
  Speaker 3: Oh, that's okay.
• 2:07:52
  Speaker 1: It absolutely is. It's like, we're not doing things. We're
• 2:07:57
  Speaker 1: having conversations about having conversations.
• 2:08:00
  Speaker 2: About having conversations.
• 2:08:01
  Speaker 3: But each of those conversations, Brian, it commends a contractor
• 2:08:10
  Speaker 3: or a consultant fee. So we're having conversations about doing
• 2:08:14
  Speaker 3: the thing and we each get a consultancy fee. Oh boy,
• 2:08:18
  Speaker 3: does the thing ever get done? No, because the point
• 2:08:21
  Speaker 3: is that we're making work for all of our pals.
• 2:08:25
  Speaker 3: And that is an economy based on the movement of symbols.
• 2:08:31
  Speaker 3: That is an economy based on women's cognitive, native cognitive modality.
• 2:08:37
  Speaker 3: And I remember when I went, I started the lip
• 2:08:40
  Speaker 3: of this rabbit hole that's now eight months long. I'm sorry, guys,
• 2:08:43
  Speaker 3: for never getting out the promised... I was going to
• 2:08:48
  Speaker 3: talk about the mating landscape for women. And then I
• 2:08:51
  Speaker 3: was also going to put more out on silver. I
• 2:08:53
  Speaker 3: fell down this rabbit hole, but the lip of the
• 2:08:57
  Speaker 3: rabbit hole was this, was this video I saw in
• 2:09:02
  Speaker 3: from 1980 where they were making fun of the old
• 2:09:07
  Speaker 3: pale and male economic regime. They had a bunch of
• 2:09:10
  Speaker 3: cigar pale and stale Allison.
• 2:09:12
  Speaker 2: It's male pale and stale.
• 2:09:14
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 2:09:15
  Speaker 3: Economic regime. And they had a whole bunch of cigar chomping,
• 2:09:22
  Speaker 3: you know, men at the at the table. And there
• 2:09:25
  Speaker 3: was this housewife and she was serving them coffee. And
• 2:09:28
  Speaker 3: they were talking about this change to from basing money
• 2:09:32
  Speaker 3: on gold. So the gold standard and that that was
• 2:09:37
  Speaker 3: going to be abandoned in favor of fiat, which is
• 2:09:40
  Speaker 3: just declaring money, money, which basically is just debt. Money
• 2:09:43
  Speaker 3: is debt. And they were humming and harming about this.
• 2:09:47
  Speaker 3: And the woman comes in and she's like, well, I
• 2:09:50
  Speaker 3: think this change will allow the UK to pin its
• 2:09:56
  Speaker 3: exports to an international standard of, and I'm like thinking,
• 2:10:01
  Speaker 3: so you're saying, and this is, of course, the whole
• 2:10:04
  Speaker 3: setup is that the housewife knows so much more about
• 2:10:08
  Speaker 3: the economy and is so much more educated and erudite
• 2:10:12
  Speaker 3: and nuanced, and her analysis is sophisticated. And these guys
• 2:10:19
  Speaker 3: were just like, no, we should keep the money tied
• 2:10:23
  Speaker 3: to something real. And she's like, no, turn it into
• 2:10:26
  Speaker 3: a symbol. Therefore, it can be used to determine the position.
• 2:10:33
  Speaker 3: And she's like, turn it into a positional web symbol.
• 2:10:37
  Speaker 3: And they're like, no, tie it to the substrate. Tie
• 2:10:39
  Speaker 3: it to something real. The presentation of this is, of course,
• 2:10:44
  Speaker 3: that the housewife is, again, sophisticated and these men are
• 2:10:47
  Speaker 3: Luddites or they're just boars or they're just patriarchal masculine,
• 2:10:52
  Speaker 3: toxic masculinity. They don't know what they're talking about. And
• 2:10:56
  Speaker 3: that is the perfect picture of all of this. The
• 2:10:58
  Speaker 3: men wanted to keep money tied to something tangible, something
• 2:11:03
  Speaker 3: that you pull out of the earth, something constrained, something limited,
• 2:11:07
  Speaker 3: something that can't just become infinite amounts of itself. Xerox
• 2:11:13
  Speaker 3: copies of itself. And the woman was like, no, divorce
• 2:11:16
  Speaker 3: it from the substrate, divorce it from things that are done,
• 2:11:19
  Speaker 3: divorce it from material reality. Let it float like an
• 2:11:24
  Speaker 3: astrological symbol in the great, vast, complex cosmos of finance.
• 2:11:30
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 2:11:31
  Speaker 3: And what do we have now? How much inflation? Yeah,
• 2:11:35
  Speaker 3: that's the perfect picture of the feminization of finance.
• 2:11:42
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 2:11:43
  Speaker 3: I hope people followed.
• 2:11:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, no, that's interesting.
