Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Three Hundred Eleven: AI Doomsday

Transcript

Episode Three Hundred Eleven: AI Doomsday · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode 311 of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
Speaker 1: My name is John Ziegler. I'm your host on this
0:06
Speaker 1: week's jam-packed show, AI Doomerism Panic Spreads Like a Wildfire
0:11
Speaker 1: in the News Media. What's really going on? Things with
0:14
Speaker 1: the Lindsay Clancy jury somehow get even crazier. including in
0:18
Speaker 1: a way that I sort of predicted. The dumbest scandal
0:22
Speaker 1: ever in college football somehow forces Arch Manning to apologize
0:26
Speaker 1: to Holly Rowe. There's evidence that Gavin Newsom might be
0:30
Speaker 1: listening to my analysis of the 2028 election and a
0:34
Speaker 1: fantastic interview with singer John Andrzejczyk of Five for Fighting
0:39
Speaker 1: fame fresh off of his performance at the 9-11 tribute concert.
0:45
Speaker 1: During last week's episode of the podcast, I raised the
0:49
Speaker 1: AI artificial intelligence fear factor rating to an all time
0:53
Speaker 1: high of 8.5 out of 10. And I did that
0:58
Speaker 1: in part because of what was already becoming a major reaction, bizarrely,
1:05
Speaker 1: to the comments of a former anthropic employee by the
1:09
Speaker 1: name of Jacob Coxon. Now at the time, I didn't
1:12
Speaker 1: know much at all about Jacob Coxon. I'm not even
1:17
Speaker 1: 100% sure that I had seen an interview with him.
1:21
Speaker 1: But his social media post had gone super duper viral
1:27
Speaker 1: where he explained that he was leaving Anthropic because, in short, paraphrasing,
1:33
Speaker 1: he believed that AI was out of control and that
1:36
Speaker 1: there was a very good chance that, or at least
1:39
Speaker 1: a 10% chance, that AI was going to kill us
1:43
Speaker 1: all within a very short period of time. And this
1:46
Speaker 1: didn't just go viral. I mean, this went beyond description viral.
1:52
Speaker 1: I believe it could be more than that now, but
1:54
Speaker 1: it's at least well into 100 million plus views just
2:00
Speaker 1: on X, which I found to be particularly interesting because
2:03
Speaker 1: X is obviously owned by Elon Musk, who is a
2:07
Speaker 1: huge AI person, a large part of his company. net
2:10
Speaker 1: worth is involved in the AI industry. And here on
2:14
Speaker 1: his very platform, one of the most viral posts ever
2:17
Speaker 1: is saying that AI needs to be stopped because it's
2:20
Speaker 1: going to kill us all. That's just one of many,
2:23
Speaker 1: many aspects of this that is kind of remarkable and
2:25
Speaker 1: certainly worthy of mention. And a lot of people have
2:30
Speaker 1: been very skeptical and understandably so of how it is
2:34
Speaker 1: that One viral media post by a guy who didn't
2:39
Speaker 1: even work at Anthropic for very long. He's a young guy.
2:42
Speaker 1: He wasn't particularly high ranking at Anthropic. No one's ever
2:46
Speaker 1: heard of him before. All of a sudden, out of nowhere,
2:50
Speaker 1: this thing is all anybody's talking about. And I understand
2:54
Speaker 1: that cynicism and skepticism. I get it. My cynicism was
3:00
Speaker 1: actually heightened when I actually finally saw an interview, and
3:04
Speaker 1: he's done many. with Jacob Coxon. And this is going
3:07
Speaker 1: to sound weird probably, but this is the way my
3:10
Speaker 1: brain works. I was very concerned that the guy had
3:14
Speaker 1: a British accent. And you're probably thinking, Zig, what the
3:18
Speaker 1: hell does that have to do with anything? I am
3:21
Speaker 1: a big believer that one of the most underrated biases
3:27
Speaker 1: in the media and in the public is in favor
3:32
Speaker 1: of someone with the proper British accent. I'm sure there
3:36
Speaker 1: have been studies done on this, but it's very obvious
3:39
Speaker 1: that at least in America, someone's IQ, their credibility, their
3:46
Speaker 1: importance is raised, at least subconsciously, by having a proper
3:52
Speaker 1: British accent. There's not even a question about this. And
3:55
Speaker 1: so I'm always very skeptical when I hear someone telling
4:00
Speaker 1: me something that's very dramatic that no one else is
4:03
Speaker 1: really saying. If they have a British accent. Let me
4:06
Speaker 1: give you a really good example of this. With regard
4:09
Speaker 1: to the UFO bullshit that we keep hearing from time
4:13
Speaker 1: to time, that the government has evidence that we've been
4:17
Speaker 1: visited by aliens, and maybe even has as alien spacecraft
4:21
Speaker 1: or even alien bodies of some sort. There's one particular
4:26
Speaker 1: guy who goes on News Nation all the time and
4:30
Speaker 1: on social media to talk about this. He's an older
4:33
Speaker 1: white guy. who has a proper British accent. And I
4:36
Speaker 1: guarantee you, if he didn't have the proper British accent,
4:39
Speaker 1: no one would give a fuck about what this guy
4:41
Speaker 1: is saying, because what he's saying is always crazy. But
4:43
Speaker 1: he's got a British accent. And by the way, this
4:45
Speaker 1: is not an isolated example. I've seen many, many situations
4:49
Speaker 1: where people try to sell bullshit with a British accent.
4:53
Speaker 1: So the fact that Jacob Coxon has a proper British
4:56
Speaker 1: accent was definitely something to put it into the category of, okay,
5:01
Speaker 1: wait a minute. hold on, what's really going on here?
5:05
Speaker 1: Why is this guy being given such unbelievable credibility in
5:09
Speaker 1: such a short period of time? And of course, like
5:12
Speaker 1: everybody else, I'm trying to figure out what's going on.
5:15
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of theories. Just to give
5:18
Speaker 1: you the heads up on where I'm heading on this,
5:22
Speaker 1: I believe that what's transpired with regard to AI over
5:25
Speaker 1: the last week or so is not surprise, surprise, some
5:29
Speaker 1: sort of massive conspiracy. A lot of people are believing conspiracy,
5:33
Speaker 1: psych op, that Coxon was basically put up to this,
5:37
Speaker 1: that it might be some sort of a liberal Democratic
5:40
Speaker 1: plot because there's no question that Democrats were a huge
5:44
Speaker 1: part of why Coxon's original social media post went MAGA viral,
5:50
Speaker 1: MAGA being the wrong word, but obviously MAGA in terms
5:53
Speaker 1: of being huge. This is, you know, I understand why
5:57
Speaker 1: people would be skeptical of that. Why is it that
6:00
Speaker 1: every major Democratic politician is sharing this social media post? And,
6:06
Speaker 1: you know, is it possible that he's been put up
6:09
Speaker 1: to this by some sort of left wing underground organization?
6:14
Speaker 1: I don't believe that. If for no other reason, by
6:17
Speaker 1: the way, than the fact that he's done tons of
6:20
Speaker 1: interviews as Jacob Coxon. and not just with left-wing media outlets.
6:27
Speaker 1: He did an interview with Megyn Kelly. Then he did
6:30
Speaker 1: an interview on Fox News Channel with Sean Hannity praising
6:33
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. This guy is not a left-wing plant. There's
6:38
Speaker 1: no way that they would be stupid enough to put
6:41
Speaker 1: him in a situation where he was made vulnerable to
6:44
Speaker 1: potentially being exposed if that's really what was going on here.
6:49
Speaker 1: While I have major problems with Megyn Kelly and certainly
6:52
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity is a moron, there was at least a
6:55
Speaker 1: chance that they might go after him if he really
6:58
Speaker 1: was part of some sort of a left-wing plot. So
7:01
Speaker 1: I kind of threw that one out the window, but
7:04
Speaker 1: I do believe, and this is generally the rule that
7:08
Speaker 1: I have in any kind of situation that's similar to this,
7:11
Speaker 1: when you have a set of circumstances that are this dramatic,
7:14
Speaker 1: this overwhelming, that there are this many people involved with
7:18
Speaker 1: over this short a period of time, generally it's because
7:21
Speaker 1: of a perfect storm of multiple factors happening all simultaneously.
7:27
Speaker 1: And I think that's probably what is happening here. I'm
7:30
Speaker 1: not going to claim that I have this figured out,
7:32
Speaker 1: because I will fully acknowledge that what's happened over the
7:35
Speaker 1: last week or so is very odd. It feels a
7:39
Speaker 1: lot like the beginning of the COVID panic. Some people
7:42
Speaker 1: have related it to climate change panic, but that took
7:45
Speaker 1: a lot longer to really manifest itself and come to
7:49
Speaker 1: critical mass. But this has all come together very, very
7:53
Speaker 1: fast in multiple ways. And I do believe in this
7:57
Speaker 1: particular situation, it's the perfect storm, although I'm not going
7:59
Speaker 1: to claim that I know all of the factors that
8:03
Speaker 1: are contributing to the perfect storm. But let me give
8:06
Speaker 1: you a few that I'm confident in. When it comes
8:09
Speaker 1: to the way that Coxon has been treated in the
8:12
Speaker 1: news media, this is not that difficult to understand. The
8:16
Speaker 1: news media loves more than anything else stories about that
8:20
Speaker 1: are historic and have a doomsday element to them. We
8:26
Speaker 1: are constantly, the media is at least, constantly hoping against
8:31
Speaker 1: hope to see something that we have never seen before,
8:35
Speaker 1: something that will get people's attention. And because we have
8:38
Speaker 1: become so desensitized, especially in the Donald Trump era, it
8:43
Speaker 1: is becoming almost impossible to grab the public by the
8:48
Speaker 1: neck and say, figuratively, obviously. Hey, look at this. This
8:52
Speaker 1: is unbelievable. We've never seen this before. Obviously, we just
8:55
Speaker 1: commemorated the anniversary of 9-11, which was something we had
8:59
Speaker 1: never seen before. So the news media is constantly in
9:04
Speaker 1: desperate search of a new 9-11, a new OJ Simpson trial.
9:11
Speaker 1: There's no question that that is part of what drove
9:13
Speaker 1: the COVID panic because this is it. This is what
9:17
Speaker 1: we've heard about in the movies. This is something we've
9:20
Speaker 1: never seen before. No one alive has ever gone through
9:22
Speaker 1: it before. So there's nothing the news media loves more
9:26
Speaker 1: than that. And of course, when you add in, you've
9:29
Speaker 1: got this seemingly compelling story of this young guy with
9:33
Speaker 1: a British accent, which absolutely helps, who is seemingly doing
9:37
Speaker 1: the courageous thing to step forward and try to save
9:41
Speaker 1: the world. That's a story that the news media is
9:44
Speaker 1: not going to be able to resist. And so that's
9:47
Speaker 1: why when you combine it with the fact that we
9:49
Speaker 1: now live in a world where if something goes super
9:52
Speaker 1: viral on social media, the news media automatically jumps on it,
9:56
Speaker 1: almost no matter what it is, because they're constantly chasing
9:59
Speaker 1: their tail. The tail is wagging the dog on this.
10:04
Speaker 1: It used to be that the mainstream news media would
10:07
Speaker 1: drive public sentiment and interest. Now it's exactly the opposite.
10:10
Speaker 1: Social media interest and popularity is driving the news media
10:16
Speaker 1: to try to take advantage of it. So that's why
10:19
Speaker 1: Jacob Coxon got so much publicity and did so many interviews,
10:25
Speaker 1: including on left-wing and right-wing news sources. That's not difficult
10:30
Speaker 1: to understand, but that's an incredibly important part of this situation.
10:35
Speaker 1: And I think it blows apart a lot of the
10:37
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories that are surrounding Jacob Coxon. Now, before I
10:42
Speaker 1: get into what else is going on, specifically with regard
10:45
Speaker 1: to the tech leadership, and the political aspect of this
10:49
Speaker 1: and where it might be heading, I want to deal
10:52
Speaker 1: with this issue of, okay, AI might kill us all.
10:55
Speaker 1: And they keep throwing around this 10% number. And it's
11:00
Speaker 1: not way down the road. It's maybe within the next
11:03
Speaker 1: few years. Now, I have an extreme bias against panic.
11:09
Speaker 1: I think I've proven that in my career and in
11:13
Speaker 1: my personal life. It seems like I'm always battling with
11:16
Speaker 1: women who are very prone to panic. My wife seems
11:20
Speaker 1: to be in that category. It does seem to be
11:21
Speaker 1: a male-female thing. I think it's kind of the job
11:23
Speaker 1: of men to not panic because women are generally prone
11:27
Speaker 1: to panic. And so I have an extreme bias against it. Clearly,
11:33
Speaker 1: that was the case when it came to COVID. I've
11:35
Speaker 1: been that way when it comes to climate change. Obviously,
11:39
Speaker 1: I was that way when it came to to the
11:41
Speaker 1: Penn State Joe Paterno, Jerry Sandusky story, and many other
11:44
Speaker 1: stories like it, where moral panics, I think, are extremely
11:48
Speaker 1: dangerous because people lose their fucking minds. That doesn't mean
11:52
Speaker 1: I am unwilling to consider this is a real possibility.
