The first topic is the filibuster. Should it be kept? Should it not? Throw it up to the room and press the people, and you may stay until next round. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. The filibuster should not. The filibuster. The filibuster should not. The filibuster. OK. OK. I'm going until you. No. I'm the filibuster. Wonderful. OK. OK. Brian, I cannot filibuster you anyway. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm just still. I'm always out filibuster. OK. I'm feeling ruling. OK. So even though it's about the filibuster, let's try to hear each other again. One person at a time, please. So I think the filibuster should absolutely end. It's been held back our democracy before it was only used only occasionally for certain moments, oftentimes against anti-lynching laws. But now it's being used all the time, just any time that a one party wants to stop another party from making any progress in this country. They use the filibuster, right? To this point where people think, they think that to pass laws within this country, it meets 60 votes in a cent. That is not the case as not the case in 51, right? But it's been used so often. Now the news media doesn't even bother correcting themselves here, right? So no, it's been an anchor on our democracy. Get rid of it. It is much easier. If you really can't get 60 votes, and maybe the bill you're putting forward just ain't that important to people. No, no, that's not the way the Senate works. That's not the way the Senate works. I'm going to put some filibuster here. So I must say, this is the last mechanism that we have. You put the busted in frame rate, too. Jesus Christ, my guy. I know this ain't cover from the guy wearing a corn hat, right? That took like two seconds, Wolfie, that guy.  Bill only needs 10 frames per second to kick your ass, but it's all right. Oh, yeah, thank you, sir. And Prime would finally meet you in open battle, sir. It's marvelous. But I will say, the filibuster, there is no other mechanism that forces compromise between both sides of the aisle. Once that's gone, the public is having a good argument. There is nothing left.   That's what I was talking about. Let's talk about this. You have to let one person talk at a time, OK? Yes, I will. Bill, please, sir. Once you get there, folks, all you will have is the slimmest margin political sacred cows get pushed through and pushed through those sacred cows. They shall, folks. We're talking about things like, well, it could affect the right on gun control now, but what happens when the shoe's on the other foot? What are you going to do when you make that trap for yourself? Thank you. This is a problem of our democracy. It keeps us from actually having these discussions that we need, right? One person takes up all the time, right? Puts a roll block in the way of an actual legislation that they're going to do when the shoe's on the other foot. That's what we're trying to do. Why are we trying to put it in the shoe? That's what we're trying to do. Why are we trying to put it in the shoe? This is a topic that I do care about and know about. So here's the case. We don't have to have an either or with no filibuster or a full filibuster.  I don't mind people having a chance to air their oppositions to a bill. That's fine. And there should be some power within the minority in terms of having their voice. But 40 senators should not be able to stop what the country wants to do. That is completely ridiculous. However, it is easier procedurally to go back to talking filibuster than it would be to end it. So tactically and politically, talking filibuster is our first step. You do that, and then we can have a conversation about the rest of it. You're making an excellent point, because then filibuster would have to be elected as senator. Because I can talk now. It makes a lot of sense. So talking filibuster makes a lot of sense. If you see from Phil K.O.E.'s work right here, it's actually effective tactic. I can see that. But we have to have rules in place, even within that. Yeah, but the reality is that this, like, for instance, one senator could do a talking filibuster and not like being replaced by another and doing a whole train. That would be my opinion on that. But we'd have to limit the impact of the filibuster. Yeah, I mean, talking filibuster, what do you have to get up there and do the speaking? We've seen, we saw in Texas where a woman who was trying to stop abortion, attacks and abortion going through, did it, right? That's fine. I think that those actually, in some ways, it gets people interested in what the political event is. But to stop a bill that 75% of the people want or 80% of the people want, because 40 senators say no, that's not democracy. That's not democracy.   Stop, stop. Okay, I said, next was Sean. Sean, you're next. Sweet. The case against the filibuster that you're making is that it delays democracy, but the purpose of the Senate is so that the United States federal government is not restricted to the confines of a democracy. The entire point of it is so that small states have equal representation in one body. So if you're saying we need to get rid of the filibuster for democratic reasons, that doesn't make any sense. Also, on top of that, there are plenty of procedural things in our constitution that require a greater than majority vote. You need a two-thirds majority to ratify treaties, two-thirds majority to declare war. All of this is because our government is specifically designed not to be a democracy. It's specifically designed not to be subject to the winds of the majority. So the filibuster, the legislative filibuster, you're like, oh, well, this amount of percentage of people want a certain bill, well, that's not what the Senate is designed for. It's specifically designed to address that. That's why there's no- But on the other side of that, growing up in the Senate- I'm just saying rule. What's that? There's many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many. I'll say it again. Come on. I want to ask the point. I have one sentence left. Your reasons for getting rid of the Senate filibuster are more of a justification of getting rid of the Senate than the procedural thing that makes the Senate function. Let's get rid of the Senate. I would agree. But no, the problem is like, no, you're absolutely correct, Juan. You're absolutely correct when you say that we have things within our government that are designed for a larger than a simple majority. You're absolutely correct, right? But filibuster wasn't one of those things, right? That was added in later. And then beyond that, of course- Yeah, right.  We got it. We got it. We got it. We got it. The tyranny of the minority, that's exactly what's happening here. Right, no interest for a point. The tyranny of the minority. So I understand that. The problem is it's taken over to the point where, to do simple business, it's the simple business of the country, so we cannot get done, right? It happened under Obama, Trump, and now it's going to happen under Biden. I actually like to get something done in this country. Go ahead, CTV. Well, then start understanding civics and start there, right? You're right.  So then when you start passing legislation at the federal level, and Christy, your numbers are wrong to begin with. You say 75 to 80 percent, but that would already- I'm talking about any hypothetical- Yeah, you say 75 to 80 percent, but the reality is that 60 percent- Like gun control. 60 votes is defeated.  So 60 percent is all it's needed. Not 75 or 80, right? So then- But we're talking about very popular bills that are being held up by a really small minority. Exactly. Say, what if about the 80, he would have more than 60? What do you not understand about the motion?  Is that an anti-government? Well, yes. Okay. That's fine work. It's inherent to the same as it was before. It's because of the inherent- Referee interference. ... more rural and war areas are overrepresented. Denim says, but we're in the lead. Now we're going to go over to Jake and then Denims. I was- I had my hand up before her. I'm way faster at handing. So it's interesting to me that you'd be like, ah, the tyranny of the majority, ah, considering how you guys like to repress minority votes in general, which is the reason that filibustering is even a problem because we have an entire system. Look at Georgia recently. Georgia flips blue. You guys freak out. And instead of just like, get this, maybe just being appealing to a bunch of people, a bunch of people, maybe being more popular, having good opinions.  Fewer, fewer black votes, let's be real. Fewer minority votes in general.  If you were for, if you were for, if you were for, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not saying, if you were for, if you were for, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you were interested in having any sort of actual reasonable system in general, you would allow everybody, because of course you are the party of freedom, to let everybody vote in the easiest possible way with, with, with shade, with water.   You can't let them have water in line. You gotta make sure that they, integrity and elections is important. Stop, okay. We're doing it over the denims. We have one minute left in the round, go denims. Okay, first of all, I got a couple of points. First of all, we're failing to recognize that a majority in the Senate is not equivalent to a majority of the American population. The majority of the American population is for example, in favor of legalizing weed. We can barely get a couple of senators who are like, yeah, I agree. So the majority in the general population has nothing to do with the majority in the Senate.  I yielded my time. And that's where a lot of these issues should have been kept at state levels, because there's been a push ever since the introduction of the 14th Amendment into the Congress. You think we should have kept slavery at the state level? Is why the question is turned to the way that it is, right? Just a comment. I mean, I understand in history. I think we have a good time. We have a good time. We have a great time. That's the framework change of the Congress. They have a good time. That's why the 14th Amendment not only introduced the people in the federalization, but it also introduced the terrible handling of the people in the federalization. And then we put the man in the middle of the day. One, even though it's done. Round over. Stop, OK. I mean, that's it. You can't conclude. Give me a second. So that round was fast, wasn't it? That was the 10-second round. The rest will be 20 from now on. This one was the weed out the week, OK? The week among you who can't deal with this, OK? So there is a poll in chat. Everybody can go take this, post it in their own communities, post it wherever, and see who can win this, OK? Well, honestly, I got to say, my neighbor is already paying back on the floors because I'm shouting so loud. So y'all can vote for me. It's like going on 2.30 in the morning here. Can you post that again? Yeah, it's in the chat. Yeah, I'll post it again. I accidentally closed your chat. So you're throwing yourself over the top rope in a little. Wow. You know what, Christy, I respect it. I respect it, Christy. I respect it. I can't be real. It was a pleasure meeting you. So it's voting who to keep, correct? Right? Yes, who to keep. Which is obviously Phil K.O.E. Come on. Yeah, Phil's amazing. I like Phil a lot. So I'm going to say you. Oh, thank you. Thank you. You're a good guy. And in the interim, if I may, there was something I couldn't get in at the beginning. But folks, I think I need to say it here. Since we are at a Royal Rumble, are you ready, folks? We are here at the Dylan Burns Hippy Dippy Podcast. This is the spacing of the show. If we're already. Is that even an intro? It looks like the poles broken, by the way. Yeah. Let's get ready to rumble. The poles broken? Yeah, it looks like the poles broken. OK, OK, OK. OK, don't worry. OK, I'll have all my mods fixed that. Doesn't matter, because Christy has thrown herself over the top rope. My neighbor, Christy. Hey, I'm happy to have you on Christy. Veteran, I'm at the visible hour. Yeah, it'd be great. But yeah, Christy, you have a nice safe, Christy. Thanks, coming on. Good to see you. Oh, didn't even get to do the don't didn't even get to do the ending. Hunter Avalon has entered. I'm going to ask them to turn their camera on. But the next round, which is going to be 20 minutes, is on the idea of big tech censorship. The idea that big tech is either censoring conservatives, liberals, et cetera. This topic will be going on for 40 minutes. So don't worry if you didn't get to speak on the last topic. That won't be the same going forward. Just need to weed out the week at the beginning. OK, Hunter, if you can get your camera on. I'm looking on it. I apologize. No problem. But you all may begin. You have about 20 minutes. What's the subject again? Big tech censorship. OK, yeah. Big tech at first was very well loved within the general society, general our general community, especially among liberals. We used to love the possibility that big tech could provide us. And still, technology can do so many things that connected us in so many different ways. But the problem is the consolidation. That's a real problem. Because there are so many companies, there's a plethora of companies that you can choose from. Then the fact that you were censored on any individual platform would have an impact. But YouTube is the big king when it comes to video. Twitch is the big king when it comes to streaming, specifically.  