• 2:11:47
  Speaker 1: Master Girl gave us five and said, so strip clubs
• 2:11:50
  Speaker 1: and OnlyFans are women's biggest contribution to the economy because
• 2:11:54
  Speaker 1: their other work doesn't make profit? Well, I don't know.
• 2:11:58
  Speaker 1: But it's more about whether or not what's being produced
• 2:12:00
  Speaker 1: is actually something we can use. So, I mean, in
• 2:12:04
  Speaker 1: a way, you know, doing conferences or OnlyFans, it doesn't
• 2:12:09
  Speaker 1: build anything, right?
• 2:12:11
  Speaker 2: That's what we're saying. It's not, it's not, it's not
• 2:12:13
  Speaker 2: building anything.
• 2:12:15
  Speaker 1: It doesn't even exist in the physical world is something
• 2:12:18
  Speaker 1: like if I made a chair and then I've made
• 2:12:21
  Speaker 1: a chair, right. And I can sell the chair and
• 2:12:24
  Speaker 1: maybe somebody else says, I hate chairs, but they buy
• 2:12:27
  Speaker 1: it from me and they pulverize the chair and they
• 2:12:30
  Speaker 1: turn it into mulch or they turn it into a
• 2:12:32
  Speaker 1: bunch of toothpicks.
• 2:12:34
  Speaker 2: But now we have toothpicks. The stuff still exists.
• 2:12:37
  Speaker 1: But what, you know, somebody who makes only fans videos that,
• 2:12:41
  Speaker 1: that doesn't, it's not, it doesn't exist. It doesn't like
• 2:12:44
  Speaker 1: do anything, you know, ultimately the guy with the toothpicks
• 2:12:48
  Speaker 1: could be like, I'm cold. I'm going to burn these
• 2:12:50
  Speaker 1: toothpicks and use them to, you know, to start a
• 2:12:52
  Speaker 1: fire so I can warm myself up.
• 2:12:53
  Speaker 2: Now it's been used. So I'm just saying.
• 2:12:56
  Speaker 3: Like, there's, you know, okay, let me put it this way.
• 2:13:00
  Speaker 3: If there's consultancy that actually affects some kind of outcome.
• 2:13:03
  Speaker 3: So it reduces costs or increases efficiency because you got to,
• 2:13:08
  Speaker 3: You got to sort of divorce consultancy that's make work
• 2:13:10
  Speaker 3: for its own sake from something that's just figuring out
• 2:13:14
  Speaker 3: how things are done. Like an architect could be seen
• 2:13:17
  Speaker 3: as a consultant, an engineer. But when you have something
• 2:13:22
  Speaker 3: that just doesn't create, like it doesn't end with an
• 2:13:26
  Speaker 3: improved product, what do you have? Or it doesn't end
• 2:13:30
  Speaker 3: with a greater analysis of something. So you understand something better.
• 2:13:33
  Speaker 3: You can apply it to affect an outcome that improves
• 2:13:36
  Speaker 3: the world. This is not the consultancy that we're seeing.
• 2:13:39
  Speaker 3: When you have a quarter of a million dollars of
• 2:13:45
  Speaker 3: make-work consultancy and other kind of stuff between you and
• 2:13:49
  Speaker 3: producing something, something is seriously wrong. And of course, you
• 2:13:53
  Speaker 3: can see where the inflation is coming from. If you
• 2:13:55
  Speaker 3: have so many layers of people rent-seeking and consulting... between
• 2:14:01
  Speaker 3: you and a single bolt that it takes a quarter
• 2:14:04
  Speaker 3: of a million to create a single bolt, there's a
• 2:14:07
  Speaker 3: problem in your economy. And then you're gonna have a
• 2:14:09
  Speaker 3: quarter of a million dollars in your economy chasing other
• 2:14:12
  Speaker 3: goods that are equally constrained in their production. So that's
• 2:14:18
  Speaker 3: where the inflation is coming from. And again, the underpinning
• 2:14:24
  Speaker 3: idea underneath this is that things don't have to eventually
• 2:14:28
  Speaker 3: happen that everything is about your position in the web,
• 2:14:33
  Speaker 3: in part determined by what income you get. So you
• 2:14:36
  Speaker 3: don't have to actually, you don't judge yourself in terms
• 2:14:39
  Speaker 3: of how many bolts you make. You judge yourself in
• 2:14:42
  Speaker 3: terms of how many spreadsheets about making bolts that you've
• 2:14:46
  Speaker 3: presented at conferences. You judge yourself by how many network
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 3: bolt consultants you have on your Instagram, or not Instagram,
• 2:14:57
  Speaker 3: but like LinkedIn. Or you judge yourself by your position,
• 2:15:00
  Speaker 3: not by your productivity. That's the difference. Women judge themselves
• 2:15:06
  Speaker 3: by their position. Men judge themselves by their productivity. We
• 2:15:10
  Speaker 3: have an economy that is entirely about positional signaling. Or
• 2:15:15
  Speaker 3: not entirely, but mostly. And when men dominate, it's about
• 2:15:20
  Speaker 3: being productive. And the thing is that you can eat
• 2:15:26
  Speaker 3: in a man's economy. You can have electricity in a
• 2:15:31
  Speaker 3: man's economy. You can have goods in the grocery store.