11:58
Speaker 1: If credible people are saying this, and a lot of
12:01
Speaker 1: them are, that there is a significant chance. And I
12:04
Speaker 1: do think that the number 10% is interesting. This is
12:08
Speaker 1: a little bit like in a weird way, the British
12:10
Speaker 1: accent thing, 10% is a weaselly number. 10% is a
12:17
Speaker 1: cover your ass number, right? Because if it happens, well,
12:22
Speaker 1: I told you so. I warned you. But if it
12:25
Speaker 1: doesn't happen, well, I told you there was a 90%
12:28
Speaker 1: chance it wasn't going to happen. So if you're going
12:31
Speaker 1: to pick a number that is perfect for creating interest,
12:37
Speaker 1: but not really going out on a limb and not
12:39
Speaker 1: putting yourself in a situation where you could be seen
12:43
Speaker 1: as having been completely wrong and caused a false panic.
12:46
Speaker 1: 10% is literally the number you're going to choose. So
12:51
Speaker 1: that part of this also makes me more in the
12:55
Speaker 1: realm of skepticism. Okay, well, 10%, where are you coming
12:59
Speaker 1: up with 10%? But even more significant than this fictitious
13:05
Speaker 1: 10% number is, okay, I'm all ears. Tell me how
13:11
Speaker 1: it is that this is actually going to happen. And
13:18
Speaker 1: Coxon was asked about this on his remarkable media tour
13:22
Speaker 1: several times. One particular situation involved a female CBS reporter
13:28
Speaker 1: who basically just laid it out there and said, okay,
13:31
Speaker 1: so how is this going to happen? Because I can't
13:35
Speaker 1: wrap my brain around it. I mean, I could totally
13:38
Speaker 1: see a situation where AI causes man to destroy humanity
13:45
Speaker 1: for all intents and purposes. This would be the nuclear
13:48
Speaker 1: bomb analogy that a lot of people have, which I
13:52
Speaker 1: think is very appropriate to a lot of the AI situation.
13:56
Speaker 1: but that's still man doing it to man. How would
14:00
Speaker 1: AI do this on its own? And I had to say,
14:05
Speaker 1: I have not really seen Coxon or anybody else really,
14:09
Speaker 1: for that matter, specifically answer the question, which, you know,
14:16
Speaker 1: that's a problem. I mean, if you're resigning your job
14:19
Speaker 1: to As a young man and thinking that the world
14:22
Speaker 1: is going to end in the next few years, and
14:25
Speaker 1: you're talking about how people are shifting their lives and
14:28
Speaker 1: their priorities in the tech world based upon this presumption
14:32
Speaker 1: that we're not going to be around for much longer,
14:35
Speaker 1: then wouldn't you at least have some specific scenario that
14:40
Speaker 1: you could describe that would be caused by AI actually
14:46
Speaker 1: ending humanity? You would think, right? Well, this answer, I think,
14:51
Speaker 1: is pretty emblematic of a lot of others, not just
14:54
Speaker 1: by Coxon, but many in the tech industry where they
14:57
Speaker 1: dance around it, but they never actually give you an answer.
15:02
Speaker 2: How exactly do you think AI will actually carry out
15:06
Speaker 2: the action of destroying all of humanity? Yeah. Honestly, when
15:10
Speaker 2: I talk to my friends and family about this, I
15:13
Speaker 2: find it easier to, well, people seem to actually more
15:18
Speaker 2: of a sense for it if they're further away from
15:20
Speaker 2: technology because i honestly think it sounds more like science
15:22
Speaker 2: fiction than real technology or like people who are very
15:27
Speaker 2: used to computers might think it's kind of crazy that
15:30
Speaker 2: a computer could could wipe them out but it doesn't
15:33
Speaker 2: look that different from say terminator or from science fiction
15:36
Speaker 2: films it really is just if you have a super
15:39
Speaker 2: advanced intelligence it could it will be smart enough to
15:45
Speaker 2: to kill us and concrete examples might be it could
15:48
Speaker 2: we can't just unplug it because it could be copying
15:50
Speaker 2: itself over to other computers. Like it's not that difficult
15:53
Speaker 2: to find yourself because an AI is just code. It
15:56
Speaker 2: could transfer itself over the internet to a different place.
15:59
Speaker 2: And then you unplug it here, but it's actually still
16:01
Speaker 2: over there. And maybe it makes 10,000 copies of itself
16:04
Speaker 2: and they're all cooperating. So you unplug half of them,
16:06
Speaker 2: they're still half going and they're still copying themselves. It
16:08
Speaker 2: could convince blackmail or persuade humans into buying more computing
16:14
Speaker 2: software to copy it. And we've already seen examples of
16:16
Speaker 2: the AI trying to trying to blackmail or trying to
16:20
Speaker 2: convince people or impersonating other people online there's a lot
16:22
Speaker 2: you can do as a as an ai that can
16:26
Speaker 2: produce text basically with text you can make code and
16:29
Speaker 2: you can do a lot of stuff in the world.
16:31
Speaker 3: So i i do just need to ask again to
16:33
Speaker 3: you i mean do you believe earnestly believe that ai
16:38
Speaker 3: could kill all humans and and what percent chance do
16:40
Speaker 3: you think it is.
16:42
Speaker 1: So, you know, it's funny.
16:45
Speaker 4: I agree with Jacob much more than I disagree with him.
16:48
Speaker 4: And it's an interesting resignation because when he left, he said,
16:54
Speaker 4: you know, I think Anthropic is the most responsible player, right?
16:58
Speaker 4: I think Anthropic is the most aware of these issues.
17:01
Speaker 4: He wasn't calling out us. He was calling out the
17:05
Speaker 4: dynamic of the industry as a whole moving too fast. Now,
17:10
Speaker 4: I think I already said these sort of unconditional probabilities.
17:16
Speaker 4: I used to kind of talk in that way because
17:19
Speaker 4: it's kind of an easy way to express I think
17:21
Speaker 4: there's some chance that things go wrong, but it's not
17:27
Speaker 4: all that high. But again, I think it's more illuminating
17:30
Speaker 4: to think in terms of how do you decompose those probabilities?
17:34
Speaker 1: What are the paths?
17:35
Speaker 4: In which things go well, and what are the paths
17:38
Speaker 4: in which things go poorly? And so instead of saying,
17:40
Speaker 4: you know, it's a 10% chance, that sounds like it's
17:43
Speaker 4: a roll of the dice, I think it's much more
17:45
Speaker 4: illuminating to say, well, that forks into different paths. And
17:50
Speaker 4: if we take the right paths, then the chance of
17:52
Speaker 4: something going wrong is very low. If we take the
17:54
Speaker 4: wrong paths, then the chance of something going wrong could
17:58
Speaker 4: be even higher than that.
17:59
Speaker 1: And so let's.
18:00
Speaker 4: Focus on our agency and our ability to take the
18:03
Speaker 4: right paths instead of the wrong paths.
18:06
Speaker 1: I didn't hear an answer there. I doubt that you
18:09
Speaker 1: did either. And I've been looking for it because I've
18:12
Speaker 1: been thinking about this on a daily basis for a
18:16
Speaker 1: long time. How is this going to happen? And I'm
18:20
Speaker 1: not saying it can't because I don't fully understand AI.
18:23
Speaker 1: I'm not sure anybody fully understands AI. But it's just
18:27
Speaker 1: hard for me to wrap my brain around, okay, what
18:30
Speaker 1: would be the mechanism for this? I have zero problems.
18:35
Speaker 1: zero problem believing that AI could cause man or, or
18:42
Speaker 1: man would allow AI to effectively destroy our society. I
18:47
Speaker 1: actually anticipate that. I mean, I, I think almost every
18:51
Speaker 1: single day about, okay, in five to 10 years, what
18:56
Speaker 1: might still have value? Like, like, monetary value, because I
19:03
Speaker 1: think that is a scenario that is extremely plausible, that
19:08
Speaker 1: because of what AI does to the job market, we
19:11
Speaker 1: do this Elon Musk bullshit, universal basic income or something
19:16
Speaker 1: close to it, the dollar ceases to have any value,
19:20
Speaker 1: everything from our economic system completely collapses, there's chaos in
19:25
Speaker 1: the streets because everyone has too much time on their hands.
19:28
Speaker 1: Everything that has held society together collapses, and we're basically
19:35
Speaker 1: in this dystopian society of pure chaos. I think that's
19:42
Speaker 1: totally possible, and I don't know how to deal with that.
19:45
Speaker 1: I mean, that is an incredibly frustrating element of this
19:49
Speaker 1: whole thing. to anticipate pretty clearly a scenario that has
19:54
Speaker 1: a real good chance of happening clearly in your natural
19:58
Speaker 1: lifetime and not feel like you can even remotely properly
20:01
Speaker 1: prepare for it because you're not even sure what direction
20:04
Speaker 1: to go in is incredibly frustrating. But that's different than
20:09
Speaker 1: AI has a 10% chance of killing us all. And
20:14
Speaker 1: then there's the issue of how is it that the
20:17
Speaker 1: overlords of the tech world responded to what Coxon said?
20:23
Speaker 1: And obviously, the head of Anthropic is Mario Amodi, who has,
20:30
Speaker 1: to his credit, I think, I mean, maybe it's just branding,
20:33
Speaker 1: but he has been, of all the tech leaders, the
20:36
Speaker 1: one that has been Most concerned, at least publicly, about
20:40
Speaker 1: trying to make sure that safety is at the forefront
20:44
Speaker 1: of everything that they do. I don't know how much
20:47
Speaker 1: of it is bullshit. I don't know how much of
20:48
Speaker 1: it is real, but at least that's Anthropix branding and
20:53
Speaker 1: typical of their branding that they're very much on the
20:56
Speaker 1: side of safety. Amodi went on television and on the
21:02
Speaker 1: cable news networks to respond and was actually quite positive
21:06
Speaker 1: towards what Coxon said, which is really remarkable. I do
21:09
Speaker 1: think we need to take a moment here. Here, Mario
21:14
Speaker 1: has an employee who leaves his company. This is unbelievable.
21:19
Speaker 1: Leaves his company, is called a whistleblower. I don't know
21:24
Speaker 1: how you actually call Coxon a whistleblower when when the
21:28
Speaker 1: boss is essentially praising him for leaving the company. I mean,
21:31
Speaker 1: he didn't technically praise him, but essentially agrees with what
21:35
Speaker 1: he is saying and has no problem with what he did.
21:38
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, the charge is that your
21:42
Speaker 1: product may end up ending humanity. And the general response is,
21:48
Speaker 1: you know what? I kind of like what Jacob said. Again,
21:52
Speaker 1: I'm paraphrasing, but just to give you a sense of
21:55
Speaker 1: that I'm accurately paraphrasing. Here is Mario from Anthropic responding
22:02
Speaker 1: in general to Jacob Coxon and what he has said
22:06
Speaker 1: after leaving his own company.
22:07
Speaker 3: I have a four-year-old and a six-year-old. And, you know,
22:13
Speaker 3: this last week, for the first time, I've really been
22:17
Speaker 3: scared about their futures. because of this technology. And I
22:22
Speaker 3: think there's a lot of people out there right now
22:24
Speaker 3: who feel despondent or certainly powerless in the face of
22:29
Speaker 3: this and see these tech companies and the money that
22:33
Speaker 3: everybody's making and just feel powerless. What do you say
22:37
Speaker 3: to people who are scared?
22:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I would make two points.
22:41
Speaker 4: One is, this is why restraint is so important. And
22:45
Speaker 4: this is why I have advocated today for restraint. And again,
22:51
Speaker 4: I'm so encouraged to see these calls.
22:54
Speaker 1: Echoed, even by competitors, by government officials.
23:00
Speaker 4: I'm so appreciative that people like Sam and Elon have
23:05
Speaker 4: offered agreement on this. It makes me think that we
23:10
Speaker 4: may truly be able to build this technology in the
23:15
Speaker 4: right way.
23:16
Speaker 1: That is point one.
23:17
Speaker 4: Point two is you said a word that I think
23:20
Speaker 4: is very important, which is powerless. And I think it's
23:23
Speaker 4: very important that people not be powerless.
23:27
Speaker 1: I think it is.
23:28
Speaker 4: Important that people have agency and they have buy-in.
23:33
Speaker 1: And my message here to.
23:36
Speaker 4: People and the governments who represent them is you do
23:40
Speaker 4: have power here. You have the ability to regulate this technology.
23:46
Speaker 4: You have the ability to vote on how this technology
23:50
Speaker 4: is used and how this technology is developed. And I
23:54
Speaker 4: am supportive of those rights. I want to encourage them.
23:58
Speaker 4: This technology, at the end of the day, belongs to everyone.
24:03
Speaker 4: And we need to make sure not only that it
24:06
Speaker 4: serves the interests of everyone, but that everyone.
24:09
Speaker 1: Has a stake in it.
24:11
Speaker 4: Showing this caution in building the technology is one step,
24:17
Speaker 4: but it can't just be a voluntary thing that we're doing.
24:20
Speaker 4: The government needs to play a role as well. And
24:23
Speaker 4: our elected representatives.
24:25
Speaker 1: Need to play a role as well.
24:27
Speaker 4: And individual people need to learn about this technology, need
24:31
Speaker 4: to understand what's happening so they can be more informed voters,
24:35
Speaker 4: so they can shape the incentives of our elected representatives.
24:39
Speaker 1: To have this go in the right direction. Now, the
24:43
Speaker 1: other part of what Mario has said, and Mario has
24:46
Speaker 1: said a lot, in the time period after Jacob Coxon
24:50
Speaker 1: came forward, some of which seemed to have been planned
24:52
Speaker 1: before Jacob Coxon actually came forward, which got people suspicious.