That's it. You're done. And from the left, like me, you realize these companies aren't really actually progressive. I mean, they'll make the signals, right? They'll do like the black squares for Black Lives Matter or something like that. But beyond that, when you actually see the practices, they fail every single time. So I say that to handle big tech censorship, one of the best ways we could actually do is maybe either break them up or encourage more entrants into the market. Wonderful. Next, we're going to go to actual Jay. Yeah. I like how usually the right likes to whine about this.  They're like, ah, we can't do it. But really, you're bitching about capitalism and you don't even realize it. You've allowed these people to run rampant and have control over all these things.  We should start a public square, a public government funded Twitter.  Are you absolutely serious right now? Well, this one already is publicly funded with the bandwidth that it consumes that's all taxpayers subsidized. We basically do like... Oh, OK. Then I guess we're going to make Bitcoin public, bro. It's a completely free market. We're going by bandwidth. We're going by bandwidth. And even go through a single day's worth of business without massive amounts of taxpayer-funded taxpayer subsidized bandwidth. Those weren't worth of any sense. Those were just things that you said aloud. OK, no, that's actually true. Go look it up, folks. The bandwidth that these tech companies use, it's all taxpayers subsidized. So for them to call themselves free market is more than a little bit. OK, so then are you for or against?  Are you for or against free food for everybody? That is your tax dollars that came in at the beginning. Are you, do you agree that we should... Do you agree, Phil? Hey, just yelling like Alex Jones isn't going to do anything. I'm going to give you. OK, OK, you are clear. Let's not yell to get a point over. Yeah, that's just the way we want to have fun here. Right, well, you know, somebody would do that. It's a personality, though. Hey, the best way to deal with the truth will be... What was I going to say? Come back. Say that we end up with a line here. So Phil, what are you trying to say, right? And you can correct me if I'm wrong. But what I think you're trying to say is that these platforms are going to be treated like utilities, right? Or maybe they're going to become public forms, not simply private platforms. And then... It's going to be like MCI dropping the call, because they don't want to come in. MCI... OK, come on. That's really old. I didn't date myself a little bit there. Yeah, it's a little bit there. But yeah, so is that what you're trying to say? Is that a set of trainees as a public, sorry, a private platforms that can decide their own role and how they treat censorship? And said the public platforms in the First Amendment should count and that we should not be silenced. Is that what you're trying to say? That's where I'm starting to get at, because it was people who had these awful opinions that are being damned off the internet. Their tax dollars helped build the internet, too. Now, strangely enough, Poland actually introduced a very good law. I want you to hear this out. But I actually like it just because it's so clean. I know actual Jake. When you see yourself on the photo, they're like, God, I'm wearing corn. I'm so silly. I would laugh, too. You want my bank account? When? Please. This is a this is a this is a lucrative corn for some reason.  It was a great choice. OK, can we do the conversation? And then more. Yeah, guys, why don't. OK, OK, OK. He's talking about Poland. OK, let's stop. Let's stop.  I'm not sure if he can. Anymore, there's a guy in this conversation. OK, give me a second. Let's just be clear. Going forward, when I'm speaking, everybody else is supposed to shut down because my job is to moderate. Now Hunter just entered. So I'm going to throw it over to Hunter for a second so he can give his take on the view. Can you see my camera on everybody? I don't see it. It's not on. No, it is not. Are you using? Yes, I'm so confused. How are people? You cannot see your camera is probably being used by another. Yeah, censorship, obviously. That there you go. So actual Jake, you were talking about your. Yeah, I did. Hand raised.  Actual Jake. Oh, OK. Well, he talked about subsidies. And if you pay a lot of lots of taxes or something, you it's now public or something, which is weird because I know right wingers don't want felons to be able to vote because they do pay taxes as well. I think they should. But beyond that, the specific thing you said was that was very interesting and also kind of dumb if you want to maintain, you know, your right wing status. We're in a corn hat. Got it. Yes, it is dumb. And I can go ahead. It's weird. How don't you know what this was all? I realize I'm sexy, but don't be distracted. It was raining there. Anyway, so I'm going to you have to you have to calm down. We'll see. So come on, four guy. OK, so as you. You're the running. OK, so as you as you as you said, subsidies, it's very interesting you say that. So do you also believe that because like food, for instance, is incredibly subsidized by the US markets so that we make sure that that food prices stay low for the general populate populace? Do you believe that food should be freely given to anyone that needs it and hunger should be eradicated in the United States just because we we heavily subsidize the food market? I would agree. I'm right. I would love for that to be the case.  I've actually volunteered at a soup kitchen before just because it is tragic that we have a state that, you know, when you can make so much food, there should not be people that are hungry. And so, yes, I do. I do donate to those types of goods. I feel I've ceased a charitable giving for the time being for different reasons and I'll get into that later. But yes, I do agree that if you can at all help people that are hungry, you absolutely should. I'm a farmer by profession, actually. And yes, I was my grandpappy. God bless him. God bless him. All to the earth, folks.  Welcome to the show, Hunter Avalon. Welcome. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. Whoever I'm sorry, I was looking at my recording software, so I didn't actually see who said that. That was that was still OK. So Sean was raising their hand before. So I want to get to the Sean and then Hunter Hunter just got in the air. Yeah, I mean, it's pretty weird for us to start a debate on tech censorship without defining our terms. It's like if you're talking about whether or not the issue with big tech is that they're suppressing certain ideological viewpoints. I think that's not arguable. If you look at their justifications for banning certain people and you can compare those justifications to how they treat other people in similar situations, and they're not equivalent. But whether or not this is a First Amendment violation is completely like that's that's one category of argument. The issue that I have with big tech is right now they are operating under unlimited liability protection based on the concept that they cannot regulate the content on their platform, which is why they asked for that carbote in Section 230. However, they are regulating content on their platform. They're saying that they do have the ability to do this now. So should we be providing them with an unfair advantage over, let's say, the New York Times, who's responsible for the content that they publish compared to big tech? Like the Huffington Post draws in a lot of people, bloggers, this is how their old model used to work. And they all used to contribute to their platform. But the Huffington Post, since it was a media outlet, was responsible for anything libelist or slanderless that they published. But big tech is not responsible in the same way, even though they clearly curate, they clearly play favorites, they clearly hire fact checkers to label certain content, except they're like, oh, we do all this, but we shouldn't be held responsible for any of the things like any other company who acts in similar manners. That's the issue I have with big tech censorship. So are you asking for more censorship than the? No, no, I'm asking for what like there's delineations in the conversation. Like actual Jake goes off on like, oh, you don't believe in freedom and blah, blah, blah. It's not that I don't believe private companies should be able to do whatever they want. It's that I believe in equal application of the law and certain companies acting in similar ways to big tech do not have the liability protections that they have. I didn't say you weren't for free. I said you claim to be the party of freedom. And then when it comes to it, you fail. So effectively the same thing. So am I able to cut in here now? Because basically, no. Yes. Because basically everything without a difference. Yeah. Just everything here that Slippery Sean just said is just completely wrong and also based on like huge presuppositions. It's really, really embarrassing. Basically, I mean, where do we want to start? First of all, you say there's clear evidence that this is happening, blah, blah, blah. No, there's not actually if you look at the data and you look at the studies that there's the countless different research that has been done on this subject, you will see that it's there's actually an overwhelming consensus that conservative content thrives on virtually every social media platform. Now, am I saying conservatives are never banned on social media? Absolutely not. Conservatives. Donald Trump was censored on election night, dude. Like, I'm sorry. Like it's one way. He was inciting violence. That's why he was censored. Election night? No. He said he didn't think he lost.  Yeah, well, chill, buddy. I know you got the alcohol there. Maybe it should take a little break on that. Um, listen, 21, sir, it must be sift. Listen, you don't knock it back. OK, that's right. Gotcha. But yeah, also with Section 230, there's a big misunderstanding here with the platform versus publisher talk. Publishers verify every single thing that they publish. The New York Times verifies. They check everything that goes out. And then they say, yes, I verify that. Or I approve of that. It can now be published. That constitutes a publisher. Platforms are allowed to platform just that. They're allowed to platform speech. And I'm actually, I know, obviously, it sounds a little naïve there. I'm sorry. But I'm reading here from Kato Institute, which kind of gives a much better, like, under explanation on Section 230. Section 230 does not state that the act of moderating content makes an interactive computer service. A publisher, Section 230 merely states that an interactive computer service is not the publisher of most third party content and is free to moderate content. So no, them using Section 230 protections to moderate their platform is completely within their legal rights. And time and time again, this has been voted on. Even Kavanaugh in 2018 said that the act of platforming speech does not make that platform an agent of the state. It is not then held to freedom of speech standards, necessarily. So is there a conversation we had about big tech having way too much power right now? 100%. Absolutely. Is there something we need to talk about about corporate power and everything else? Absolutely. But this idea that conservatives are being censored is just not borne out in any data at all. But they really want to slur. Are you not aware of actually, I was just going to say, hold on, hold on. Are you not aware of that? How are you going to say something like that when it's Stephen Crowder or the man?  What? I can't I say it. They don't talk.  Wait. Wait. Hold on. For the reality. OK. I was very clear that when I talk, nobody else talks. So, OK, who wants to talk? Me. What? What answer did you say? I'm going to throw it over to Dennis because it doesn't have a time to talk yet. Then it'll be CTV. Stephen Crowder was banned or temporarily suspended or whatever because he's been spreading COVID misinformation. He has a video on global warming where he points out this one area where the ice sheets are actually expanding.  His entire channel is concerned, trolling about things that don't matter, making racist jokes, dressing up to pretend to be trans and work out at a gym or something.  Where literally everyone at the gym is like. OK. OK. Whatever you want, buddy. Whatever. Sure. Just can you stop dropping the weights so loudly? That's all we're asking. You can lift whatever you want. I don't care.  