• 2:15:36
  Speaker 3: You can have heating and lighting and all of the
• 2:15:40
  Speaker 3: infrastructure in a man's economy. Eventually, in a woman's economy,
• 2:15:45
  Speaker 3: you are forced to eat symbols. Good luck with that.
• 2:15:49
  Speaker 2: I hope you're hungry.
• 2:15:50
  Speaker 1: Yeah. All right. Amanda would like.
• 2:15:53
  Speaker 2: To know our location.
• 2:15:57
  Speaker 1: As long as those symbols are food emojis, we're good
• 2:16:00
  Speaker 1: to go.
• 2:16:01
  Speaker 3: I hear the distant thunder.
• 2:16:03
  Speaker 1: I think I felt a tremor. Okay, but I am
• 2:16:11
  Speaker 1: out of time. Yeah.
• 2:16:13
  Speaker 3: I was going to say one last thing.
• 2:16:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, go ahead.
• 2:16:16
  Speaker 3: I heard a tremor in the forest. It was a
• 2:16:19
  Speaker 3: million donuts cried out in terror.
• 2:16:25
  Speaker 2: Cream donuts.
• 2:16:25
  Speaker 5: Okay.
• 2:16:26
  Speaker 1: Stuffed with jelly. All right.
• 2:16:28
  Speaker 3: We're going to have to pick this up next time,
• 2:16:30
  Speaker 3: I think.
• 2:16:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we will though.
• 2:16:32
  Speaker 1: All right.
• 2:16:32
  Speaker 3: So I'll do the thing so you can get out
• 2:16:34
  Speaker 3: of here. Feedthebadger.com slash just the tip to send us
• 2:16:38
  Speaker 3: a message and a comment with that message or send
• 2:16:41
  Speaker 3: us a tip and a comment with that tip. Best
• 2:16:43
  Speaker 3: way for you to do so because YouTube doesn't take
• 2:16:46
  Speaker 3: their gigantic bite out of both. Feedthebadger.com slash support. I
• 2:16:51
  Speaker 3: really urge you to do that now because you've got
• 2:16:52
  Speaker 3: like three full days left sort of running out of time.
• 2:16:55
  Speaker 3: Please make sure we can continue to bring you this
• 2:16:57
  Speaker 3: content and this analysis, which is, you know, we're willing.
• 2:17:02
  Speaker 3: Somebody said this recently. We're the only people he knows
• 2:17:06
  Speaker 3: who are willing to hold the people responsible responsible.
• 2:17:11
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 2:17:11
  Speaker 3: Not just feminists, but also women for contributing to all
• 2:17:15
  Speaker 3: of this broadly is more broadly. So if you want
• 2:17:19
  Speaker 3: to support that, no pun intended.
• 2:17:23
  Speaker 7: If you want to support us continuing to bring you
• 2:17:31
  Speaker 7: this message feed the badger.com support you want to.
• 2:17:37
  Speaker 3: You want to join us in our community badger nation
• 2:17:40
  Speaker 3: dot online and all of these are in the low
• 2:17:43
  Speaker 3: bar so please select one You know, support. Join us.
• 2:17:49
  Speaker 3: What have you. Send us a message. And I'll hand
• 2:17:52
  Speaker 3: this back to Brian.
• 2:17:53
  Speaker 1: OK, well, if you guys like this video, please hit
• 2:17:56
  Speaker 1: like subscribe. If you're not already subscribed to the bell
• 2:17:58
  Speaker 1: for notifications, leave us a comment.
• 2:18:00
  Speaker 2: Let us know what you guys think about what we
• 2:18:02
  Speaker 2: talked about on the show today.
• 2:18:04
  Speaker 1: Please consider supporting the fundraisers that we can keep doing
• 2:18:07
  Speaker 1: this work. And share the video because sharing is caring.
• 2:18:11
  Speaker 1: Thanks so much for coming on this episode of Maintaining Frame.
• 2:18:14
  Speaker 1: And we will talk to you guys in the next one.
• 2:18:16
  Speaker 2: Have a good weekend.
• 2:18:17
  Speaker 1: And I'll see you guys at the Mixed Up Meetup
• 2:18:19
  Speaker 1: if you're going to be there. I'll see you there tomorrow. Ohio,
• 2:18:22
  Speaker 1: Dayton area.
• 2:18:24
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 2:18:25
  Speaker 1: See you guys then.
• 2:18:25
  Speaker 3: And the Beat Saber fundraiser on Sunday.
• 2:18:28
  Speaker 1: On Sunday. I'll be there for that. It'll be a
• 2:18:30
  Speaker 1: long weekend for me. All right. See you then.