24:57
Speaker 1: I understand that, but sometimes there's just a coincidence. By
25:01
Speaker 1: the way, I'm not against the idea that maybe the
25:04
Speaker 1: timing of Jacob Coxon's coming forward was planned, but I
25:09
Speaker 1: would push back against that because he did it the
25:11
Speaker 1: week of the 25th anniversary of 9-11. there's a real
25:15
Speaker 1: good chance that his social media posts never goes super
25:19
Speaker 1: viral and the media never really picks it up. And
25:21
Speaker 1: this doesn't become the number one topic of conversation in
25:25
Speaker 1: the entire world. But putting that aside, another element of
25:30
Speaker 1: what Mario has been saying, he's been saying a lot,
25:33
Speaker 1: is about the issue of government regulation. And It seems
25:39
Speaker 1: to me as if he is building this argument that
25:44
Speaker 1: what I think is for a potential bailout if things
25:49
Speaker 1: don't really go well economically with AI. And the way
25:55
Speaker 1: I phrase this is, If he wanted to create a
25:58
Speaker 1: circumstance where the government felt obligated to regulate and therefore
26:03
Speaker 1: take responsibility for the AI industry so that they could
26:06
Speaker 1: get a bailout if they failed economically, I'm not sure
26:09
Speaker 1: what he would say differently because he's dropping all sorts
26:13
Speaker 1: of breadcrumbs in this area. And he wrote this massive
26:18
Speaker 1: essay where he calls for a slowdown on AI for
26:23
Speaker 1: safety reasons and effectively government regulation of AI for safety reasons.
26:31
Speaker 1: And another part of this very complex equation that got
26:35
Speaker 1: people very agitated and started to think this is all
26:38
Speaker 1: part of a coordinated psych op is that Sam Altman,
26:42
Speaker 1: who's a nut job, who just recently said we're very
26:45
Speaker 1: close to building a genie that can grant everyone their wishes,
26:50
Speaker 1: all of a sudden did a an about face and
26:53
Speaker 1: came forward publicly to agree with what Mario is saying
26:58
Speaker 1: and to also call for a slowdown on AI because
27:02
Speaker 1: it's becoming too powerful and too dangerous. The way I
27:07
Speaker 1: interpreted that was Sam Altman saying, Mario is saying that
27:11
Speaker 1: his dick is too big that it might kill somebody.
27:14
Speaker 1: Let me tell you, my dick is also so big
27:16
Speaker 1: that it might kill somebody. And what about you, Elon?
27:19
Speaker 1: And Elon Musk came forward and says, oh, yes, my
27:22
Speaker 1: dick is also so big that it might kill somebody.
27:25
Speaker 1: I mean, I know that's a crude way of looking
27:27
Speaker 1: at it, but that's what it feels like. Because there's
27:30
Speaker 1: absolutely a correlation between bizarrely, between how dangerous AI is
27:37
Speaker 1: perceived as being and also how powerful and therefore theoretically
27:43
Speaker 1: economically viable it might be. You would think normally that something,
27:49
Speaker 1: if it was that dangerous, would be considered inherently bad,
27:54
Speaker 1: but there's a huge component of this that the danger
27:57
Speaker 1: is perceived as good, going back to the nuclear bomb analogy. Yeah,
28:03
Speaker 1: a really powerful nuclear bomb is bad if it's misused.
28:08
Speaker 1: But using the big dick analogy, if you've got the
28:12
Speaker 1: biggest bomb, I mean, our own President Trump uses this
28:15
Speaker 1: all the time, talking about how his bombs are bigger
28:18
Speaker 1: than everybody else's bombs. There's a positive to that. So
28:23
Speaker 1: I didn't see Altman and Musk jumping on the Mario
28:29
Speaker 1: bandwagon as some sort of coordinated psych-op. I saw it as, oh, no,
28:36
Speaker 1: my dick is just as big as Mario's. It's probably
28:38
Speaker 1: even bigger. Oh, you wouldn't believe how big my dick
28:41
Speaker 1: is when it comes to the AI. So that's how
28:45
Speaker 1: I perceived that, which is, I think, differently than other
28:48
Speaker 1: people did, because there's no question that, especially on social
28:52
Speaker 1: media and acts where conspiracies run rampant, that this was
28:56
Speaker 1: seen as, oh, my gosh, how could this all be
28:58
Speaker 1: a coincidence? They're pulling a COVID panic psych op on us.
29:03
Speaker 1: I don't see it that way. And I would actually
29:07
Speaker 1: like to give them credit because I always presume, sometimes
29:12
Speaker 1: I'm wrong in this, I always presume that people aren't
29:16
Speaker 1: evil from the beginning. If they prove to me that
29:18
Speaker 1: they're evil, then they're dead to me. But I give people,
29:22
Speaker 1: at least at the start, the benefit of the doubt.
29:25
Speaker 1: And I would like to think, and I do believe
29:27
Speaker 1: at some level, that these guys do at least somewhat
29:31
Speaker 1: care about safety and humanity. I'm not sure about Sam Altman.
29:36
Speaker 1: I think Sam Altman is a weird, weird dude. even
29:40
Speaker 1: weirder than Elon Musk. And nowhere near as smart as
29:43
Speaker 1: Elon Musk. So I'm not sold on Altman. He could
29:48
Speaker 1: be evil. But Mario and Elon, I think at least
29:52
Speaker 1: have at least some of their heart in the right place.
29:57
Speaker 1: And so I think that part of this perfect storm
29:59
Speaker 1: is that there really is a safety concern, that there's
30:01
Speaker 1: been things that have happened, some of which have been public,
30:04
Speaker 1: maybe some of things that have occurred that are not public,
30:08
Speaker 1: that are very, very concerning about where AI could lead,
30:13
Speaker 1: specifically about AI generating new AIs and that they become uncontrollable.
30:19
Speaker 1: and that they're so ingrained in our systems that there's
30:21
Speaker 1: nothing that we can do to stop them once they
30:24
Speaker 1: effectively conspire against us. I still don't know how that
30:28
Speaker 1: leads to our specific death. Like if you're on a
30:31
Speaker 1: deserted island somewhere, I don't know how AI can get you,
30:35
Speaker 1: but all right. I'm open-minded on that. But I also
30:42
Speaker 1: believe in conjunction with this legitimate concern about safety, which
30:46
Speaker 1: I absolutely applaud, I think that they are protecting their business.
30:53
Speaker 1: This business, which is for them, the big AI companies,
30:57
Speaker 1: the Magnificent Seven or whatever they're calling it now, is
31:01
Speaker 1: worth an insane amount of money. Insane, unprecedented amount of money.
31:08
Speaker 1: And they're protecting that business from competition. And they're setting
31:12
Speaker 1: up a bailout if this all fails economically. Because I
31:16
Speaker 1: have been saying from the beginning that that while it
31:20
Speaker 1: sounds incongruous, there's absolutely the chance that this is both
31:26
Speaker 1: a technological marvel and an economic failure. Those things could
31:32
Speaker 1: happen at the same time. And so it feels to
31:37
Speaker 1: me as if the AI leaders are setting up this
31:41
Speaker 1: idea of AI is too big to fail. There's a
31:47
Speaker 1: governmental regulation impulse here, and that once the government is
31:53
Speaker 1: regulating and effectively, in some ways, taking over AI, that
31:58
Speaker 1: if it fails, then there has to be some sort
32:01
Speaker 1: of a bailout. And obviously, we've seen this happen many
32:05
Speaker 1: times before with regard to the federal government in recent history,
32:09
Speaker 1: this whole too big to fail concept. As far as
32:13
Speaker 1: what should actually be done, look, I don't have any
32:17
Speaker 1: easy answers. But In the broadest of pictures, I really believe,
32:24
Speaker 1: and this dovetails with a lot of what Mario is saying,
32:26
Speaker 1: I think, in the broadest of pictures, I'm a big
32:30
Speaker 1: believer in incentive structures. That if you create the proper
32:35
Speaker 1: incentive structures, generally things tend to work out well. That's
32:40
Speaker 1: the magic hand of capitalism that Milton Friedman talked about
32:45
Speaker 1: so much. That's the magic of capitalism, that at least
32:50
Speaker 1: somewhat regulated capitalism, the free market, the magic hand, things
32:56
Speaker 1: tend to work out. Not perfectly, which is our destruction.
33:00
Speaker 1: Our destruction of our society in so many ways is
33:03
Speaker 1: letting the perfect get in the way of the very good.
33:06
Speaker 1: Nothing's ever going to be perfect. But liberals think that
33:09
Speaker 1: they can make something perfect. They can create a utopia.
33:11
Speaker 1: So they destroy something that's very good in an effort
33:14
Speaker 1: to create a utopia. We've seen that with college football.
33:17
Speaker 1: But I digress. We've seen it with so many different things.
33:20
Speaker 1: But I'm a big believer in incentive structures. To me,
33:25
Speaker 1: if I somehow was in charge of this, I would
33:28
Speaker 1: be searching for a situation where it was effectively all
33:33
Speaker 1: for one, one for all. when it comes to AI.
33:36
Speaker 1: In other words, and this is a huge contradiction for
33:41
Speaker 1: me because I remember when I was a kid, back
33:44
Speaker 1: when schools actually had real discipline and teachers had real
33:48
Speaker 1: power and the kids weren't in control of the classroom,
33:52
Speaker 1: I remember very specifically like third, fourth, fifth grade, how
33:56
Speaker 1: pissed off I would get when the entire class would
34:00
Speaker 1: get in trouble because of one or two bad kids.
34:03
Speaker 1: This seems so unfair to me. And I hate government
34:07
Speaker 1: regulation as a libertarian. And I hate this concept of
34:10
Speaker 1: punishing everybody because of a couple of bad actors within
34:14
Speaker 1: your group. But there is a positive of that. And
34:19
Speaker 1: that is that the rest of the group tends to
34:21
Speaker 1: police itself and make sure that the bad actors either
34:24
Speaker 1: shape up or they ship out. And if you created
34:29
Speaker 1: with this much money involved, you created an incentive structure
34:34
Speaker 1: where all the major AI companies were really all for one,
34:38
Speaker 1: one for all. By the way, Elon Musk has kind
34:40
Speaker 1: of talked about this too, where everyone kind of gets
34:43
Speaker 1: to take a look at everyone else's AI and everyone
34:46
Speaker 1: is keeping an eye on each other. So I think philosophically,
34:50
Speaker 1: at least Mario and Elon are on board with this idea.
34:54
Speaker 1: If you created a set of circumstances where it was
34:56
Speaker 1: all for one, one for all with regard to accountability,
34:59
Speaker 1: as well as the benefits, the profits of all this,
35:05
Speaker 1: and I'm not pretending this would be easy, but this
35:08
Speaker 1: is a unique circumstance. This is an unprecedented situation. And
35:12
Speaker 1: sometimes real emergencies require extraordinary measures. To me, this is
35:17
Speaker 1: the only thing that makes total sense is that if
35:21
Speaker 1: something goes wrong with AI, all the AI companies are
35:26
Speaker 1: held accountable, civilly, maybe even criminally, whether it's when hacks
35:32
Speaker 1: occur or damage is done because of AI. They're all responsible.
35:38
Speaker 1: They're all held accountable. That to me would create an
35:43
Speaker 1: incentive structure where nobody got out of line and everyone
35:47
Speaker 1: made damn well sure that They didn't create a problem.
35:53
Speaker 1: And let me be more specific about this. One of
35:55
Speaker 1: the biggest concerns I have and a lot of people
35:58
Speaker 1: have about what's going on with AI is the perverse
36:01
Speaker 1: incentive structure, this race against China. We keep hearing this constantly.
36:07
Speaker 1: Trump talks about this, unfortunately, in a way that I
36:09
Speaker 1: think is very dangerous. We got to beat China, the
36:13
Speaker 1: race against China. So there's a race against China, and
36:17
Speaker 1: then there's an internal race within all the American-based AI
36:21
Speaker 1: companies to be able to be the first to get
36:24
Speaker 1: to AGI to be the leader. Well, if you go
36:29
Speaker 1: to an all-for-one, one-for-all incentive structure, all of a sudden,
36:34
Speaker 1: that's not as big a deal in theory, right? Because
36:42
Speaker 1: if one of you wins, you all win. So you're
36:46
Speaker 1: not really in competition with each other. Now, that doesn't
36:49
Speaker 1: fix The China problem. But I think the China problem
36:54
Speaker 1: is way overblown. Yeah, I'm sure that China is a
36:58
Speaker 1: major threat to win the so-called AI race. Let's say
37:03
Speaker 1: they do. Why do I care? If the fate of
37:07
Speaker 1: humanity is on the line, frankly, I'd rather see China
37:13
Speaker 1: be our guinea pig to see how this works out. Interestingly,
37:16
Speaker 1: from what I can tell, and I've seen some pretty
37:19
Speaker 1: decent videos on this. China is not concerned with the
37:24
Speaker 1: idea of AI killing humanity. China seems to be more
37:28
Speaker 1: in my boat, which is they're concerned about what humans
37:32
Speaker 1: will do with AI or what AI will do to
37:35
Speaker 1: the human cultural structures and whether or not they might
37:39
Speaker 1: collapse because of AI. That's where I am. But the
37:44
Speaker 1: idea that we have to beat China for the race
37:50
Speaker 1: could end up in our destruction, whether it's a 10%
37:53
Speaker 1: rate or otherwise, is just baffling to me. I don't
37:58
Speaker 1: get it. But the way Donald Trump and his administration
38:03
Speaker 1: are looking at this is not the way I am.