But he was banned because of his pure misinformation. That's why he was banned. Maybe if conservatives could stop lying or getting things wrong all the time, they wouldn't be banned off of platform. I would simply be correct. Exactly. I would simply be easy. That's right.  And then we had this clear example. We had this clear example. Nobody. We had this clear example. That's a CTV saying. Stephen Crowder. You know what? Can I just say really quickly? Yeah. You know what? CTV say, then you can go straight to Hunter. Okay. We still have a good amount of time left. CTV than Hunter. Yeah.    So we'll start from there. Right. Now. Stephen Crowder was banned. There you go.  Right.      Right. So that's the case.  Right. Let me ask the audience. Hunter. Yes. Wait, wait, wait. I said it was. I just I just want to point out. I know this is kind of an ad-hom attack and I will address what you said. But as soon as I saw that there was a guy in here named critically thinking veteran, I thought to myself, I guarantee you this guy is not going to have any critical thinking at all. Three red. Literally. It's just instantly. I'm right. Okay. Maybe. Let me know when you plan on starting. Wait, let me respond here. Okay. Wait, what? I'm sorry. Oh. Oh, soldier. You're. You're. That's okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I do see a lot of things. Other than an example, I don't know that. I do see people saying, you know, well, it's all right. If you want to look at an overwhelmed, like at statistical analysis, you'll see that there is no systemic conservative bias. There's no big tech bias. That's out to get conservatives. That's what we're arguing about here. I'm not. Again, I'm not saying no conservative has ever been banned or been mistreated by big tech.  Sean has yet had to be able to speak. That is true. Okay. Back to about the hunter. You can finish. Okay. All I was going to say is I understand that some conservatives haven't always been treated fairly by Big Tech. We can dispute the details of what happened with Steven Crowder if he violated TOS by spreading election misinformation and whatnot. But the truth of the matter is overwhelming statistics and multiple different analyses have shown that there is no ideological bias with Google search results, with YouTube, and that conservatives dominate Facebook and Twitter. So that's kind of my argument there that there's no systemic bias here. It's the exact opposite. And we've seen the YouTube algorithm, for instance, assisting with the alt-right pipeline. Conservatives have done a good job working these algorithms, so there are multiple connections between them so that it will naturally funnel you if you leave autoplay on to one video after another video after another video within their network. It pulls you in. I've heard people talk about this.  It's YouTube and other companies have shown that they're free.  And so anytime one of them does get... So who's the person that best is to decide where you're at, who's that person? That's a totally different conversation, Phil. That's what we're talking about here. Okay, okay, okay. All right, I'm done. Okay, okay, okay. Actual Jake Venshan. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, who's to decide the companies that determine the TOS? Pretty easy not to slur. Oh, that's great.  On their platform? I heard it. You heard it here first. You heard it here.  Okay, we have a minute and 30 seconds. Hey, buddy. Hey, buddy. Let's brain force calm down.  Wait, okay. Let's get... Let's let... This is what you feel about, right? Actual Jake Venshan.  So, yes.  I believe I make you so insecure. Okay.  Okay. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? I can't believe it. There's no reason I should be less cringe than you on screen. There's no reason. I'm a corn cob. But yet you persist. It's incredible. I respect it. Moving onto the point. Moving onto the point. Actual point. Yeah. Well, I got interrupted four times. So, the actual point is five times. The actual point is if you want it public, that's fine. You can do that. Then the terms of service would be the Constitution. Fine with that. But then it's a big government thing. You guys can quibble about that. That's totally fine. But as far as like worrying about what Stephen Crowder does and who's getting bandaged, don't break terms of service on these places that already exist. It's very easy not to say the N-word and not to be wrong about global warming. If not an opinion, you're not making opinions.   We're going to have Sean go and then I have the results. Sean, go quickly. Okay. Well, talking about how conservatives grow faster online isn't refuting censorship of conservatives on social media. That's the reason for the censorship. That's why mainstream outlets are calling for greater crackdowns on what they call conspiracy theories on all these platforms. A perfect example of a policy that has a left-leaning bias would be Twitter's misgendering policy that is fully in line with one side of the political spectrum's view on gender and against the conservative view on gender. Can you say the same thing? Wait, you're just wrong. Okay, okay, okay. Is anybody else here named Sean? Am I unaware of that? Sean, continue. Sorry. Yeah. So there are policies built in. A perfect example of this again is something I saw yesterday. You can get banned for COVID misinformation. There is a story that broke yesterday that is complete and utter misinformation about Ron DeSantis undercounting COVID deaths. It was picked up by all these online lefties as Deaf Santas, another case of that. But if you read the actual article, the CDC person who covers these statistics related to excess deaths says clearly and unambiguously there is nothing at odds with Florida's death statistics. Yet you can push that, but if you question deaths related to COVID, which is a real thing that certain areas measure COVID deaths by, you can get banned off of these platforms. So it seems like all the new terms of service changes that are enforced retroactively seem to cut, in general, not in all cases, the same exact way. Okay. So I'm going to say quickly, we have the results. And the person who got the least amount of votes to keep was Phil Cahoui. He has been knocked out of the ring, thrown out of the ring. Dacidly faction, he broke his neck. He has permanently been destroyed from competition. He's going to need some long-term recovery. Yeah, he got the edge treatment. See you later, everybody. I'm sorry, Phil. Hey, folks, I'm Phil Cahoui at Cahoui Nation on YouTube and Twitch. It was a pleasure seeing all of you and debating with every last one of you people. Be sure to like, share, subscribe. And chair shot. Okay. Next, we just got Tyler Buttman in here. We're going to start the clock again. We're going to continue the conversation on Big Tech censorship. You may respond to what Sean said, continue and welcome Tyler. Thank you. So, so was Tyler next? I'm sorry. No, okay. I'll keep going. The guy was next. So, oh, I'm sorry. There's someone else. I didn't mean to talk over them, but I'll go anyway. So Sean. Like, I'm not really sorry, but I find it interesting that you would bring up the fact that companies don't let you like misgender people.  It's harassment of transgender individuals, right? They simply call them by, well, you don't want to use their pronouns, right? You could call them by their name, right? That's a option that conservatives have, right? But you count this, you count this as what censorship. I don't understand why you would bring this up. Go ahead. I'm saying this is something clear in policy. Conservatives believe that you are the gender that you are born into, right? I think it's rude. I would call somebody by their name if they had like a goofy pronoun that I'm not interested in. But this is a policy that favors one side of the political spectrum and is weaponized against people who have a genuine You could literally say the same thing about not saying the N word. You could literally say the same thing. Like you could say, like it's biased towards the alt-right that you can't say the N word on Twitter. I mean, But you can't say the N word on Twitter in certain contexts. Well, what you're complaining and you can probably misgender someone. So why can't I do it? No, I mean, honestly, Jake, I think that's a bit of a of a like reduction, reductionist point. But that's his response. But you know, what do you expect from him? Take the Denims. No, no, I didn't bring it up. But you're like, I just want to say it. You're trying to know, but this is the, this is the thing, right? Like, like, well, no, but you can use the N word in some circumstances. Let's be real here. This idea that conservatives are all just getting banned because they say the N word or whatever is really reductionist and not. Absolutely. Of course. What Sean said is really clarifies it a little bit better is that conservatives are much more bigoted. We got that one with the misgendering thing. And conservatives are more likely to spread COVID misinformation. We got that one also. There's actually enough. There was a different study done. I think it was done by either Stanford or Yale. It was one of those ones. And they found that Donald Trump was one of the biggest, like, spreaders of COVID misinformation on Twitter. So people point to Donald Trump, for example, getting fact checked is like conservative bias. But then it's like Donald Trump at the same time is spreading more COVID misinformation.  But then you turn around and talk about systemic racism, which is like a real documented thing with scores of data. And they're like, I don't know. I saw one black guy that succeeded one time. It's like, it's all based on anecdotes. And it's really critical. Actually, yes. Yes, you can say the N word, but you can't say it in all the fun ways. They want to say it, right? It's beyond the N word discussion. It's beyond the N word discussion. Really, the idea is that you that I mean, the N word is like, obviously, like that has assorted past. And we've all had this communal discussion forever.  That's easy. Done. As far as the other shit, right?   Oh, I'm anti COVID sciences against you. Global warming sciences against you.    I feel like I should be able to misgender it.  Be not be a kind person. Have actual political beliefs.  And I don't know if you actually do that. I don't mean to cast that on you. Hold on. Now I got to take a line. Hold on. Now I got to take a line. Yeah, CTV has to defend himself. Defend yourself. Yeah. Yeah. So the reality, of course you have it, right? You don't know what quality when you see it. I mean, that's obvious from the start looking at what you're wearing, right? Because that's clearly like a Walmart thing. Is that it? Is that it? So going on from there. You want me to put another one on? Right. So going on from there, I had to take a line from my man, Chase Mitchell, right?  We got straw men over here and we got straw men over here, right?  So that other people, right?   So what do you want to say?  I was going to make the exact point Jake make right before you made it. I'm sorry. Conservatives are just anti-science. You just want to complain about how climate change isn't real and the science doesn't agree with you. You want to complain about how COVID isn't real and the science doesn't agree with you. You want to complain about how mass don't work. The science doesn't agree. It's got that about Lil Nas two seconds ago.  It's free speeches. Fuck. Okay. And then the biggest, the biggest problem though is I'm sorry. Your ideas about gender that you learned from fifth grade are not comprehensive. I don't know how to explain this. If you just look at anything about intersex people and realize how many of these people exist, like you, you have no leg to stand on. Like I don't understand. I can, I can sort of, sort of understand how you can get a little bit pissy when you see neo pronouns and you're like, no, this is a step too far. But like when it comes to people who are trans and they're just asking for she, her, they, them, I just don't understand. I just don't get it. So what don't you get transgender people? I don't get why it bothers you. Wait, I want to get there. Tyler. What don't you get? Why does it bother you? Yeah. What does what bother me?  What we just talked about. You were here. I'm not sure.  I'm not sure. Somebody uses what does somebody wants me to use the pronouns that they want me to use. Yeah. If I don't believe that it, that it identifies. Okay. I don't believe your name is Tyler. Okay. Your name. Your name is Jared for no reason. Cause I feel away. What? I didn't have pronouns. Hold on. These are some bad arguments, guys. I'm sorry. So, so yeah. So if somebody wants me to use a pronoun. So say that someone is born. Or somebody identifies as a transgender female. That means you're born as a male, right? So somebody identifies as a transgender female. I don't, they're not a female to me. So I'm not going to identify them as such. Wait, why not? Now hold on. Now that does not mean that I am going to quote unquote misgender them.   