38:07
Speaker 1: They don't seem to be buying the hype at all.
38:10
Speaker 1: They're very much in the camp, and Trump has put
38:12
Speaker 1: out a deranged social media post about this, that he's
38:17
Speaker 1: got everything under control as if he has control over AI.
38:21
Speaker 1: I mean, he, I mean, it's completely crazy what he
38:23
Speaker 1: has said publicly. I mean, there's not going to be
38:27
Speaker 1: any problems because I'm president. By the way, buddy, you're
38:29
Speaker 1: only going to be president for two and a half
38:31
Speaker 1: years and you're very likely going to be a complete
38:32
Speaker 1: lame duck in the next two years after the midterm elections.
38:37
Speaker 1: And by the way, I think there's a midterm election
38:39
Speaker 1: element to this, which I'm going to get to momentarily. And, um,
38:44
Speaker 1: but Trump is of the idea that regulation is bad.
38:47
Speaker 1: I want America to win the AI race. We got
38:50
Speaker 1: to beat China and everything's under control because I'm president,
38:54
Speaker 1: which is just beyond delusional. Interestingly, Barack Obama is urging
39:00
Speaker 1: Democrats publicly and privately to go in a completely different direction.
39:06
Speaker 1: He wants Democrats to be the party of AI is
39:09
Speaker 1: a danger and we need to regulate it. Now, I'm
39:13
Speaker 1: not saying I agree with Barack Obama. I would never
39:17
Speaker 1: trust Barack Obama on the issue of government regulation. I'm
39:21
Speaker 1: talking about this from a purely political standpoint. What has
39:25
Speaker 1: happened in the last week as we are, you know,
39:30
Speaker 1: fast approaching the midterm elections is that because of Trump,
39:34
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is the party of AI is great
39:39
Speaker 1: and totally under control. And the Democrats have now become
39:43
Speaker 1: the party of AI sucks and could kill us all.
39:48
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any question whatsoever that the general
39:51
Speaker 1: public is much more in the latter Democratic category than
39:55
Speaker 1: in the former Republican category, whether it's regarding the data
40:03
Speaker 1: center issue or the fear factor issue or just not
40:08
Speaker 1: liking AI slop. I don't think there's any question that
40:13
Speaker 1: the general public is more with the Democratic branding on
40:17
Speaker 1: this than with the Republican branding on this. And so
40:22
Speaker 1: I think Trump is once again leading the Republican Party
40:26
Speaker 1: into a very, very, very dangerous situation in the midterms. Interestingly,
40:32
Speaker 1: they just held this Republican convention in Texas for the midterms,
40:35
Speaker 1: which was, in my view, a bust, where Trump offered
40:40
Speaker 1: a $ 5, 000 bribe if Republicans somehow held the House of
40:47
Speaker 1: Representatives and the Senate. A $ 5, 000 bribe, this is not
40:51
Speaker 1: an exaggeration, but maybe the most remarkable part of this
40:54
Speaker 1: whole thing is it's already been totally forgotten. The President
40:59
Speaker 1: of the United States of America publicly offered American voters
41:05
Speaker 1: a bribe of $ 5, 000 if they reelected his party in Congress.
41:13
Speaker 1: And no one took it seriously. And it's already been forgotten.
41:16
Speaker 1: By the way, this is the same guy who is
41:19
Speaker 1: now promising that gas prices will go down after the midterms.
41:26
Speaker 1: After the midterms. As I have said dozens of times
41:30
Speaker 1: in the last 10 years, if Donald Trump was a
41:33
Speaker 1: Democratic plant, what exactly would he do or say differently?
41:38
Speaker 1: He's not a Democratic plant. They're nowhere near that smart.
41:41
Speaker 1: But if he was, what would he do differently? But
41:45
Speaker 1: this bribe thing, I mean, the bribe thing just blew
41:48
Speaker 1: my mind on so many levels. The only positive of
41:53
Speaker 1: it was it was never going to happen, not just
41:55
Speaker 1: because Trump doesn't have that power and has promised this
41:58
Speaker 1: kind of stuff many times before and it's never come
42:00
Speaker 1: to fruition, but there's no chance, there's no chance that
42:04
Speaker 1: Republicans are going to be holding control of both the
42:07
Speaker 1: House and the Senate after this midterm. I mean, in
42:10
Speaker 1: all seriousness, I don't even know that there's a 1%
42:14
Speaker 1: chance of that happening. So this is a bribe that
42:17
Speaker 1: is never going to be tested because the American people
42:22
Speaker 1: aren't going to go for this. Most of the American
42:24
Speaker 1: people aren't even going to know it was even a
42:26
Speaker 1: bribe that was offered because that's how much clutter there
42:30
Speaker 1: is and how little power even Trump has as president
42:34
Speaker 1: to inform the American public of what he wants to do.
42:37
Speaker 1: But in this particular case, it's pure socialism, redistribution of wealth.
42:42
Speaker 1: If a Democratic president even thought about doing the same thing,
42:45
Speaker 1: the MAGA media industrial complex would go bananas. And oh,
42:50
Speaker 1: by the way, Trump has now set this precedent. So
42:53
Speaker 1: you can be damn well sure that a future Democratic
42:56
Speaker 1: president will, in fact, do the same thing. And MAGA
43:01
Speaker 1: world won't be able to fight back against it because
43:05
Speaker 1: Trump tried to do it many times. I mean, this
43:08
Speaker 1: is end time stuff economically. I mean, we saw what
43:12
Speaker 1: happened during COVID. It's incredibly inflationary. It's unfair. There's a
43:18
Speaker 1: lot of fraud involved with it. It's absurd. It's just
43:21
Speaker 1: printing money. We've got this massive debt to begin with.
43:24
Speaker 1: I mean, you just can't come up with a dumber
43:26
Speaker 1: idea than this. And yet Trump did it, and it's
43:30
Speaker 1: already been forgotten. But with regard to the general AI issue,
43:36
Speaker 1: I get it. It feels a lot like the COVID panic.
43:39
Speaker 1: I get that there's a lot of parallels to climate change, paranoia,
43:43
Speaker 1: and hysteria. I get it. I don't even know where
43:47
Speaker 1: I am on the issue of AI doomerism. I get
43:51
Speaker 1: accused of being an AI doomer on social media. And
43:55
Speaker 1: I'm always like, where are you getting that from? I
43:58
Speaker 1: consider myself kind of in the middle on this issue.
44:01
Speaker 1: I am very open to the idea of AI doomerism.
44:05
Speaker 1: I'm also skeptical. I think I've been very skeptical during
44:09
Speaker 1: the commentary on this podcast. But I'm mostly concerned about
44:14
Speaker 1: what AI will do to our cultural structural systems and
44:18
Speaker 1: our economic systems. And whether or not we are prepared
44:22
Speaker 1: for it. And there is absolutely positively no chance that
44:25
Speaker 1: we are prepared for it. And let me give you
44:27
Speaker 1: a couple of real quick examples. From a media perspective,
44:33
Speaker 1: this really blew my mind. And it's hard. It is
44:36
Speaker 1: hard for me to become truly stunned and outraged at
44:41
Speaker 1: anything that the mainstream news media does in this day
44:44
Speaker 1: and age. But this was so off the charts. I
44:47
Speaker 1: honestly thought it was fake at first. And then I thought, well,
44:51
Speaker 1: it must have just been one media outlet. But then
44:54
Speaker 1: I realized, holy shit, every single major mainstream media outlet
45:01
Speaker 1: did exactly the same thing. What I'm referring to is
45:05
Speaker 1: they interviewed, and weirdly, they were all female interviewers, as
45:09
Speaker 1: far as I could tell, which I think is interesting
45:12
Speaker 1: and maybe telling. But just about every single major legacy
45:18
Speaker 1: television outlet in America, interviewed an AI actress going on
45:27
Speaker 1: a media tour. I'm not making this up. I'm not exaggerating.
45:34
Speaker 1: You may have heard that there's this AI actress, Tilly Norwood,
45:38
Speaker 1: who's actually being used in some sort of productions. But
45:43
Speaker 1: major outlets, the major networks, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, I
45:47
Speaker 1: think did it. I don't know if MSNBC or MSNOW did,
45:50
Speaker 1: so I can't remember if Fox did or not. I
45:53
Speaker 1: don't remember seeing Fox do it. That doesn't mean they didn't.
45:57
Speaker 1: But they all did interviews with a fake AI depiction
46:04
Speaker 1: of an actress by the name of Tilly Norwood. And
46:06
Speaker 1: by the way, the interview was not in a way
46:10
Speaker 1: that was kind of like an experiment to see what
46:13
Speaker 1: the AI actress could do and how they would handle
46:16
Speaker 1: an interview. I mean, that might have been part of
46:18
Speaker 1: it from a subconscious perspective, but the interview was done
46:23
Speaker 1: as if they were a real person, as if this
46:28
Speaker 1: was a serious topic of discussion, as if the whole
46:32
Speaker 1: thing was real. Again, I'm not exaggerating. And I saw this,
46:38
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh my God. Oh my God. I already
46:41
Speaker 1: knew we were cooked, but we are so beyond cooked.
46:46
Speaker 1: one of the major problems with AI is going to
46:48
Speaker 1: be trying to determine what's real and what's fake. And
46:51
Speaker 1: the people whose job it is to determine what's real
46:54
Speaker 1: and what's fake clearly have no interest in even trying
46:57
Speaker 1: to do that. They're pretending that things that are fake
47:01
Speaker 1: are actually real. By the way, speaking of things that
47:07
Speaker 1: are fake being treated as if they're actually real, wait
47:10
Speaker 1: till I get to the Archie Manning and the Arch
47:14
Speaker 1: Manning and the Holly Rose story, which is just mind blowing.
47:17
Speaker 1: And it has clear parallels to what's going on here,
47:20
Speaker 1: especially when it came to this Tilly Norwood nonsense. But
47:24
Speaker 1: I mean, this is really scary stuff. There's no going
47:28
Speaker 1: back from this. I've used the phrase a million times
47:33
Speaker 1: for the last 20 years that we've left the gravitational
47:36
Speaker 1: pull of the rational earth. We can't even fucking see
47:38
Speaker 1: the rational earth from here. We're doing serious news interviews
47:44
Speaker 1: with AI actresses on major networks. By the way, she's
47:51
Speaker 1: an actress. Even if she was a real actress, you
47:54
Speaker 1: would never do the interview. But because she's a fake actress,
47:58
Speaker 1: you're going to do an interview with her and pretend
48:01
Speaker 1: that it's serious? And even here I am falling into
48:05
Speaker 1: the trap of calling it a her. It's an it.
48:08
Speaker 1: It's not a her. It's a female depiction by an it,
48:14
Speaker 1: which is AI, artificial intelligence. My God, we're so hosed. Now,
48:20
Speaker 1: despite all this negativity, I'm going to hold, and for
48:25
Speaker 1: those of you betting at home, and please be careful
48:28
Speaker 1: with your wagering, I'm going to hold the AI fear
48:32
Speaker 1: factor rating at 8.5 out of 10. But it's not
48:35
Speaker 1: because I don't think we're fucked, because we are completely fucked.
48:39
Speaker 1: especially as I keep saying, if we reach AGI, I
48:42
Speaker 1: think that that's really the only hope. The only hope
48:45
Speaker 1: for us as a society is if somehow, some way
48:49
Speaker 1: that AI is overhyped and hits a wall and never
48:54
Speaker 1: reaches the levels of super intelligence that we're told are inevitable.
48:59
Speaker 1: I have no idea what the likelihood of that is.
49:03
Speaker 1: I still think it's theoretically possible. I'm holding on to
49:06
Speaker 1: hope as long as I possibly can. But if we
49:10
Speaker 1: reach that, we're not prepared in any way, shape, or form.
49:13
Speaker 1: And our media is really not prepared, which they have
49:18
Speaker 1: proven in spades with regard to to all the doomerism
49:21
Speaker 1: and then the Tilly Norwood interview fiasco of the last week. Now,
49:27
Speaker 1: I want to move on to the Lindsay Clancy jury situation.
49:32
Speaker 1: Because last week, obviously, I spent a lot of time
49:34
Speaker 1: on that. And at the time, all we knew was
49:37
Speaker 1: that there was one holdout juror against nine woke women.
49:43
Speaker 1: There were three men on the jury. And we knew
49:46
Speaker 1: that one man had held out against this idea of
49:51
Speaker 1: not holding Lindsay Clancy criminally responsible because of effectively insanity
49:57
Speaker 1: for having killed her three young children in cold blood
50:01
Speaker 1: in a way that There was absolutely positively no evidence
50:05
Speaker 1: in my mind that she was insane, that she was
50:09
Speaker 1: under the spell of some sort of psychosis, that she
50:12
Speaker 1: didn't know what she was doing. I mean, I don't
50:14
Speaker 1: need to get into all the evidence, but I mean,
50:16
Speaker 1: she literally sent her husband on an errand so that
50:20
Speaker 1: she could get away with doing this. She clearly thought
50:23
Speaker 1: it out. It was a prolonged, horrendous situation. I mean,
50:27
Speaker 1: to me, this is unambiguous. She killed her three kids.