I will go ahead and identify as you as Tracy. And I'll talk about that. And I'll try to stay away from gender specific pronouns. But I'm not going to sacrifice what I believe to be true just because you want me to do it. If you told me, if you told me, hold on, hold on.    Your feelings just get hurt.  Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. So Denim's right now is again assuming that I don't believe that there's a difference between sex and gender. And I do see that's the problem that you have. That's a problem that actual Jcast since I've been on here seeing all you people on this show, all you have done is raise my hand. Sorry. Sorry. We're not generalizing. Instead of attacking your argument and asking me, you're just over generalizing. Okay. We need some law and order in here. Okay. I'm now a law and order moderator. Okay. Okay, I'm going to stand on the moderators line. We're going to throw it over to Denims first. Then since you're all raised in your hand, Denims actual Jake crime, but try to not do it super long since all of you are going to get the talk. And you can always respond so much. Okay, Jared, I want to tell you something. This is not an overgeneralization, okay? You literally said verbatim, that's not your gender. Why is that, Jared? Who are you talking to, Karen? No, I'm talking to you, that's what I feel your name is. You, I'm not, there are no generalizations being made. You literally- All you've done is overgeneralize. Okay, if you let me finish, I can explain it to you so you can understand it. You literally said, I am not, that's not that person's gender. So clearly, if you can't- I've never said that. Let me finish, let's, okay, okay, okay. You can go back and check. You said that that was that person's gender and you can't respect that person's gender. Or that like, I will use her if they want it, but that's not what their gender is. These aren't generalizations.  Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I'll give her a little first. Hold on, I'm gonna respond to what she said. Yeah, I understand. Give me a second here. So it's gonna, since it is three people on one right now, what is gonna be is Denim's, then back to, I'm about to call you Jared, Tyler, then over to actual, then back to Tyler, then the Prime, then the Tyler. It only makes sense he gets to respond to each time. Tyler, you can go. Yeah, okay, okay. So for one, I never said that I don't respond, or I'm not gonna refer to them as their gender, right? I said that if they believe that their gender is not the same as their, or I'm sorry, if they say that they want me to respond to what they say that their gender is, and if I don't believe that their gender matches, their biological sex, right? Which is clear if they say that they're trans, that it's very easy to decipher, then no, I am not gonna respond, or I'm not gonna respond to you as that. So what? That has nothing to do with gender. I never said that gender and sex are the same thing. So why is the question? First of all, pronouns are not a derivative of gender. Pronouns are a derivative of sex, not gender. Pronouns are a derivative of gender. What source back set up? Why do you believe? Every person that has a gender that you disagree with that says my pronouns are this, and then you get mad. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Yeah, but how does gender exist? Hang on, hold on, hold on, hold on. We can deduce this really easily. Just to make it clear to you, what is she a derivative of? What is the word she a derivative of? It doesn't matter. Woman, a woman. What is woman a derivative of? Woman. What is female a derivative of? It's derivative of femininity. Wait, hold on. Can I just say, even if it gets irrelevant? Can I explain this to you? Can I explain this to you?  Three people are gonna want to go out and please. Give me a second, give me a second here. Okay, give me a second here. Three people talking at once. And I got a magic trick for all of you right now. I know this is wild, but when three people talk, you don't get three times the information. You actually get actually none of the information. So you need to have a tiny bit of order here, okay? So Tyler, did you get to say your piece? So just to clear this up for like 10, 10 seconds. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You just said you have to say your piece though. Well, you just asked me, so I just. And you said, yeah. Well, I'm sorry, then I meant no. Okay, well, okay. You got five seconds. Can you do five seconds? Okay, yeah. So she is a derivative of woman. Woman is a derivative of female. Female is biological. Has nothing to do with gender. Okay, Jake. And then we go to prime. And I see Sean was dragged back to reality. There's something I really got to respond here at that. Yeah, but other people raised the hand first. I got it like. So I didn't know was I didn't know was like a raising hand thing. Oh, you weren't here for the inch from now. You weren't watching. You just kind of walked it to the end of the entire time. So we guess somebody's not an actual fan of the hippie. I guess that's going to affect the voters. That's okay, so I will get it to you, Hunter. I promise you have enough time. I know I can get it to you by the end of it. Thank you, Jake. Prime Sean Hunter. Okay, so are you are you going to go full biological essentialism here with the anti-abortion hat? And that's the way you want to dig your grave.  It has very little to do as far as the pronouns that it wasn't as far as the pronouns are concerned and has very little to do with sex. Sex sometimes informs how people will of course have primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Absolutely. But sometimes guess what?   Maybe you're going to get one.  Have you seen any of a vagina?   If someone says, hey, this is my social pronoun.  It doesn't matter. What they want is for you socially to understand and accept the fact. What should I do?  And we have general understanding of one another. The reason you should care about that is because we live in a world with one another and it makes a lot more. Oh, feelings, yeah, okay. It's not feelings. No, no, it's feelings.  Salooners, can I respond to that real quick, Jake? You can't go for this one. Give me a second. Give me a second. It's feelings argument. It's give me a second, okay? I'm not to do this. No, I'm not to do this. There's so many people on the show and I understand everybody wants to respond to everything. But, like, Sean has a set of meaning, how long do I raise a hand 10 minutes ago? Dylan, I'm going to, I'm going to exit this. Little, Jake, Jake, I'm going to stop responding. I'm gonna, I only want to say one thing and then somebody else can talk. It has not good feelings. I think that you and I are going to be able to agree with this. So regardless if we believe the same thing on this specific point, it doesn't really matter to how I go about it.   I think that's a healthy compromise. Who am I to say that your name is more masculine or feminine, right? If you want to go ahead and say that your name's Tracy, fine, your name is Tracy. I will go ahead and do that. And that doesn't sacrifice my own beliefs that I don't believe you to be what you are. I don't think that that's an issue. I don't know why anybody else would try and argue past that if I will call you by the name you asked me to call you. Okay, so we're going to throw it a prime because prime would probably respond to that and probably disagree with them. So I'm going to throw it a prime. So then Sean, then Hunter. So actually I'd like to reach out an hour of brands to my considered brothers here. And that I don't think you should be able to compel speech. I mean, try to wait this to the original topic or into the essential, all that stuff, right? I don't think you should compel speech. So if you are going to call someone by their name, right? Like the actual, the name that they give you, right? Like let's say it's Tracy rather than Ted or something, right? Then if you are going to, then I don't think that's like a, well, I shouldn't say what, I shouldn't decide for trans individuals whether that's rude or not. But I would say that like we shouldn't try to force people to use words they don't want to use, right? I also find it hilarious that Devin's an actual jail. Let's let Larry come on Tyler Tyler Tyler. And then started by calling me a name that it's not even my name. I just find it to be just. Okay, okay, fine. Yeah, yeah. So to reach out again, I think we shouldn't be trying to compel speech, right? We were going to respect, respecting speech. Like free speech is also involves like not saying things you don't want to say, right? Like that's part of free speech, right? So I want to say that that's fine, right? Maybe we can actually move back to the original subject because we've got, because as usual, once you have these political debates, they end up moving towards somehow, no matter what the topic is, like to the bodies of our trans brothers and sisters. So maybe we can move back to the original topic, talking about big tech censorship, right? And so I think as long as conservatives, let's say like, for instance, on YouTube aren't misgendering someone, right? Like they are using the name, the given name of a person. Then why should we care? Like why should we care? I don't think it's up to us on the left to be forcing them, to policing them in that way, right? Like as long as it's not, but like obviously misgendering, no, I'm gonna make it very clear, misgendering is harassment in my opinion. And so that should be put an end, that should be against the rules. Okay, Sean, you are next. Yeah, so like, I don't know how I've ended up in a weird like debate about transgender people. My point was that this policy at Twitter favors one side. And I think the debate that spawned from this with all the virtue signaling shows that, that people are passionate about this. My point is, is big tech is on one of these sides and their policies reflect that. Like I have no problem calling you by, like if you're trying to transition gender, I have no problem calling you by your pronoun. That's not the point. The point is, is that some conservatives, like the people on this panel, believe that she refers only to biological females. And that's what they call you. And Twitter disagrees. And that is the left-wing position to disagree with that. That was the overall point. It wasn't about whether or not, like, whether or not that's right or wrong. The point is, is that these policies cut in direction of one person or one side and against another side. That's what I was making. And as far as it being harassment, harassment is persistent and repeatedly, like you can use misgendering as a component of harassment, but on its own, like if you literally can't tell and you make your best guess, that's not harassment. Okay. That's true. I'm going to be over to Hunter. All right. Yeah, Tyler, I would really like a chance to talk to you, man, because I see your hat. I'm guessing from the hat alone, you're probably like a Trump fan too, or at least you were. And I- Then you would be guessing wrong. Oh, really? Okay. Really? Okay. Wow. Very surprising. So I was, but I used to be a conservative. So I feel like- I get the thing when you get surprised a lot. I missed who said that, but it sounds funny. That was CTV. CTV. Gotcha, gotcha. If I could just explain to you, Tyler, some of the stuff. So first of all, the pronoun thing, right? When trans people are transitioning, they usually, in most cases, most every time, they are trying to present themselves as the gender that they identify as. So they might be biologically male, sure, but their gender might differ from their biology and they might identify as a woman, not as a female. And that's what gender dysphoria is.  They are like, most trans people are painfully aware of that disconnect there. And one of the ways that they mitigate that, which is literally supported by scientific and medical consensus, is to begin transitioning sometimes socially, which means they try to present more like the gender that they identify as, which means that for the most part, they are going to look like that gender. You probably pass transgender people all the time and don't even realize it because they pass, right? And for the most part, most trans people pass. Enough so that using pronouns really comes down to a utilitarian thing more than anything else. If you were in a crowded restaurant, right? And you saw somebody across the room in a dress with long hair, what are you going to say to the waiter? Are you going to be like, sorry, I'm finishing up here. Are you going to say like, what? I guess I'll go talk to that biological man. And rounds over. That's what I was going to say after everyone started yelling at me. Round is over. I don't understand. Great, guys. I had to do it. Good job. Round's over. Appreciate it. We have the results for polling. I'll let chat vote for a few more seconds since anybody might just be listening to audio then go and vote now. That was a hell of a round, wasn't it? So proud of Hunter, by the way. Do you think you guys- Yeah, yeah, I am very proud of Hunter of saying all of those great things that was not relevant to anything that I had to say. I'm sorry. I thought you were saying the pronouns were that you were specifying. I got a question for the participant. I got an actual question for the participant. I got a question that's relevant, okay? So do you guys want to do? We have one more topic after this. Do you guys want to continue on this topic or shift to the next one? Because it seems like there's still a lot to say. What's the next topic? Yeah, next topic. Let me check. James, do you remember what was the next topic? It was, we've covered filibuster, big tech censorship. Do you remember what was next? We should stick to the trans issue. Is it cancer culture or the next topic? Gun control. I think gun control is one of the most- Was it? It was gun control and one second. I mean, I'll get it. I'll just let everybody finish. I had it on the list. One second. Do, do, do, do, do, do, do. Do, do, do, do, do, do, do. I would, I can be able to stick around probably for the cancer culture part. Oh, cancer culture. That was it. Thank you. Okay. Puncher, we're just keeping that in pocket. He wasn't going to give it to me. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you were looking for that one. Yeah, that you said cancer was already. We have the results. We have the, I've been DM'd by the, I've been DM'd by the, I've been DM'd by the, by the, by the judges. And we have the results right here on this piece of paper. I'm the guest of the three. Everybody always thinks it's down. Everybody also thinks it, man, this results really surprising, really surprising. Can you believe this result guys? It's actually super surprising, actually. So I'm just still in shock over the result here. Looks like it. Sorry, CCTV. You've been kicked out of the ring. I'll let you say you're moniker though, because you've been a great service to the show. Well, this is the hippie-dippy roundtable. You fuckers need to get a lot funnier, right? And there needs to be a lot less disingenuous attacks and some actual truth. I like, I like, I like how I like how we're just eliminating what happened to the moniker. What about the moniker? I like how we're eliminating all the conservatives. Again, elections just be more likable. Well, don't worry. We have everybody's favorite conservative coming on next. Do we? Second. Yeah, everyone's favorite conservative. He didn't howl. You know, I just, somebody know about the surprise guest. Is that my favorite conservative? Show on, head. Surprise, head over show. Nobody knew about me. I don't know who that is. Welcome to our show. Yes, we can hear you. Nice to meet you. The only person I've ever seen with an American flag and background that doesn't make me want to kill myself. In minecraft. In my back, can you look at my background? Quick, actual check. Oh, don't see it. There's a flag right there. You see it. You see it. Second person. It's so nice to meet you. She went ahead of the benefit of your work. And I want to say hi to James. I didn't get to do that. James, I love your work on YouTube. Can you get me Matt Dill Hunt's autograph? Is that a thing you can do? Is that a thing I can ask for? I can get you Matt Dill Hunt's autograph too.  Let's go to the next topic, which is cancel culture. Is cancel culture a real issue or is it being overhyped in this complete nonsense? I'm going to, of course, throw it first. Is she on head since you just joined? So I actually do think that cancel culture is a real thing. I think lately it's kind of being overhyped. Like, as always, conservatives are running with it, but they're calling everything cancel culture. They're calling, for example, the Dr. Seuss thing, where Dr. Seuss, the publication itself, wanted to get rid of, will stop publishing those few books and they were like, oh, this is cancel culture? Like, no, that's not cancel culture. But I do believe that cancel culture is a real thing. And I actually do believe that it's a problem.  But he had one point where he was like, they do this, they do this, and he said, they wanna get you fired from your jobs. And that, he didn't expand on that, but that kind of scared me because that is going to become a very important conversation, like in the political sphere soon. People getting fired, people getting fired from, or like being forced to resign, like from college campuses and stuff like that. And it's a real fear that like normal everyday people have, like they can't keep up with the newest terms and stuff like that, like a lingo and everything. They're scared that if they say a joke on Facebook, their boss will find out or whatever. And I feel like that's a real conversation that's gonna be happening. And I feel like the left needs to take it seriously because the right is going to run with it. And it's a real fear that normal people have. And there's a lot of examples of it actually happening, like that poor college girl that like said the N word or something like what like five years ago and they like kept it. Did you guys see that story? Yeah. They held on to that for five years. And then when she got into college, the person, this like psychotic person was just like, oh, hey here. And like she had to, you know, not get into that college anymore. Stuff like that. And there's also like the New York Times writer and like that of, yeah, yeah. And so like this is a real issue and it's gonna keep getting worse and worse. And I feel like there's a lot of people that like, oh, sweetie, it's just accountability culture. And like, no, that's not what's happened here.  I'm gonna throw it to Denims first. I wanted to make a quick distinction.  Like it doesn't matter how big, okay. Not like, not like J.K. Rowling. Yeah.  It's like, yeah, he got canceled all right. Yeah. I think the real issue is with workers or any individuals, right? Who can't fight back. So I think I'm not sure on how you mentioned the New York Times thing. And there's lots of things the New York Times has done. But the one that comes to mind is the one woman who went to a party dress, like maybe in some sort of racially insensitive costume, right? And then it does expose about this. This is like a long time ago it happened, right? And the woman had already felt like terrible about it, right? But they decided to put this woman on blast, right? For no particular reason. And it didn't actually, she wasn't anyone like, she wasn't even a public figure, right? Yeah. Just decided to show this woman's life. Why? What did that actually accomplish, right? Now, can cancel culture be useful, right? Do a call actual abusers? I think so. I think we can use that to say that no, you cannot go through life using your money, your power, right? And have no consequences whatsoever. But even then, as Denim stated before she left, in that case, it rarely works, right? So I feel like the people with the least power end up being hurt the most, right? And the people with the most power, like the intended targets, end up being hurt the least, any which way. And even when they're not hurt, right? So you'll have, and you'll have a lot of these people, they'll be on CNN, right?  She is on CNN complaining that I'm being canceled while she's in an audience of millions of people, right?  Okay, next I saw actual Jake and then Hunter. Okay. I definitely think there's a little bit where you're right and a little bit where you're wrong. Definitely there was an overcorrection because no one had been held accountable for a very long time, or at least not no one, but nobody that needed to be held accountable. And so you have a surge, and this tends to happen when a vast minority group, whatever that may be, whether it's trans, LGBT, racial minorities, whatever, or ethnic minorities, religious minorities, any of them, you will have this pushback because for a long time they were voiceless and they were not being heard at all. And so it's kind, you made your own bed when you decided not to listen to them in the first case. And sometimes that's going to happen. You're going to have these sort of social casualties along the way as we move towards something that's a better system, in which case, the better system would be where we just hold people accountable to their words at the time and we call it out. This is what the whole anti-racist movement is that I know a lot of right-wingers don't like to hear because they get upset about it for some reason. But really what anti-racism is, and any other kind of like anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, whatever it might be in your space is, hey, actively calling that out right there when it happens, not laughing and going, ha, ha, ha, I'm being socially awkward. And then letting that stew and percolate, that's the point, right? We're going to get to a point where we just go, that's not cool. Now, do I think that someone should have their life ruined because when they were 14 years old, they said the N-word on Xbox Live? No. Do I think that it's reasonable for someone that says the N-word tomorrow to get canceled? Whether or not you're a mom that sells cookies and drives her kids to soccer or not, or whatever, yeah, you kind of know now. There's been a sort of a statute of limitations.  So there's a little bit of stuff where you got to be edgy in the past, but if you continue to do that in the future, I mean, you know what the terms of service are, both on all these platforms and in the country, like you just know it now. Which of the consequences be though? Which of the consequences, so let's say, It's relative to whatever happens, right? So, okay, so we had, talking about Mom and the N-word, that literally just happened. There was a woman within a grocery store, right, or something, she was talking to a clerk or whatever, right, behind the counter. She called him the N-word and she's like, well, that's what you are, you're an N-word, right? And then no one, I don't think she actually had been identified, but if we could have identified this woman, what would your prescription be for her? Well, my prescription be?   They might, it just depends.  It should be adjusted based on like, how severe your crime is, right? Like, if you said a word, it's like, probably shouldn't say that or whatever, but like, if you like- By crime, you mean social crime? Yes. But if you like- I don't need anyone to be jailed for this shit, unless it's harassment. So Hunter, can I respond, Jake? Sure, Hunter wanted to go though. So Hunter- No, no, I'm not trying to cut anybody. If Hunter- Tyler, you can go ahead, Tyler, it's all right. Okay, Tyler. I appreciate that, man. So Jake, so when you're saying that people that are saying the N-word that are racist, are you saying only white people or do you apply that to black people as well, if they say it? I love that question. Are you calling it, are you saying it in like, because it's one of your colloquial friends or is it because, are you saying it to a song or are you calling and denigrating someone based on the color of their skin? There's obvious social differences. It's not just the word, it's how it's used in relative. We are not ants. We can understand social faux pas and understand socialization. We don't have to just go, ah, that word, blacklisted. I guess that was a, that was a... Okay, okay. No pun intended. So just to clarify then, are you saying, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to straw many arguments, so correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that if like a white person says it in like, as like a term of endearment that it would be socially acceptable? I mean, okay.   Now there's some people, there's some people, there's some people that claim like, I grew up in the neighborhood and I got friends and they gave me the pass, whatever dude. That's weird to me. If you want to do that, cool.  Obviously there was like social consent there. If you're screaming at a teller and saying, you're an N-word, that's what you are, you're an N-word.  You think that was like Kendrick Lamar's song? Like what? You didn't actually answer. No, he really did. It's new one. It's not a yes or no. I basically, it's literally not a yes or no. Basically what I want to know is I want to make sure that you're just consistent with everybody. Are you saying that in the context of whatever, if you're saying as an term of endearment or if you're saying it in a quote unquote racist way against another person, do you hold that same stance no matter what the race or ethnicity is? Didn't I just say that it mattered based on the social interaction? Out loud? Like my words? I just outlined the question that I just asked you but you're not using that. Right, I said out loud that it matters based on the social interaction, right?      