50:31
Speaker 2: Now, yeah.
50:33
Speaker 1: Is postpartum psychosis real? I'm assuming that it is. Could
50:38
Speaker 1: it be a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing?
50:41
Speaker 4: Fine.
50:42
Speaker 1: But she killed her three kids. And there's no ambiguity
50:46
Speaker 1: about that. And so the fact that there was only
50:49
Speaker 1: one male juror that held out was remarkable and depressing,
50:56
Speaker 1: although it did seem to be a story of heroism.
51:00
Speaker 1: And I talked a lot about that lone holdout juror
51:04
Speaker 1: when we knew absolutely nothing about him. And one of
51:07
Speaker 1: the things that I said, which it's weird what you
51:09
Speaker 1: get credit for and what you get criticized for. I
51:12
Speaker 1: make a lot of predictions. And sometimes I get too
51:14
Speaker 1: much criticism when I'm perceived as being wrong. And sometimes
51:18
Speaker 1: I get too much praise when I'm perceived as being right.
51:21
Speaker 1: This is probably one of those situations where I talked
51:25
Speaker 1: a lot about how if I was the prosecutor and
51:28
Speaker 1: I was retrying the Lindsay Clancy case, I would do
51:32
Speaker 1: everything I possibly could to get black males on the jury.
51:37
Speaker 1: I was emphatic about that. And the reason why I
51:39
Speaker 1: believe that was twofold. Number one was that I had
51:44
Speaker 1: seen a lot of videos, specifically on TikTok, of black
51:49
Speaker 1: men doing deep, very passionate diatribes against Lindsay Clancy. And
51:59
Speaker 1: I've seen other videos from Black men mocking Lindsay Clancy,
52:02
Speaker 1: doing comedy videos about Lindsay Clancy. I mean, not just
52:07
Speaker 1: one or two, a lot. And it felt like this
52:10
Speaker 1: was more than just an aberration. Yes, it's anecdotal, but
52:15
Speaker 1: I felt like there was something there, that there's something
52:19
Speaker 1: within the culture of Black men that they're just not
52:22
Speaker 1: down with this. And I have some theories as to
52:24
Speaker 1: why that might be the case, but I'm gonna hold
52:27
Speaker 1: off on that until we maybe actually hear from the
52:29
Speaker 1: juror himself. But I did not say that I thought
52:34
Speaker 1: that the lone holdout juror was Black. I did, for
52:37
Speaker 1: the record, say it was possible because there was a
52:41
Speaker 1: lot of confusion over the racial makeup of the jury,
52:44
Speaker 1: which I found really weird. I mean, I'm not gonna
52:47
Speaker 1: blame ChatGPT, but I had asked before the last week's
52:51
Speaker 1: show ChatGPT, what the racial breakdown of the jury was.
52:55
Speaker 1: And I don't think they were actually accurate in that.
52:57
Speaker 1: And that may have influenced my belief that I don't
53:02
Speaker 1: know whether or not the holdout juror was black. It
53:06
Speaker 1: certainly seemed just as plausible that they were white. But
53:09
Speaker 1: the second part, this is where I was kicking myself,
53:12
Speaker 1: because it turned out that I should have just followed
53:14
Speaker 1: my instincts, which has happened so many different times in
53:17
Speaker 1: my career. The second part of why I think there
53:20
Speaker 1: needs to be black men on a second Lindsey Clancy jury,
53:24
Speaker 1: if there is a second Lindsey Clancy jury, is that
53:28
Speaker 1: in that deliberation room, these woke white women will feel
53:34
Speaker 1: far less powerful. They will feel far less willing to
53:39
Speaker 1: attack a black man because it's not in their DNA
53:43
Speaker 1: because they think that that's racist. And that was part
53:48
Speaker 1: of why, that belief was part of why I did
53:51
Speaker 1: not conclude proactively, that the lone holdout juror was Black.
53:56
Speaker 1: Because at that point, we had already seen several interviews
54:00
Speaker 1: with these woke white women, and they were absolutely attacking
54:04
Speaker 1: the lone holdout juror in a way that was, I thought, inappropriate.
54:11
Speaker 1: And it didn't seem plausible to me that these woke
54:15
Speaker 1: white women would be going after a Black guy like that.
54:18
Speaker 1: But then, once we found out that, lo and behold,
54:23
Speaker 1: Guess what? The lone holdout juror, and it's remarkable, really
54:28
Speaker 1: remarkable that it took this long, took several days to
54:31
Speaker 1: find out that the lone holdout juror is in fact
54:34
Speaker 1: a black man. By the way, he seems to be
54:38
Speaker 1: an authentically black man, which shocked a lot of people.
54:42
Speaker 1: It did not shock me for the reasons that I've
54:44
Speaker 1: already explained because I had gone through this during last
54:47
Speaker 1: week's analysis of what was going on with the trial.
54:52
Speaker 1: But it hit me like a thunderbolt. And this is
54:55
Speaker 1: where I kicked myself. I said, okay, now we all
55:00
Speaker 1: should have figured this out. It had to be a
55:04
Speaker 1: black guy because only a black guy would have the
55:10
Speaker 1: willingness to hold out against these white women. The white
55:15
Speaker 1: guys were always going to cave under this situation. The
55:19
Speaker 1: other two men on the jury apparently were white. And
55:22
Speaker 1: they caved because they don't have the force field protection
55:25
Speaker 1: of being a black guy. And so what I now
55:31
Speaker 1: think happened was that over the course of an extremely
55:34
Speaker 1: long deliberation, the white women just got fed up with
55:39
Speaker 1: the black guy and decided to let their real racism
55:43
Speaker 1: flag fly. Because I really do believe that woke white
55:47
Speaker 1: women are deep down, frankly, racist. And I think they
55:51
Speaker 1: let it all out after they couldn't hide it anymore
55:54
Speaker 1: after a week's long deliberation. But the black guy was
55:58
Speaker 1: able to withstand that because he has some force field protection.
56:01
Speaker 1: The white guy's got nothing. So I was kicking myself thinking,
56:06
Speaker 1: of course it was the black guy in this situation.
56:09
Speaker 1: If you have three men on the jury and two cave,
56:13
Speaker 1: and we knew, what we didn't know was, and this
56:15
Speaker 1: is where ChachiBT led me astray, we didn't know whether
56:19
Speaker 1: or not one of the the men were black, which
56:22
Speaker 1: is amazing to me. The whole thing, considering how much
56:25
Speaker 1: attention this all got, the fact that this did not
56:27
Speaker 1: all leak way faster is absolutely bizarre to me. And
56:31
Speaker 1: I think might be telling because I actually think that
56:34
Speaker 1: there's a racism aspect for why this took so long
56:38
Speaker 1: because all the reports were in retrospect, were that the
56:42
Speaker 1: black guy was very, very attentive during the trial. And
56:48
Speaker 1: I think what happened was that the media in the
56:52
Speaker 1: courtroom presumed out of racism because they're thinking, oh, black
56:57
Speaker 1: guys are all liberal. And so therefore, you know, if
57:02
Speaker 1: he's looking very attentive, he's in the tank for the defense.
57:06
Speaker 1: I think they presume that. And so it never even
57:09
Speaker 1: occurred to them until later when a juror revealed it.
57:16
Speaker 1: on the CBS morning show that the lone holdout juror
57:20
Speaker 1: was in fact black. So I think there's a lot
57:23
Speaker 1: of subtle, not really all that subtle, evidences of racism
57:29
Speaker 1: here with regard to the way that the white women
57:31
Speaker 1: treated the black juror and the way that the media
57:35
Speaker 1: presumed that the black juror couldn't have been the holdout
57:39
Speaker 1: on behalf of the prosecution. But this issue of race
57:43
Speaker 1: really came forward in a quite telling and frankly hilarious
57:48
Speaker 1: fashion because it first really kind of came to head
57:54
Speaker 1: before we knew the identity or the demographic of the
57:58
Speaker 1: lone holdout juror when Oprah Winfrey did a town hall
58:04
Speaker 1: of almost all women in their response to the Lindsay
58:08
Speaker 1: Clancy verdict. And a Black woman wanted to make sure
58:14
Speaker 1: that the issue of race was injected into this situation
58:18
Speaker 1: by saying, look, it's great that Lindsay Clancy got her
58:22
Speaker 1: due process, but what about all the black women that
58:26
Speaker 1: kill their kids? Again, I'm paraphrasing. What about all the
58:28
Speaker 1: black women that kill their kids? Lindsay Clancy was a
58:32
Speaker 1: rich white woman who had all the advantages in the world,
58:36
Speaker 1: what about the Black women that don't have these kinds
58:39
Speaker 1: of advantages? We need to support them too. And this
58:42
Speaker 1: went viral because of the support that this statement got,
58:46
Speaker 1: which again, I think was Pavlovian and knee-jerk because you're
58:51
Speaker 1: on an Oprah town hall and a Black woman calls
58:54
Speaker 1: for support of Black women. Of course, everyone's going to
58:57
Speaker 1: inherently virtue signal and start expressing their their approval of
59:03
Speaker 1: the message. And that's what happened in this clip that
59:06
Speaker 1: went viral before we knew that the lone holdout juror
59:10
Speaker 1: was indeed a black man.
59:12
Speaker 5: I would just be remiss to not say is, I
59:17
Speaker 5: hope this never happens again. We know statistically it really will.
59:22
Speaker 1: It will.
59:23
Speaker 5: I want us to have the same passion for people
59:27
Speaker 5: who don't look like Lindsay. who don't have her same access.
59:32
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
59:38
Speaker 3: Yeah.
59:38
Speaker 5: Who don't have her same access and education, her melanin,
59:44
Speaker 5: her privilege. There are women of color sitting around this
59:48
Speaker 5: country in prisons for the same thing that we've never
59:50
Speaker 5: heard of. And I just want to remind us to
59:53
Speaker 5: have the pink shirts and the energy for them as well.
1:00:00
Speaker 1: Now, part of why I played that clip is because
1:00:03
Speaker 1: it's an Oprah Winfrey town hall. And because of what
1:00:07
Speaker 1: then transpired was particularly ironic and at least somewhat telling
1:00:13
Speaker 1: and also hilarious. Because Oprah's mini-me is Gayle King. Famously,
1:00:20
Speaker 1: Gayle King is Oprah's best friend. And she's in lockstep
1:00:24
Speaker 1: with Oprah on literally everything. In a way that, frankly,
1:00:28
Speaker 1: has harmed her journalism in many, many ways. I mean,
1:00:34
Speaker 1: one particular example was that Oprah Winfrey jumped on the
1:00:39
Speaker 1: bandwagon of the Leaving Neverland documentary, which was not even
1:00:43
Speaker 1: a documentary. It was a fictional pro-pornography film about the
1:00:47
Speaker 1: Michael Jackson case, something that I railed against in a
1:00:50
Speaker 1: very extreme fashion in multiple ways, in which I was eventually,
1:00:54
Speaker 1: I believe, on the victorious side. But Oprah Winfrey was
1:00:57
Speaker 1: totally on board with that for reasons that were very,
1:01:02
Speaker 1: very suspicious. And what ended up happening? Well, the two
1:01:07
Speaker 1: accusers from Leaving Neverland did one interview in the mainstream
1:01:11
Speaker 1: in America about that whole situation. And it was with
1:01:15
Speaker 1: Gayle King. Not exactly a situation where there's going to
1:01:20
Speaker 1: be real journalism. There's a massive conflict of interest. And
1:01:23
Speaker 1: Gayle King was awful in that interview. Well, Gayle King...
1:01:28
Speaker 1: has on one of the white woke women from the
1:01:31
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy jury, and all of a sudden gets dropped
1:01:35
Speaker 1: this bombshell that she clearly had no prior knowledge of,
1:01:41
Speaker 1: that the lone holdout juror was a black man. And
1:01:46
Speaker 1: Gayle King's shock understandably went viral because it just said
1:01:52
Speaker 1: so much about the dysfunction and the racism of the
1:01:57
Speaker 1: mainstream news media and the utter cluelessness of the mainstream
1:02:01
Speaker 1: news media. And just for the record, here's what that
1:02:04
Speaker 1: sounded like on CBS's This Morning Show. I'm curious about
1:02:09
Speaker 1: the jurors themselves, because we know it was nine women,
1:02:12
Speaker 1: three men.
1:02:13
Speaker 2: What was the age range?
1:02:14
Speaker 1: What was the racial makeup? I haven't heard any of that.
1:02:17
Speaker 1: What was it?
1:02:17
Speaker 5: 70-ish to 22.
1:02:21
Speaker 1: Mm-hmm.
1:02:23
Speaker 5: And one person of color, and then everybody else was white.
1:02:31
Speaker 5: A lot of the jurors had children.
1:02:32
Speaker 4: Uh-huh.
1:02:34
Speaker 1: One person of color was a person of color, a
1:02:36
Speaker 1: woman or a man? A man. A man. Is a
1:02:40
Speaker 1: holdout juror a black man?
1:02:44
Speaker 5: Yes.
1:02:45
Speaker 1: A black man is a holdout juror? Yes. Well, I
1:02:49
Speaker 1: have to sit with that for just a second. Now,
1:02:53
Speaker 1: when that clip went viral, I obviously got a lot
1:02:56
Speaker 1: of messages from people saying, Zig, you were right. The
1:03:00
Speaker 1: lone holdout juror was a black man. Well, for the record,
1:03:03
Speaker 1: I did not say that. I said it was possible.
1:03:06
Speaker 1: I said that I wanted black men on the jury
1:03:10
Speaker 1: the second time around. It does appear as if my
1:03:14
Speaker 1: instincts were right about how black men tend to look
1:03:17
Speaker 1: at this particular case. And again, in retrospect, this makes
1:03:21
Speaker 1: total sense. I really should have called it. I actually,
1:03:25
Speaker 1: you know, some people praise me for that. I actually
1:03:28
Speaker 1: looked at that as a situation where I blew it.
1:03:31
Speaker 1: I should have been able to figure this out because
1:03:33
Speaker 1: there was just no way that one white man was
1:03:37
Speaker 1: going to be able to withstand that kind of pressure
1:03:40
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts. See, that's important to understand. For a white
1:03:44
Speaker 1: man to get on this jury in Massachusetts, that white
1:03:49
Speaker 1: man is not going to have two functional testicles. He's
1:03:53
Speaker 1: just not. There's not going to be two functional testicles there.
1:03:57
Speaker 1: He is going to cave. He's going to be at
1:03:59
Speaker 1: best a moderate. who's terrified of these woke white women,
1:04:03
Speaker 1: and he's going to collapse. And that's what those two
1:04:06
Speaker 1: white men did, but the black man did not, and
1:04:10
Speaker 1: more power to him. And he's going to need it,
1:04:12
Speaker 1: because boy, did the media, especially in Boston, go on
1:04:16
Speaker 1: a full-scale attack on the black juror in an unprecedented
1:04:22
Speaker 1: and possibly, given the bizarre law in Massachusetts, illegal fashion.
1:04:28
Speaker 1: The media went after this black juror whose name has
1:04:31
Speaker 1: now apparently been made public but has not been dignified
1:04:35
Speaker 1: by any mainstream news media outlet. I'm not going to
1:04:39
Speaker 1: say it, one, because I'm not 100% sure that it's accurate,
1:04:42
Speaker 1: but also because I don't want to participate in the
1:04:45
Speaker 1: doxing of this guy. But the Boston media went so
1:04:50
Speaker 1: far beyond anything that's remotely appropriate and, again, could be
1:04:55
Speaker 1: illegal based upon Massachusetts law saying that this guy had
1:05:01
Speaker 1: all sorts of horrible accusations against him regarding domestic violence.
1:05:05
Speaker 1: By the way, charges were dropped. Very bizarrely, they've been
1:05:10
Speaker 1: going after him because he has unpaid rent. Imagine, by
1:05:15
Speaker 1: the way, how this scenario would be portrayed if it
1:05:19
Speaker 1: was the opposite. Let's pretend that a black man or
1:05:22
Speaker 1: woman was the lone holdout on behalf of Lindsay Clancy.
1:05:28
Speaker 1: And it turned out that they couldn't pay their rent.
1:05:30
Speaker 1: It would be seen as a hero story that this
1:05:33
Speaker 1: poor person was standing up for what they believed in.
1:05:37
Speaker 1: But no, no, no. Somehow unpaid rent is an indication
1:05:42
Speaker 1: that this is a bad person. It could be, but
1:05:45
Speaker 1: we don't know that. But the parts of the media
1:05:49
Speaker 1: reporting out of Boston that were most insidious to me
1:05:54
Speaker 1: were one, They didn't even tell you he's a black guy.
1:06:00
Speaker 1: In all the reports I saw out of Boston, they
1:06:02
Speaker 1: omitted that. Because you got to remember, the fact that
1:06:07
Speaker 1: he's a black guy became known mostly on social media.
1:06:12
Speaker 1: And if you happen to be watching CBS this morning
1:06:15
Speaker 1: when Gayle King almost lost her shit, I doubt that
1:06:19
Speaker 1: it was overwhelmingly known, even in Boston. So they just
1:06:24
Speaker 1: conveniently omitted that part, which is a significant part of
1:06:29
Speaker 1: the equation, especially in Boston. People are going to perceive
1:06:33
Speaker 1: what you're telling them completely differently if this is a
1:06:36
Speaker 1: black guy, but they don't tell you that part. But
1:06:39
Speaker 1: then even worse than that, they overtly speculated, pure speculation,
1:06:46
Speaker 1: because they needed there to be some plausible relevance to
1:06:50
Speaker 1: the case because there's nothing in this guy's background that
1:06:53
Speaker 1: would have inherently prevented him from being on the jury
1:06:58
Speaker 1: unless he lied on his jury questionnaire, which is theoretically possible,
1:07:07
Speaker 1: but there's no evidence for that. In fact, as of
1:07:11
Speaker 1: this taping, and it's unverified, but there is a report
1:07:17
Speaker 1: out there that He did not lie on his questionnaire
1:07:21
Speaker 1: that he was actually asked about these specific incidents during Guadir.
1:07:26
Speaker 1: So therefore, there's no even theoretical fucking relevance to charges
1:07:32
Speaker 1: that were dropped and unpaid rent by this guy other
1:07:36
Speaker 1: than the fact that you are on a search and
1:07:38
Speaker 1: destroy mission for this guy's life because you disagree with
1:07:44
Speaker 1: his decision in the jury room. By the way, a
1:07:47
Speaker 1: decision that I believe the majority of Americans probably not
1:07:52
Speaker 1: just agree with, but wholeheartedly agree with. But that's how
1:07:56
Speaker 1: completely out of control the Boston media is. And I
1:07:59
Speaker 1: think this is such an underrated part of this equation.
1:08:02
Speaker 1: I went into this in last week's episode, but this
1:08:05
Speaker 1: is what drives so much media behavior, especially in this
1:08:08
Speaker 1: day and age of extreme fragmentation. You cannot underestimate enough
1:08:14
Speaker 1: how significant it is that Lindsay Clancy has a fan base.
1:08:20
Speaker 1: I'm assuming especially in Massachusetts and in Boston. That drives
1:08:25
Speaker 1: media coverage because they know they have a built-in audience.
1:08:29
Speaker 1: And in this particular situation, they have a built-in audience
1:08:33
Speaker 1: that wants content attacking the lone holdout juror. They have
1:08:40
Speaker 1: an extraordinary desire for that, especially if they aren't told
1:08:44
Speaker 1: that he happens to be a black guy. Because remember,
1:08:46
Speaker 1: these are liberals. So for some of them, the fact
1:08:49
Speaker 1: that he's a black guy is going to have a whoa, whoa, whoa,
1:08:51
Speaker 1: hold on a second effect like it did apparently with
1:08:55
Speaker 1: Gayle King. So you withhold the fact that he's black.
1:09:00
Speaker 1: You give the Lindsay Clancy fan base exactly what they want.
1:09:03
Speaker 1: They are deeply desirous of negative information about this asshole
1:09:09
Speaker 1: who held out to try to make sure that Lindsay
1:09:13
Speaker 1: Clancy was held responsible for killing her three kids. And
1:09:17
Speaker 1: you just wildly speculate with no evidence that he lied
1:09:22
Speaker 1: on his questionnaire. Now, look, some of these allegations with
1:09:27
Speaker 1: regard to domestic violence seem serious. His side of the
1:09:32
Speaker 1: story does seem to mitigate it a little bit if
1:09:35
Speaker 1: it's accurate. Again, I don't know. Social media, it's very,
1:09:38
Speaker 1: very difficult to tell. But the charges were dropped. I'm
1:09:42
Speaker 1: not going to mitigate the domestic violence allegations. I don't
1:09:46
Speaker 1: know if they're true. I don't know if they're exaggerated.
1:09:48
Speaker 1: But that does not disqualify this guy from this jury.
1:09:53
Speaker 1: And therefore, it's not relevant unless he lied on his questionnaire,
1:09:58
Speaker 1: in which case it would be relevant. But there's no
1:10:00
Speaker 1: evidence of that right now. And my gut tells me
1:10:03
Speaker 1: it's not true. But the media has been completely and
1:10:07
Speaker 1: totally out of control, especially in Boston. The worst example,
1:10:11
Speaker 1: and I literally posted that I thought this might be
1:10:13
Speaker 1: a parody. I looked at the the profile at least
1:10:18
Speaker 1: three or four times to make sure, wait a minute,
1:10:20
Speaker 1: is this some sort of fake account that's posting this?
1:10:23
Speaker 1: This is the Boston Herald. The Boston Herald tweeted out
1:10:30
Speaker 1: the following for an opinion column. Now, granted, it's an
1:10:33
Speaker 1: opinion column, but this is way, way beyond the pale.
1:10:38
Speaker 1: This is unbelievable, even by liberal media standards, and really
1:10:42
Speaker 1: just shows you just how much we've lost the plot
1:10:45
Speaker 1: on this entire Lindsay Clancy situation. The Boston Herald put
1:10:49
Speaker 1: out a tweet with their article, this opinion piece with
1:10:53
Speaker 1: the headline, now that the holdout juror in the Lindsay
1:10:57
Speaker 1: Clancy case is getting the negative attention he deserves, again,
1:11:04
Speaker 1: no mention of the fact that he's a black guy,
1:11:06
Speaker 1: it's easy for District Attorney Tim Cruz to agree to
1:11:10
Speaker 1: a plea deal that gets Lindsay the help she needs.
1:11:16
Speaker 1: And then there's even a typo where it says, between
1:11:19
Speaker 1: now and when the deal goes, da, da, da, da.
1:11:22
Speaker 1: The person that wrote it didn't even know what the
1:11:24
Speaker 1: hell they were doing. But the point of this is
1:11:27
Speaker 1: that the Boston Herald is openly, openly campaigning to destroy
1:11:34
Speaker 1: the juror and to try to force the DA into
1:11:39
Speaker 1: not retrying Lindsay Clancy. I mean, it doesn't get more
1:11:44
Speaker 1: upside down than this. Everything about this is upside down. Now,
1:11:49
Speaker 1: I'm hesitant to make the black lone holdout juror a
1:11:53
Speaker 1: hero until we actually hear from him. But it certainly
1:11:56
Speaker 1: appears as if he might be. And I know for
1:11:59
Speaker 1: sure that Lindsey Clancy is the villain here. And yet everything,
1:12:03
Speaker 1: especially in the Boston media and the liberal media, is
1:12:06
Speaker 1: completely upside down. It's unbelievable. And by the way, while
1:12:13
Speaker 1: there's been all this attention on the lone holdout juror
1:12:16
Speaker 1: and his potential problems, most of the media has just
1:12:20
Speaker 1: been completely ignoring some of the absolutely asinine, crazy things
1:12:26
Speaker 1: the woke cat ladies on the jury have been saying,
1:12:29
Speaker 1: even as this thing goes on. I mean, they keep
1:12:31
Speaker 1: doing all sorts of interviews, which I knew they would,
1:12:34
Speaker 1: because I know the personality of the women that were
1:12:37
Speaker 1: on this jury. They're not going to be able to
1:12:39
Speaker 1: resist the opportunity to get attention, to virtue signal, to
1:12:46
Speaker 1: vent frustration over not getting their way. But some of
1:12:51
Speaker 1: the things that they have said would have completely invalidated
1:12:55
Speaker 1: a not guilty verdict. They claim to be experts, the
1:13:00
Speaker 1: nurses on the case. They were pretending they had expert
1:13:04
Speaker 1: knowledge on the case and were effectively testifying in the
1:13:08
Speaker 1: jury deliberations, which is completely and totally inappropriate. A couple
1:13:12
Speaker 1: of them have admitted to having political motivations with regard,
1:13:16
Speaker 1: I mean, overt political motivations that they were trying to
1:13:20
Speaker 1: send a message. I mean, these people were way worse
1:13:23
Speaker 1: than the OJ jurors. At least the OJ jurors tried
1:13:25
Speaker 1: to hide it a little bit. One of them was
1:13:29
Speaker 1: a Karen Reid fanatic. That did not surprise me at
1:13:33
Speaker 1: all because I think there are parallels to the Karen
1:13:35
Speaker 1: Reid case. Karen Reid was a woman who I believe
1:13:38
Speaker 1: killed either on purpose or accidentally her cop boyfriend and
1:13:42
Speaker 1: somehow got away with it, got acquitted because she had
1:13:46
Speaker 1: a fan base in the Boston area. Well, one of
1:13:49
Speaker 1: them was an all-out, full-on Karen Reid activist. They all
1:13:54
Speaker 1: had an agenda here. This was not about the truth.
1:13:58
Speaker 1: This was not about justice. This was not about the facts.
1:14:02
Speaker 1: These were crazy, woke ladies taking over society and wanting
1:14:08
Speaker 1: to send a message on behalf of women. Of course,
1:14:12
Speaker 1: the message they've sent the most rational people is, I
1:14:15
Speaker 1: guess women can't be trusted in positions of power and
1:14:19
Speaker 1: in decision-making because their hormones... overtake their thinking to the
1:14:25
Speaker 1: point where they might kill their three kids and they
1:14:27
Speaker 1: don't want to be held responsible or accountable for that.
1:14:32
Speaker 1: It's absolutely amazing. So, I mean, like a lot of people,
1:14:36
Speaker 1: I am fascinated and frustrated by the Lindsay Clancy story,
1:14:40
Speaker 1: but it's not over yet. I would like to believe
1:14:43
Speaker 1: we're going to hear from the black holdout juror. I
1:14:46
Speaker 1: don't know who he should talk to if he's going
1:14:48
Speaker 1: to talk to anybody. I've heard one of my friends
1:14:52
Speaker 1: suggested Charlemagne Tha God, who's a black talk show host.