But if you are friends for lifelong with that guy and you're part of the neighborhood, you're part of this culture, like that happens from time to time but it's not like, it's pretty rare, right? And it's irrelevant, right? I don't care about the rarity, I just wanna make sure.  Well, I wouldn't, so I hope you cancel me because that's not my culture. I mean like, before getting a bogged down in this, I think it's not, you know what I'm saying? It's on the N-word. There's so many other things that people get canceled. When people get, I think a bigger threat is like being canceled, like being gay, right?  I think it's like a bigger reason. This is what's actually been canceled. That's a crime, though. That would also be a crime. No, no, no, but I'm saying this is what cancel culture has also looked at. First of all, it depends on. That's discrimination. It's discrimination true, but I'm saying like, that's like- You have a wall of truth. I'm saying that is it, hold on. I'm saying, and they don't have to say that obviously.   So my point is that that's a bigger issue, right? Like then people are just saying these words, right? These actual people being attached for who they are, right? And by their place of employment, I think it's much bigger issue than actual, like someone says a words, a slur. Can I respond? Yeah, I just want to say when it comes to the cancel culture thing, I think it really is, there is a lot of nuance there. The N-word is an easy example to point at. I also think it matters how much consequences or negative consequences derive from like said person's racist action. So for example, if like some soccer mom is like, yeah, driving along in like her minivan, right?   I think that, I mean, there could be, but I think- It's rather systemic harm. But yeah. I agree, Hunter, I agree. No, you have to analyze how much harm is done here. And that's a lot of the times, that's a lot of the times what the problem is, like what we saw with this Teen Vogue situation, which is this girl made anti, or I'm sorry, Asian joke tweets was what they really were. When she was a minor in high school in 2011 and got fired from her job, now as like nearly 30 year old woman. So I think that's exactly what you were saying previously, actual Jake, right? Saying that these things like- Well, sure, sure, but what not specifically, specifically it was the- So I'll speak on that Teen Vogue thing, right? It seemed like to me that this woman, she certainly made a mistake, right? She apologized for it, like from what I understand the situation, it's not correct me if I'm wrong, that the employers had already known about this situation and they talked to her and thought like, no, this is something we can move past. And this is a woman trying to move on for life, because that's a big problem with cancer cultures that we don't have like forgiveness. Like we can't like do exactly what Hunter, as I said, like analyze situation, see like they, this person honest, is there are the anti-Asian, that's what she said previously, are there are the erasers here? Or is it the person who said something offensive at the time? Something edgy, right? Then we can understand that maybe they've moved past this, that maybe they've changed, right? So I want to give people room to grow, right? If we don't get people room to grow, then first of all, they won't admit what they've done, right, they'll never admit what they've done because once they admit what they've done, the punishment is coming their way one way or the other, right? We can understand that maybe, maybe, maybe these people can change throughout their lifetimes and then simply firing them for all, this is not necessary. Okay, I'm gonna throw it to Sean because Sean hasn't gotten to talk about this yet. Yeah, respect. So a long time ago in the galaxy far, far away, there were a bunch of losers that would write letters to like media organizations when they saw things that they didn't like to complain. And for some reason, these organizations would take these losers seriously. Now all of those losers have Twitter accounts and it's much easier for them to complain about things they see in their day to day lives. So like when we're talking about cancel culture, it's like individual cases are kind of like whatever, like you can pick one and everybody's gonna dispute it and all that. But I think it is toxic in our society that there are people on the internet who spend all day on the internet looking for people to target and then harass and get them fired from their job, et cetera, et cetera. And to a prime's point about us leaving no room for growth, I think that is 100% true because you'll take a case and I'll pick one that a lot of you will think the woman is in the wrong of like Amy Cooper in Central Park, right? And she calls the police on this guy. I think that any dog mom that gets like threatened mildly by a dude would have probably spas out in the same way. And for some reason that is like international news and we're talking about it. She's fired from her job. The bird watching guy? Yeah, she's talking about it. Didn't she call the cops on him? Yeah, yeah. She weaponized, okay. I picked a case that you guys would deliberately be against her because this is my point, right? So she called the cops on him. She like acknowledges she made the mistake. The guy specifically said like leave her alone shortly after, before they even called into arrest. He even implied that he wasn't interested in testifying against her. His original Facebook post said that he brought dog treats to like scare people who walk their dogs without a leash in that area. But the internet has not relented. The national media has not relented on this woman. So at what point do we say, okay, you look really bad in this interaction.  But like, can we move on as a society and let this person come and join us and get an actual job and be cool? Like where's the redemption portion of it? Are we just gonna be vicious and dog pile on this random citizen?   She actually, she actually, hold on, hold on, hold on.  White women have been using their tears to call in violence against African Americans for centuries. This is not a new concept, right? But beyond that, beyond that, right? I'm giving some sort of punishment for whatever, for what she did. Should this be a forever punishment? No, right? I think like, can she, is there a possibility that this woman can grow up in this situation, kind of stand up what she did was wrong, become a better person at the end of it? Yes, I actually do believe that. But let's not like minimize what she did. She was calling in a motherfucking execution. She was like minimizing what she did. Absolutely crime. Non-issue, okay. Absolutely crime. Jake and Denim's. And I wanna push back on both what Sean said and doubling down on what Prime just said which is absolutely correct. And then pushing back just a little bit with Hunter, not a ton, with the harm thing? With the harm thing?  And in the minuscule it is, in the macro scale, this happens every day. Well, if I could just say really, hold on, hold on. It's like saying one pail of water in the tub isn't gonna overflow it. But yeah, it will if everybody else also does a pail of water. And eventually these things stack up and it leads to systemic normalized racism. This is harm.  And I understand there are justified cases where you probably should call the police but let it be known that it's more likely to end up per capita, not overall per capita because there are fewer black people but that's how per capita works. It's per capita more likely to end in violent altercation with the police. Whether or not that person is armed or whatever, who cares, they're supposed to be able to be armed as a second amendment. I don't know why people are worried about this, that kind of thing. It's just weird, there's a lot of harm that happens in the micro, two minority groups, whether it's black, whether it's LGBT, whatever. And it is harm just because it's a little bit of harm doesn't mean it's not harm and it absolutely exacerbates overall harm. And I know that's not really what you were saying, I just wanted to clarify. Well, no, I wasn't even saying that there's no harm. 10 seconds quick, we only have 40 seconds left so under the denims you both get 20. All I was gonna say is I'm not saying there's no harm in a white woman calling a black guy the N-word. I mean, if a white woman says the N-word and it's called on video like we've seen, I just think the consequences should fit the crime overall and I think that sometimes there needs to be some nuance there and we need to be willing to look into it. And I do think that consequences play a role. Again, though, I'm not saying that there's no consequences to a white woman deliberately calling someone again. I didn't think you said that. Well, I just wanna clarify. Denims? Yeah, I just wanted to also add on really quickly. It's a lot like how we view voting where like there's a common talking point of like, well, one vote doesn't matter. And it's like, well, if millions of people say that then it kind of does. The other things I wanted to say I'll try and be as fast as possible. A, I think we should make distinctions between children and adults. If a child does something like they said the N-word in a group chat when they were 16, I just don't care that much, okay? If you're 40 and you're calling people the N-word and you're trying to use it as a slur, I care a lot more. And I wanna make a distinction between people who did it once and repeat offenders who continuously keep getting caught doing this. Also true. Okay, so we have the votes are in and this is a first, it's a split vote between the judges on who should be voted out and the two people who are up are Prime and Tyler. So I will read out the votes. The first vote is from, the first vote is from Dennebo to vote out Tyler. The second vote is from Geek to vote out Prime. And the last one, which is a celebrity guest judge which I will reveal at the end, voted out Prime. I'm sorry, Prime. You have been voted out by the judges. Thanks so much Dylan for letting me on this. Really appreciate that. Nice to meet you, James. Like I'm actually a big fan of your work. See a lot of it. And nice to talk to all the rest of you and meet you. My name is Prime Kai. I run my own channel. Come visit me, P-R-M-E-C-A-Y-E-S. We have panels, we have discussions. We'll have an open panel right after, well, not right after this, but soon we're gonna have an open panel. So please come check us out. Thank you so much. Okay, next I'm going to... Okay, we're gonna continue the topic on this one. We're going to just keep going on cancel culture. Yeah, so you can keep going. Free to keep going. Well, now actually would probably be a good time for me to split. Cause I've been on here for about an hour now and I got to get going.  Oh, I didn't, I wanted to see Prime go.  I didn't. I am. There's no harmful consequence. No, I'm just kidding. All right, thanks. Thanks a lot for having me on Dylan. Really appreciate it. Nice meeting you guys. Nice meeting everybody. And nice to see you, Sean.  It's very nice. Very nice indeed. My own doesn't own a house, but it's nice to see you too. Nice to see you too, buddy. Go make your 60th video about me. It's like seven, you need to start going then. Oh, seven, that's a lot better. Okay, yeah, just, you know, I know, I know. Rivalry here, rivalry here. Damn. Yes, I mean, tell me specifically before I show up not to add home Hunter, but let him do whatever he wants because that's the only way he would agree to be on, but whatever. You mad? It's like salt in the air. We're gonna throw it over to, well, no, you guys can just go. We're trying to get the next person to join. Where's the cat guy? One thing I wanted to bring up about cancel culture, there's also like when people talk about like unionization and stuff, their boss will like find out and like that's one thing that they'll be canceled and fired over. My biggest concern with cancel culture is literally, it's basically going to turn into a workers' rights issue. It's not really right now, but it's absolutely going to turn into that. And I feel like that's a really important thing and that we need to talk about more. Well, luckily there's legislation right now to get rid of right to work.  