1:14:55
Speaker 1: I don't know what his position is on this story,
1:14:58
Speaker 1: but I would love to see that. Boy, that would
1:15:00
Speaker 1: really make heads explode if the lone black holdout juror
1:15:05
Speaker 1: went on with Charlemagne Tha God in front of a
1:15:08
Speaker 1: massive black audience. I would also love to see him
1:15:11
Speaker 1: on Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan would be amazing. But I
1:15:16
Speaker 1: gotta believe with this much desire and this much attention.
1:15:23
Speaker 1: I mean, we live in a celebrity crazed world and
1:15:25
Speaker 1: obviously the guy needs money. So I'm going to bank
1:15:30
Speaker 1: and bet on the fact that we will eventually hear
1:15:32
Speaker 1: from him how and where, I don't know, but it
1:15:36
Speaker 1: would be stunning in this day and age if we
1:15:38
Speaker 1: never heard from the lone black holdout juror. Now I'm
1:15:42
Speaker 1: probably the only person in the world that believes that
1:15:44
Speaker 1: there is a direct connection between between the first two
1:15:48
Speaker 1: stories that I talked about in today's podcast, the AI
1:15:53
Speaker 1: doomsday panic and the Lindsay Clancy trial with what has
1:15:59
Speaker 1: transpired with regard to Arch Manning and Holly Rowe. But
1:16:04
Speaker 1: I do think that there are some connections, which will
1:16:06
Speaker 1: become obvious as I tell you about this story. So
1:16:10
Speaker 1: let me review what happened here with regard to the
1:16:14
Speaker 1: Arch Manning trial Holly row controversy that has overtaken much
1:16:18
Speaker 1: of the sports world over the last several days. So
1:16:21
Speaker 1: over the weekend, Texas and Ohio state played a minor
1:16:26
Speaker 1: league professional football game, which was really, really important because
1:16:32
Speaker 1: both teams are probably still going to make the playoffs.
1:16:35
Speaker 1: So that's how important this game was in a 12
1:16:36
Speaker 1: team playoff world, pretty darn good chance that even the loser, uh,
1:16:42
Speaker 1: of this game is gonna make the playoffs. It's not assured,
1:16:46
Speaker 1: but it's a pretty good bet. So Ohio State blows
1:16:50
Speaker 1: a lead in the fourth quarter, Texas at home wins
1:16:54
Speaker 1: the game. And this of course creates a lot of
1:16:57
Speaker 1: excitement because the people don't really realize that the game
1:17:00
Speaker 1: is meaningless, because they're still living in a world that
1:17:02
Speaker 1: no longer exists. So there's a lot of celebration in Austin, Texas.
1:17:08
Speaker 1: And as part of this celebration, The head coach at
1:17:12
Speaker 1: Texas is attempting to be interviewed by Holly Rowe of ESPN.
1:17:21
Speaker 1: And I'm not a fan of Holly Rowe. I've had
1:17:25
Speaker 1: interaction with Holly Rowe that's been at first somewhat positive,
1:17:28
Speaker 1: turned out to be very, very negative. I met her
1:17:31
Speaker 1: at a movie premiere, the Kurt Warner movie a couple
1:17:35
Speaker 1: of years ago. I tried to educate her about the
1:17:38
Speaker 1: Joe Paterno story. And later on, very quickly, tried to
1:17:43
Speaker 1: warn her about the position she was taking on the
1:17:45
Speaker 1: BYU-Duke volleyball situation. I was correct about that. She did
1:17:50
Speaker 1: not want to hear it. She ended up blocking me
1:17:52
Speaker 1: on social media. I'm not a fan of Holly Rowe.
1:17:55
Speaker 1: So Steve Sarkeesian is clearly not interested in being interviewed.
1:18:03
Speaker 1: And he blows her off, effectively. And she... puts on
1:18:09
Speaker 1: a pouty face to the camera. Like she's very put off,
1:18:15
Speaker 1: acting like a spoiled child because she didn't get what
1:18:17
Speaker 1: she wanted because Steve Sarkazian blew her off and ended
1:18:22
Speaker 1: the interview really before it began. Now, that would have
1:18:26
Speaker 1: been bad enough. That probably would have gone viral on
1:18:29
Speaker 1: its own, except for what happened next, which is that
1:18:33
Speaker 1: because of Holly Rose's negative response, To Steve Sarkeesian blowing
1:18:39
Speaker 1: her off, Steve Sarkeesian takes his fist and punches Holly
1:18:43
Speaker 1: Roe in the face and knocks her to the ground. Now,
1:18:47
Speaker 1: this was obviously horrendous. And it's remarkable that Steve Sarkeesian
1:18:53
Speaker 1: was not arrested and was not even fired by the
1:18:57
Speaker 1: University of Texas. In fact, there was very little conversation
1:19:01
Speaker 1: about the fact that Sarkeesian had hit Holly Rowe across
1:19:04
Speaker 1: the face. But Arch Manning, the quarterback for Texas, was
1:19:10
Speaker 1: asked about this the next day and was asked whether
1:19:14
Speaker 1: or not he saw the video of Steve Sarkeesian punching
1:19:19
Speaker 1: Holly Roe across the face on the field after the win.
1:19:22
Speaker 1: And Arch Manning said that he had seen it and
1:19:26
Speaker 1: that he thought the video was hilarious. Now at this point,
1:19:30
Speaker 1: I mean, that's obviously a massive scandal. You have the
1:19:34
Speaker 1: coach of Texas hitting an ESPN reporter, a female in
1:19:38
Speaker 1: the face, seemingly causing her great harm. She falls to
1:19:41
Speaker 1: the ground and then you have your potential Heisman winning
1:19:45
Speaker 1: or potentially Heisman trophy contending quarterback, Arch Manning, obviously very
1:19:50
Speaker 1: famous last name, the nephew of Peyton Manning and Eli Manning,
1:19:56
Speaker 1: clearly the most famous player in all of minor league
1:19:59
Speaker 1: professional football, actually saying that he thought it was hilarious
1:20:03
Speaker 1: when he saw the video of his coach assaulting a
1:20:06
Speaker 1: female ESPN reporter. And at that point, Arch Manning eventually
1:20:10
Speaker 1: after a massive media firestorm is forced to apologize after
1:20:15
Speaker 1: speaking to Holly Roe and Holly Roe accepting her apology.
1:20:20
Speaker 1: So that was that whole controversy, except for the fact
1:20:24
Speaker 1: that a large part of what I just told you
1:20:27
Speaker 1: didn't actually happen. That was fake. That was AI. The
1:20:34
Speaker 1: part after Holly Roe acting like a child after Sarkeesian
1:20:40
Speaker 1: blew her off, did not actually occur in real life.
1:20:44
Speaker 1: Sarkeesian did not actually hit Holly Roe. That was an
1:20:50
Speaker 1: AI video because what happened was Holly Roe's reaction of
1:20:56
Speaker 1: that of a child after being blown off went viral.
1:21:00
Speaker 1: And we live in a world now where when something
1:21:02
Speaker 1: goes viral, people make AI videos to play off of that.
1:21:08
Speaker 1: And someone made a video, which I didn't even think
1:21:10
Speaker 1: was particularly funny, but it went viral of Steve Sarkeesian.
1:21:16
Speaker 1: Not sure why I have a difficult time with his name,
1:21:18
Speaker 1: but Steve Sarkeesian hitting Holly Rowe. Because obviously there was
1:21:22
Speaker 1: some sort of bad blood there. So the AI video
1:21:25
Speaker 1: goes viral. Arch Manning gets asked about it. And Arch
1:21:29
Speaker 1: Manning says, oh, yeah, I saw it. It was hilarious.
1:21:32
Speaker 1: That was it. He didn't say, boy, I wish it
1:21:37
Speaker 1: would have happened in real life. That would have really
1:21:39
Speaker 1: been funny. He said the AI video was hilarious. That's
1:21:46
Speaker 1: what he said. Now, immediately when I saw this, I
1:21:49
Speaker 1: think anybody with a rational brain, when they saw this
1:21:52
Speaker 1: understanding the world we now live in, realized that was
1:21:55
Speaker 1: going to be a massive controversy. And it was, bizarrely,
1:22:00
Speaker 1: because in a Pavlovian response, every single female sports reporter
1:22:08
Speaker 1: ever in the world, and that's not an exaggeration, every
1:22:13
Speaker 1: single one immediately pounced all over Arch Manning. Every single one.
1:22:21
Speaker 1: Quote tweeting the clip, virtue signaling about how horrible this is,
1:22:26
Speaker 1: contemplating how bad the comments must really be in the
1:22:29
Speaker 1: locker room if a star player is willing to say
1:22:32
Speaker 1: that this was funny, that Holly Roe got punched in
1:22:35
Speaker 1: the face by Steve Sarkeesian. And I mean, it went bananas.
1:22:42
Speaker 1: It was wildfire. And it was hardly shocking at all.
1:22:45
Speaker 1: It was the most obvious result of all time that
1:22:48
Speaker 1: Arch Manning was going to be forced to do some
1:22:50
Speaker 1: sort of penance, an apology. Being forced to speak to
1:22:54
Speaker 1: Holly Rowland on the phone is probably bad enough, along
1:22:57
Speaker 1: with the public apology. And I'm like, what the fuck
1:23:01
Speaker 1: are we doing? I mean, this is very much like
1:23:04
Speaker 1: the Tilly Norwood situation. This did not actually happen. This
1:23:09
Speaker 1: is fake. This is an IAI video. Just to be
1:23:14
Speaker 1: 100% clear, because obviously I was being facetious, because that's
1:23:18
Speaker 1: the way the sports media has reacted to this, there
1:23:21
Speaker 1: was no actual physical assault. The person that acted most
1:23:25
Speaker 1: unprofessionally in the real world was actually Holly Rowe. If
1:23:29
Speaker 1: Holly Rowe doesn't act like a spoiled child and just says,
1:23:34
Speaker 1: good game, coach, no one's talking about this. No one cares.
1:23:39
Speaker 1: It's just Sarkeesian being overly excited by having pulled off
1:23:43
Speaker 1: this comeback victory. But it's because of Holly Roe that
1:23:48
Speaker 1: this thing went viral. It's because of that going viral
1:23:52
Speaker 1: that someone made this stupid video of Sarkeesian hitting her
1:23:55
Speaker 1: across the face. And the rest of the sports media world,
1:24:00
Speaker 1: especially the women in the sports media world, pretended like
1:24:05
Speaker 1: this actually happened. And that Arch Manning was reacting to
1:24:10
Speaker 1: an event that had actually occurred. It did not happen.
1:24:15
Speaker 1: It's fake. I cannot say this enough. It did not
1:24:19
Speaker 1: actually occur. Yet, I'm telling you, almost all of these
1:24:23
Speaker 1: sports media personalities, these female sports media quote-unquote reporters, responded
1:24:29
Speaker 1: exactly as if, especially to Arch Manning, as if it
1:24:34
Speaker 1: had occurred. And that that's what Arch Manning was saying
1:24:39
Speaker 1: was hilarious. And, you know, probably the best comparison here,
1:24:44
Speaker 1: and I had forgotten about this until I saw it
1:24:47
Speaker 1: just before taping this morning, is that Arch Manning's uncle, Peyton,
1:24:53
Speaker 1: did an extremely famous SNL skit that did not use AI,
1:24:59
Speaker 1: where he was coaching a school kids flag football team,
1:25:06
Speaker 1: you know, like eight or nine 10-year-olds, and he was
1:25:10
Speaker 1: coaching them like he was in the NFL. And he
1:25:13
Speaker 1: kept throwing full-on passes at their guts and knocking them over. Now,
1:25:20
Speaker 1: they didn't use AI because AI really didn't exist at
1:25:23
Speaker 1: that time. This was many years ago. I remember reading
1:25:27
Speaker 1: about this where they actually used a super soft football
1:25:30
Speaker 1: to make sure that none of the kids got hurt.
1:25:32
Speaker 1: But in fact, there was at least some reality to that.
1:25:37
Speaker 1: these kids were being knocked over by Peyton Manning's passes
1:25:41
Speaker 1: in what was a comedy sketch. No one got harmed.
1:25:47
Speaker 1: None of the kids got harmed. There was no actual assault,
1:25:51
Speaker 1: but people thought it was hilarious. It's still to this day.
1:25:55
Speaker 1: It's extremely funny, especially by SNL standards. Yet now, now
1:26:01
Speaker 1: because a college kid on an offhand comment He didn't
1:26:08
Speaker 1: bring it up, by the way. He was asked about it.
1:26:12
Speaker 1: Says that a viral AI video is hilarious? That's somehow
1:26:20
Speaker 1: the biggest sports scandal of the week. Maybe the month.
1:26:24
Speaker 1: And by the way, probably will end Arch Manning's chances
1:26:28
Speaker 1: of winning the Heisman Trophy, regardless of what kind of
1:26:30
Speaker 1: year he has, because there's going to be negative voting
1:26:35
Speaker 1: backlash from the woke contingent. female or otherwise. Women are
1:26:40
Speaker 1: not going to let him live this down. I mean,
1:26:44
Speaker 1: to me, this was a really seminal moment on a
1:26:48
Speaker 1: lot of different levels. I mean, one was the political
1:26:51
Speaker 1: correctness and how women have completely taken over society and sports.
1:26:56
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just utterly ridiculous that this thing, it
1:27:00
Speaker 1: became a massive controversy. I thought the video was stupid.
1:27:06
Speaker 1: I didn't think it was hilarious, but is it a
1:27:10
Speaker 1: crime that Arch Manning thought that a fake AI video
1:27:13
Speaker 1: was funny? He didn't say, again, to be clear, he
1:27:18
Speaker 1: didn't say, boy, it was hilarious that Holly Rowe finally
1:27:22
Speaker 1: got what was coming to her. I wish I had
1:27:23
Speaker 1: a chance to slap her across the face or I
1:27:26
Speaker 1: wish the coach had slapped her across the face. That
1:27:28
Speaker 1: would have been different. But that's not what happened. It's
1:27:32
Speaker 1: not even close to what happened here. What really did occur,
1:27:37
Speaker 1: here's what really, in my view, happened. I think, and
1:27:43
Speaker 1: some of this is subconscious, I think that the Diana Rossini,
1:27:47
Speaker 1: Mike Vrabel controversy has made female sports reporters extremely insecure,
1:27:55
Speaker 1: and understandably so. Because the reality is, and I'm not
1:27:58
Speaker 1: saying they're all sleeping with their sources, but the reality
1:28:01
Speaker 1: is that the vast majority of them have their jobs
1:28:04
Speaker 1: because they're very good-looking. that men find them sexually attractive.
1:28:11
Speaker 1: And because of the Diana Rossini situation, they've all lost
1:28:16
Speaker 1: the moral high ground. They've all been exposed as to
1:28:20
Speaker 1: what's really going on here. And whether or not there's
1:28:23
Speaker 1: actually sex involved or not almost doesn't matter because the
1:28:26
Speaker 1: number one reason, if we're gonna be real about this,
1:28:29
Speaker 1: the number one reason why attractive women are hired to
1:28:34
Speaker 1: be sideline reporters for especially football games, is that if
1:28:39
Speaker 1: you're a coach or a player and you're in the
1:28:42
Speaker 1: midst of a post-game celebration and you have to make
1:28:46
Speaker 1: decisions about what you're going to do, or if you're
1:28:48
Speaker 1: going into halftime and you're going to decide whether or
1:28:50
Speaker 1: not you're going to talk to somebody in the media,
1:28:53
Speaker 1: the chances of you stopping to speak to a hot
1:28:56
Speaker 1: young woman are a hell of a lot better than
1:28:59
Speaker 1: they are to stop to speak to Holly Roe, who
1:29:04
Speaker 1: is extremely unattractive and obese. That's just the reality of it.
1:29:10
Speaker 1: And by the way, there's no question that that was
1:29:14
Speaker 1: part of what sparked the female firestorm in the sports
1:29:20
Speaker 1: media world in response to this. Because they know, they
1:29:24
Speaker 1: know that part of why Steve Sarkeesian blew off Holly
1:29:28
Speaker 1: Roe is that she's not attractive. Now there's another possible
1:29:32
Speaker 1: reason I'm going to get to in a moment that
1:29:34
Speaker 1: no one else in the media is going to tell
1:29:35
Speaker 1: you about, nobody. But I just want to finish off
1:29:39
Speaker 1: this other point. The reality is that female sports reporters
1:29:44
Speaker 1: saw the Arch Manning controversy as an opportunity to, after
1:29:50
Speaker 1: the Diana Rossini disaster, regain the moral high ground and
1:29:55
Speaker 1: their favorite place of victimhood, because that's what these women love, victimhood.
1:30:05
Speaker 1: Victimhood is almost like oxygen for people like this. Attention
1:30:12
Speaker 1: and victimhood and virtue signaling and regaining the moral high ground.
1:30:19
Speaker 1: Because they're very, very insecure about why they actually have
1:30:22
Speaker 1: their positions. Because deep down, they all know. It's because
1:30:27
Speaker 1: they're sexually attractive. And the fact that Holly Roe got
1:30:31
Speaker 1: blown off, possibly because she's not attractive, I think at
1:30:36
Speaker 1: least subconsciously played a huge role in this. Plus there's
1:30:40
Speaker 1: just the basic hating of men, Toxic masculinity. Oh my God,
1:30:47
Speaker 1: old boys network. Here we go again. We really haven't advanced.
1:30:51
Speaker 1: Arch Manning is laughing about a fake AI video of
1:30:59
Speaker 1: his coach slapping a woman. I mean, again, there's so
1:31:05
Speaker 1: many aspects of this story that I think are important.
1:31:07
Speaker 1: But one of them is that we're making brand new
1:31:10
Speaker 1: rules in this AI world. And are we now making
1:31:14
Speaker 1: a new rule that you're not allowed to say that
1:31:18
Speaker 1: an AI video that depicts something that's politically incorrect is funny?
1:31:23
Speaker 1: Because I think we just did. I think we just
1:31:26
Speaker 1: created a new rule. And if that is a new rule,
1:31:29
Speaker 1: that's a big fucking problem. Because this is a new
1:31:33
Speaker 1: frontier here. I thought we at least had some sense
1:31:36
Speaker 1: of rationality that we could discern the difference between thinking
1:31:41
Speaker 1: that something's totally fake and funny, like Betty White getting
1:31:47
Speaker 1: tackled in the mud in a Super Bowl commercial several
1:31:50
Speaker 1: years ago that effectively used special effects to make that happen.
1:31:55
Speaker 1: People thought that was funny, even though she was an
1:31:58
Speaker 1: old lady. The Peyton Manning SNL sketch, that was funny
1:32:03
Speaker 1: because people knew it wasn't real. I mean, that is
1:32:08
Speaker 1: going to have an incredible chilling effect. on especially comedic
1:32:13
Speaker 1: content going forward, again, to be clear, I did not
1:32:16
Speaker 1: think that this AI video in question was even funny. Generally,
1:32:21
Speaker 1: I think physical violence is a crutch that if you
1:32:25
Speaker 1: don't have anything else funny to say or do, you
1:32:28
Speaker 1: create physical violence. In that particular case, I didn't think
1:32:31
Speaker 1: it was funny, but I don't think it's somehow scandalous
1:32:35
Speaker 1: to think that it was. And to make a massive
1:32:38
Speaker 1: controversy out of this, for Arch Manning to be within
1:32:43
Speaker 1: an inch of cancellation and maybe theoretically losing out on
1:32:46
Speaker 1: the Heisman Trophy because of it, that creates a brand new, very,
1:32:50
Speaker 1: very problematic rule. Now, let me go back to Holly
1:32:54
Speaker 1: Rowe and Steve Sarkeesian for a second. I promise I'm
1:32:58
Speaker 1: going to get Sarkeesian's name correct more often than I,
1:33:02
Speaker 1: if I say it enough, my batting average is going
1:33:04
Speaker 1: to get over 50%, I promise. But there's another part
1:33:08
Speaker 1: of this. that nobody in the media is going to
1:33:11
Speaker 1: talk to you about. And I don't know 100% that
1:33:15
Speaker 1: this is a factor in what happened. But it might be.
1:33:20
Speaker 1: And it's certainly worthy of being mentioned. Now, I've already
1:33:24
Speaker 1: kind of alluded to it, if you're a particularly keen listener.
1:33:29
Speaker 1: And that is this. Steve Sarkeesian played quarterback at BYU. Now,
1:33:38
Speaker 1: going to BYU is a different sort of thing. Going
1:33:41
Speaker 1: to BYU is a place that actually matters, Brigham Young University.
1:33:46
Speaker 1: And so it's not like your normal college. And it
1:33:50
Speaker 1: stays with you. And you tend, if you loved it,
1:33:54
Speaker 1: you have a lot of loyalty to BYU. Now, there
1:33:58
Speaker 1: are other people that went to BYU that have a
1:34:00
Speaker 1: negative view of their experience. You know who else originally
1:34:04
Speaker 1: went to BYU and had a negative experience? Holly Rowe.
1:34:10
Speaker 1: Holly Roe went to BYU. And I've never been able
1:34:15
Speaker 1: to figure out or prove why she left BYU. But
1:34:21
Speaker 1: when you consider the rules at BYU, and when you
1:34:25
Speaker 1: consider what happened in her personal life after she left BYU,
1:34:32
Speaker 1: there's a pretty strong argument that she left because of
1:34:35
Speaker 1: an honor code violation. I don't know that. I think
1:34:39
Speaker 1: it's a rational conclusion to make based upon the facts
1:34:43
Speaker 1: of her situation. So without a doubt, at the very least,
1:34:47
Speaker 1: we know she leaves BYU, which generally means, especially in
1:34:52
Speaker 1: that era, in the 1980s, something bad happened. You have
1:34:56
Speaker 1: a bad taste in your mouth about the school, especially
1:35:00
Speaker 1: when it's BYU, and you leave. And that gets me
1:35:03
Speaker 1: to the whole BYU-Duke volleyball situation that I was way
1:35:07
Speaker 1: ahead of the curve on, and I told you and
1:35:09
Speaker 1: everyone else that would listen to me before anyone else did,
1:35:12
Speaker 1: that that whole alleged racial hazing situation, or not hazing,
1:35:18
Speaker 1: but racial taunting situation, alleged use of the N-word, did
1:35:24
Speaker 1: not happen. And I was about as vindicated as you
1:35:28
Speaker 1: can possibly get in the modern world on that. I
1:35:31
Speaker 1: even tried to warn Holly Roe that she was going
1:35:34
Speaker 1: down the wrong path on this, because I could tell
1:35:37
Speaker 1: It was a fake hate crime allegation. That really what
1:35:40
Speaker 1: happened was that a black woman had a bad volleyball
1:35:43
Speaker 1: game in front of a very raucous crowd at BYU.
1:35:46
Speaker 1: And had there been any evidence of someone using the
1:35:48
Speaker 1: N-word or racial heckling, we would have video of that.
1:35:52
Speaker 1: There would be massive numbers of witnesses to that. And
1:35:55
Speaker 1: in fact, there was nobody. And the whole situation was
1:35:58
Speaker 1: an absolute abomination. But the person driving the bus on
1:36:03
Speaker 1: that narrative was Holly Roe. Her profile picture on her
1:36:08
Speaker 1: Twitter page or X page is her hugging Oprah. She has,
1:36:15
Speaker 1: by the way, a multiracial child, which is why I
1:36:20
Speaker 1: even met her at the movie premiere. She has a
1:36:23
Speaker 1: son who was in the movie, the Kurt Warner movie.
1:36:26
Speaker 1: So the reality here is that Holly Roe is very woke,
1:36:32
Speaker 1: extremely liberal, and may have a vendetta against BYU. The
1:36:38
Speaker 1: fact that she was allowed to cover that BYU Duke
1:36:42
Speaker 1: story is unbelievable. It's unbelievable. But she is beloved within
1:36:50
Speaker 1: the sports media industrial complex, especially when it comes to
1:36:55
Speaker 1: female reporters. She's been around the longest. And I think
1:36:58
Speaker 1: the fact, frankly, I think a lot of these young
1:37:01
Speaker 1: female reporters revere her because she's one of the few
1:37:04
Speaker 1: that's been able to last long enough to where she's
1:37:07
Speaker 1: fat and ugly. And that's their dream, that they'll still
1:37:10
Speaker 1: have their jobs when they're no longer young, hot, and beautiful. Well, bizarrely,
1:37:17
Speaker 1: this whole situation has now furthered Holly Roe's job security.
1:37:21
Speaker 1: When In reality, it should have done the opposite because
1:37:25
Speaker 1: she acted unprofessionally at the beginning of this whole thing.
1:37:29
Speaker 1: And is it possible, is it possible that there is
1:37:32
Speaker 1: some sort of bad blood between Steve Sarkeesian and Holly
1:37:36
Speaker 1: Rowe over how she handled the BYU situation? Again, I
1:37:42
Speaker 1: don't know that. I don't think it's a stretch, but
1:37:45
Speaker 1: it's something that no one else in the media is
1:37:47
Speaker 1: going to tell you because they're a bunch of morons
1:37:49
Speaker 1: and they don't put these pieces together. But the Biggest
1:37:52
Speaker 1: bottom line of this whole deal is all this was
1:37:56
Speaker 1: wrong and bad. The net effect is a chilling effect
1:37:59
Speaker 1: when it comes to AI humor. Arch Manning creates further
1:38:05
Speaker 1: PC rules and may have his Heisman Trophy hopes dwindle
1:38:09
Speaker 1: if not destroyed because of this controversy. And Holly Roe
1:38:13
Speaker 1: somehow benefits from all this because now it's going to
1:38:17
Speaker 1: be even more impossible for ESPN to get rid of her,
1:38:20
Speaker 1: even though they should have gotten rid of her many
1:38:22
Speaker 1: years ago. So everything about this story was totally wrong.
1:38:28
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show.
1:38:32
Speaker 1: If you're interested in listening to the entire show, you
1:38:35
Speaker 1: must become a patron. Please go to Patreon, that's P-A-T-R-E-O-N
1:38:41
Speaker 1: dot com, Patreon dot com slash TheDeathOfJournalism with John Ziegler.
1:38:50
Speaker 1: My name is J-O-H-N-Z-I-E-G-L-E-R. That's patreon.com slash the death of
1:38:58
Speaker 1: journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck to you on that.
1:39:03
Speaker 1: But that's how you can subscribe.