Hey, am I in here? Am I allowed to talk yet? Yeah, you've been allowed to talk. You just haven't taken advantage of it. Okay. Yeah, I got a couple of thoughts. First of all, the left, they're always talking about both sides of their mouth. It's always like cancel culture isn't real, but it's also like, hey, we have to like have forgiveness. We have to understand if people, if they don't really mean harm, we're gonna give them a chance to go through the little struggle session and repent for their sins. And then we're gonna not destroy their lives as long as they show enough, what's the word I'm looking for? As long as they show enough attrition, that's not the word, but you know what I mean? Sorrow for what they've done. So it's like there is no cancel culture or it's good, but if you are repentant enough, we're gonna not destroy your lives. And then people like Jake and the other, the guy who left already, I forgot his name, the black dude, they're both saying that there should be- Whoa, whoa, hold on. Yeah, sorry, crime or whatever his name is. They're both saying there should be punishments for these actions, but they're not telling us what the punishments would be. So Sean brought up the example of the woman who called the cops on the bird watcher and that dude said that, yeah, she should be punished in some way for doing that. I think it's really crazy to make a statement like that and not tell everybody exactly what you're thinking. How long should the struggle session be? How much it, you know, what is the punishment? What's the appropriate punishment for calling the police on somebody when you feel threatened? Okay, that is like- One quick thing, James, can you take over moderation? I desperately need to use the bathroom. Okay. Thank you. If I can make a quick comment, this is like the most insane. I actually can't believe how insane this straw man is about the left. There are literally three lefties on here right now and none of them said cancel culture isn't real. There are lefties who think cancel culture isn't real. There are a lot of lefties and people in general who think cancel culture doesn't impact rich celebrities because that's true, but cancel, everyone here so far has been saying cancel culture definitely affects people. Also the format of this panel, like everyone only has like 30 seconds or a minute to speak, like apologies that maybe some of the guests haven't had the opportunity to be like, well, I determined that the correct crime for this punishment should be precisely this. When you have the opportunity right now, why don't you tell us what the punishment should be for somebody who says niggas? Sure, sure. I mean, like the punishment for something like calling the cops on someone, I don't know, should we have like fines for that? Wrongfully calling the cops on someone? I think that that's a, that seems like a very mild. Can I just say, can I just say, Jake, if you wanna do a quick one filing a false police report. Don't break TOS, bro. It has to be false. Jake. You have to intentionally file a false police report. Like it has to be malicious. If you're incorrect and you file a police report, do we prosecute people because they're incorrect about what they thought they saw? I think not. Well, there wasn't anything that she was incorrect about what she saw. She just called the cops because she felt like someone was suspicious. Did you read his Facebook post, the Amy Cooper guy? Is that what we're talking about? He said she, he said he was gonna poison her dogs. People have to leave that part of the story out. No, but he said that he was doing exactly what she called the police on him for. And then he told them, so he told that to the police. Like that he was willing to walk towards him and to teach her a lesson about walking her dog without a leash in the park near the bird area.  If any man, any woman, especially a dog mom, they're gonna get the cops called on them. Denon's or Jake? It looks like one of you wanna say something? Well, first of all, I hypocrites sliding in n-words behind everyone else's voices and probably without breaking TOS is one of the rules. Don't do that. Who cares if someone says nigger?  They're not going to let you get side-reeled, so we have to go back. So what I say, he did it twice, bro.  That's actually a good pickup, Jake. I didn't even hear that. Yeah, he slid it under when you and Denon was talking to anyone in there. Anyway, as far as, yeah, it was, it was really awkward. So as far as- I think I'm like the only black guy here and it wasn't awkward for me. Yeah, but it's awkward for me. Just so you know, I'm on my way to sleep. Okay, let me be right back. He just asked us not to do that. Let me be real here. My stream will be taken down if the word is on my stream. So that's why it's not good that- That's why I said it was awkward because- Not because there's someone saying what somebody else is talking, so it can be hidden behind them talking.  I didn't even hear it. I didn't even hear it. I didn't hear it either. Sorry, it picked up really well on my end. I don't know. It picked up really well on my, anyways. My whole chat blew up. My entire chat blew up. But anyway, as far as the cancel culture thing and to answer the guy's question that's gone now, as far as like what punitive damage ought we take towards someone who dare violate the social order? That's not really what it's about. It's like, what's the social reaction to it? That's what it is. And I'm sorry you have to deal with the rest of us. That's just literally what it is. I'm not saying there's a specific sentence to be carried out. If you're a particularly egregious person, the rest of the people that witnessed that will consider you egregious and will operate in that way. It's literally just social behavior. If you can't understand how to socialize with anybody else and you're confused why saying slurs at people or why someone in the middle of a national race debate might get a little more heat than usual for weaponizing the cops against a bird watcher, your tone deaf and dumb and you deserve it. I genuinely don't understand how you don't like understand the social cues of the situation. Now, as for should her life be ruined? Probably not. Is it ruined? Does she have a life? I don't know what she's got going on. Well, she got fired. But like again, you're going to over correct at the beginning of this because there's massive amounts of people that were in fact pretty voiceless in this conversation for years. We've had race riots for hundreds of years and only really now are people being like actually heard. The fact that you're getting center left people to be like, you know what, maybe BLM, maybe this entire thing is like, I'm actually learning about stuff and the way they're communicating is really good. Like it's going to take a little bit of social change for this to reorganize itself. But I agree that the only way this is going to manifest negatively will be workers rights. But luckily you can protect workers through legislation, which seems to be happening right now. So I mean, like as far as social stuff, I don't think you should go to prison for saying that.   You can be that, that's totally fine. Free speech, definitely.  Yeah, so I reject your framing of weaponizing the cops.  Number one, number two. I have a quick question. Wait, wait, quick question. That's a quick question.  So I reject again your weaponization of the police nonsense and how this was a life in danger thing. They showed up, they talked to the guy. Everybody was fine. She ended up getting arrested and becoming a national news story. So like... Have you ever been to Central Park? Have you ever been to Central Park? A-A-W, have you ever been to Central Park? Yeah. That's what happened, right? Was it in Central Park? Huh? Central Park is not exactly the most secluded park in the world. This is your constant framing of this as an incident where she was cornered. Oh, I'm sorry. Just the lies? Wait, excuse me, sorry. Wait, are you asking me whether I've been to Central Park? Yes, many, many times. I live in Seattle. Where do you mean where I'm from? So you know the conditions that Central Park gets had like earlier in New York. I've lived in New York for 20-something years. I know what it's like. I used to go to New York every single year for things. I've never been, but I really love the movie, L. It's a big park, yeah, but it's like, but it's not like super secluded. It's in the middle of a city from in Central Park. You can see lots of other people in the video. Wait, there were, and I'm pretty sure that in the video, you can see other people walking around. And it doesn't, and the idea that you're going to try and use that to stretch out this idea. Like you're like, oh, there's somebody in the eye. Oh, she's been cornered.  We know what was happening. Don't play dumb.   They love to walk in and play dumb.  His life could have been ended. This happened right in the height of record civil rights protests, which are a response to unbelievably overwhelming violence against black people.   Nobody believes you. Nobody in this audience believes you. And you don't even believe it. Okay, give us a second. We got to let, we got to let you have moral outrage, but he literally admitted to everything he says. That's not moral outrage.  Yes, I will, I will add, I will ad hum you. I believe you deserve an ad hum.  And we all know it. And the audience knows it. Go read his Facebook posts. Read a statement to the police. I want to make one quick distinction. I think if this had happened at night and she was for some reason in Central Park at like 10 p.m., which I think it was supposed to be. It was during daytime. I saw the video. I could, I could understand calling the cops when there's some dude near you at night, 100%. It's, if it's daytime in Central Park, you're good. You're, you're going to be fine. It's almost certainly. No, she had an overly emotional response for sure. The idea of it, none of us, like everyone here has seen this video, almost probably every person in the audience has seen the video. You cannot successfully, unless like you're trying to just convince some people who have like a, like a goldfish memory. You're not going to convince anyone that he was, that this guy was like cornering her. You're doing exactly the same thing that always happens. You're doing the exact same thing that conservatives always do. That conservatives always do. I know you're really, really frustrated. You don't have any arguments. You just want to talk about it.  Give a second here. Okay. So same rule as always. Two people talk at once. You don't get double, none of the information. Okay. So I'm going to give Dimama 15 seconds. I'm going to give Sean 15 seconds. Then we're going to wrap it up. Okay. As in, move on to somebody else who wants to talk. Dimama, you got 15 seconds. Yeah, absolutely. You're doing the same thing that conservatives always do, which is they try to make out the black guy who is likely to be the victim of police brutality to be some scary monster. It is a stereotype as oldest time right out of the handbook of the KKK. And anybody who knows anything about history can see it for what it is. Okay. Sean, same mountain. Yeah. I wasn't making him out to be a scary monster. I was acknowledging that he's an agent and what he wrote himself and what he told to the police. Did she freak out 100% but dog moms are incredibly cringed. Bringing up the clan is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed for doing that time. Okay. Now I'm going to, has anybody else risen their hand? I haven't actually seen that. No. Okay. Does anybody else want to talk on this topic? No. No. Okay. Oh, sorry. Oh, did you want to say, well, Demo, if you want to say one more thing, I think it's incredibly, it's funny that you should say it would be embarrassing to bring up the clan. When it's the clan and other right-wing groups have had a massive resurgence lately. I actually think it's really important that we bring up stuff like this. The clan is a huge part of racial oppression in the history of the United States. Something that anybody with even a basic high school understanding of history would be able to recognize.  And I know you know that. You just don't care. More people went to my college as undergraduates than there are active members of the clan. So obviously throughout history, if you want to ignore linear time and say like, oh, I can't tell the difference between the past and the future when there are millions of members, then that's fine, but today the clan is not a force. Yeah, real quick.  That was like the weakest argument I think I've ever heard. But again, I've come to expect just now from you. Now, the clan was a huge problem when there were millions of members after birth of a nation. If you want to go into history. Guess what? You want it to come back? People like you are helping to make it possible for that sort of thing. Because you play defense. That's exactly what's happening. You've diagnosed it perfectly. Thank you, I know. Okay, seems like we finished up on this topic. Might as well move on to the next one. Okay, so obviously with recent shootings, there's been a resurgence of questions about gun control in this country. Do you think that there should be a push for more gun control legislation in this country? Or should there be no more gun control legislation? Or in fact, should there be less gun control legislation? I'll just throw it up in the air. Anybody who's willing to take it by the horns. There should be no gun control. I'm gonna just say that. Okay, that's hilarious. Can we have some serious opinions here? All right. Does anyone have like a cerebellum on a talk? Do you want to attack the argument, buddy? Uh, yeah, sure, buddy. We can all do that. Well, who here is like the most anti-gun? Who's like pro strong regulation, taking away AR-15s and stuff? Start with that, maybe. I feel like we all... Sorry, we're most of us are leftists. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, sorry, dude.  As soon as a bunch of minority groups start having guns, you watch the Republicans. You watch them. You see pride parades with AR-15s.    You know what we shouldn't do? Let these dirty leftist antifa have access to weapons.  So go ahead, go buy all your weapons because frankly, I think you need them to protect yourself against the police at this point. So go for it. Do it.   And you're gonna see Foxy, Sean Hannity, he's gonna be like, well, I can own a gun, but if you have brown skin, you can't.  They're gonna be like- Bro, all you do is over-generalize.  Just assume things and just assume what people are gonna do. You don't actually attack an argument.  You are cringe. All you do is over-generalize. Sorry, was the argument your statement that said, I don't think there should be any gun control whatsoever? So like you would be okay then. So wait, let me, I just wanna be clear. Wait, wait, wait, hold on a second. I wanna be really clear here real quick.   Like, is that the type of thing?  You're talking about like an actual run.  No one said about actually melting- You literally walked in here and said- I said zero, what is gun control? Hey buddy, what is gun control? Wait, gun control, wait. What is gun control? Because you're conflating that with just mowing down like buildings. That's not- Hold on, let me ask you this. Do you believe that you should be able, do you believe that you should be able to put a, like buy an 18-wheeler and mount a giant artillery cannon on the back if you desire? Do you believe that you should be able to do that?  Maybe let's just say you don't actually level the tone. Do you think you should be able to do that? Absolutely, yeah, absolutely. That is the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard. And this is exactly why- Again, you're not actually attacking- You're not actually attacking the argument. No, no, hold on a second. Wait, you have to actually let me talk about it.  You can't actually attack the argument itself.  Okay, well, listen- I have something important to say.  You are cringe. I have some important things. Congratulations, you've done nothing. You want me to be able to argue about that? What people have done, all you've done is say, I don't like that. We are putting a halt to this right now because we have a minute left and we have the straw poll out there. And so if you want your person to stay, you've got to vote in the straw poll because we just had Basya join, which means Basya, you're going to watch as one of your compadres are thrown over at the top rope. Okay? Oh, holy macaroni. First of all, the audience are whereby as well, right? It's only through whereby today. Good stuff. All right, well, I'm looking forward to seeing it. Good to be here just in time. Do you think if you win tonight and get another shot at Basya, you'll win this time? We're going right back to Coconut Island, buddy. Right back to Coconut Island. Every time I talk to you, you sound like if boat shoes were a person. That's because I am if boat shoes were a person.  It's absolutely beautiful. Okay? We have 30 seconds left for voting. Go vote in the straw poll. Okay, so can demon actually address like the issue?  So what is he going to say? Is she or just use the name, please? For what? But no, it's all good. Oh, is that a trance verse? I just thought that was long hair. Sure, sure. I don't really care. I didn't even know she was trans. Yeah, there you go. Let's just talk about this. What you're talking about is so absurd that I don't think that most people really need to put a formal argument, but if you'd like me to. I hate to do it. I hate to do it. I hate to do it. The time is up. The time is up. We have to actually cut to it right now. Let me look at the DMs I've gotten from the judges. Saved by that. Ooh, I'm going to get in trouble for this one. Come on after. Shawn Head, I'm sorry. You've been thrown over the top rope. Okay, all right, this is fun, guys. I hope to do this again one day. Bye. Bye-bye. I'm confused how the voting works. Why? Wait, wait, wait. Okay, let me be clear. The votes are done, but then the judges look at the votes and then make their own evaluations. Based on bottom delegates. Basically they look at the hues on the bottom lower half and then they judge on top of their own judgments of it. It's like a judge. You know how boxing works? It isn't like how the audience votes at home. Like the electoral college. Judges. Super delegates. Yeah, this is like super delegates. If you're bottom half, you get put on a list and they look at them and they decide. Yes. All right, very important. I started this by drinking coffee. I got to go to the bathroom. I'll be back. Okay. You can all continue talking about gun control. So Tyler, I'm interested. You said no gun control? Yeah. Okay, I need to know. Do you support the police?  I do not support blue-eyes matter. Are you a libertarian then? Is that? I'm not a libertarian, no. Okay, so I need to understand what your political motivations are behind no gun control. Liberty. Okay, so you're not a libertarian, but your main thing is liberty on that? Correct. You vote? Okay. I do. Did you want me to put an argument for this? I just, I really, I really, I'm gonna take the bait this one time for the purpose of the audience, which is that if there is a huge problem with the idea of people being able to arm themselves in any way imaginable, if you like the idea of your child going out in the backyard and going and picking flowers, and then they accidentally take one step over into your neighbor's property and they step on a landmine and your child is blown limb from limb because of people like Tyler Bluntman's policies that is the world for you. You wanna follow his view of the world. If you want to have your village bombarded by the local Jeff Bezos who's decided to weaponize an army of delivery drones to drop bombs and, or machine guns over the neighbor, that's the type of world you wanna fight for. The idea that we would have a world with no gun control is absolutely absurd. It's so absurd that it might as well be like, well, yes, why don't we implement the Ministry of Magic in America?  But I felt like I wanted to explain that. Secondly, I do support gun rights, but come on, this is ridiculous. You do not need to have people walking around with hand grenades, landmines, heavy machine guns, sniper rifles all over the street to try and preserve some sense of liberty. In fact, that would ruin any concept of liberty that we have because you can't be free to live in a world where somebody who doesn't like you can buy a 50 caliber machine gun and shoot you from a mile away. You cannot live freely in that world. Sorry. Out of curiosity, as somebody who often defends gun rights on streams like this, is your position when you say no gun control, do you just mean like don't ban assault rifles or do you mean like what basically demon mama has just said? Yeah, he said he wanted like a cannon. No, because demon didn't actually, no. So for one, so when I'm talking about no gun control, I'm talking about there can not be any type of government enforced gun control. That does not mean that I don't believe in some type of regulation, but it's not for the government to impose those things. Who would impose it? When demon is, well, who would impose it? From what? Obtaining a weapon? Who would impose regulation if not the government? What type of regulation? Any regulation, whatever regulation you're for, any regulation that you're for, who enforces that, the individual? If you're talking about who would obtain, like from obtaining a certain weapon, then that would be private business owners. I'm answering your question. No, no, no, stop, stop, stop. A private business owner whose only incentive is to gain capital is going to out of the conscious, the good conscious of their heart, decide not to give someone fucking, like landmines, bazookas, Molotov cocktails.  Why would they not do that? We see this problem with capitalism all the time. The free market doesn't adjust for itself. It tries to minimize. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. That's the thing. I'm okay with this. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. It involves only maximizing profit and maximizing capital. So hold on, so just to be clear. Do you think that capitalism is going to do something? Give us a second. Give us a second. We gotta let, we gotta let. Just to be clear. Just to be clear. You're saying that citizens shouldn't own like grenades or any type of like explosives? What is that? Is that not reasonable or not to not have explosive devices?  So hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Let him explain, let him explain. So you understand that the government owns these things, right? On what? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you understand that the government owns these things? Yeah, the government, just to be clear. Yeah, I, I, Oh, see, the government's tier needs. Okay, okay, okay. Real quick, I'm talking to Jake real quick. Give me a second. I'm trying to respond to Jake.  I'm shutting it down. Okay, so one person talks at a time now. I'm trying to respond.  That's the next five minutes. And then when order is restored, then we'll get back to the rumble. Tyler, you respond to people being concerned about the grenades. Yeah, so, so my point that I'm making here is that the only way that you could say that you could really defend that people, that citizens should not have the ability to own like explosives and higher capacity weapons or whatever military grade, whatever you want to label it as, that that would have to go against by saying that, okay, well then the government would never inflict tyranny, excuse me, tyranny upon its citizens. The government has already, the government has already bombed its citizens, right? So, so to say that they wouldn't do things like this and to say that we could, how would we attack them? How would we overthrow said government, right? If we don't have, if we don't have these weapons, it's going to make it increasingly more difficult to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Do you understand that? Okay, okay, so, so, so, you wouldn't be able to have a tyrannical government because everything would fall apart, immediately everything would fall apart. The reason you can't have grenades, I can't believe I'm explaining this to an adult human person, but I'm going to. The reason you can't have grenades is because they explode. They explode. We've had grenades before. We have had grenades before. Do you even know the history? They, listen. Actually, did you tell me the history privately owned grenades? They explode and people... Come on, Jay. Come to privacy. Massive destruction in an area. Apparently they used to be allowed. Let's hear about that. Yeah, okay, okay, okay. Grenades in the 1800s, buddy. We had warships, right? We had every single thing that the military had. In the 1800s? Yes.  It is true. That there were privately owned... One, one of the... Okay, okay, okay. So, I don't think anybody... It doesn't matter. I don't think anybody understood me. Okay, so I forgot to have something to say. Does anybody here have hearing problems of any sort? Raise your hand if you do. I have tinnitus, actually. Yeah, me, too. Okay. Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to. Okay. But did you guys hear me? Yes. Okay, so I'm going to now choose who speaks. Jay, so we need privately owned hand grenades to deal with moderator Dillon here. You tyrant. Jesus Christ. Okay, so Tyler just said that there were hand grenades in the 1800s.  Okay, Dillon Mama hasn't got to speak in a while. Basiat just got here, so I do think it should go to Basiat, then Dillon Mama, then Enems. There you go. Okay. Then Jay will be last. This is a huge problem with this argument that like, oh, you need to be able to have grenades to fight back against the government. You will not stand a chance against an organized military. It will not happen. No militia will ever do that. Why? Because it will not happen. It simply is not feasible. No, no, no. Dillon strikes the state. Because they have a rainbow.  Okay, I'm now going to mute everyone except for the person talking. You will not turn your mic back on until I have told you to do so. Okay, so it's going to be Dillon Mama. Then this is directed at Tyler. So Tyler will be able to respond. Then it will go through the ringer. Is everybody like piles on? Sean, I saw you raise your hand. Don't worry, you'll get a time to talk as well. Dillon Mama, continue. Okay, so anybody who knows even, again, once again, a small drop of information about the military will know that the military's biggest strength comes from a extremely advanced, extremely expensive technology which no individual person could do. Most billionaires cannot afford that. Secondly, from training. The military is a massive state organ with incredibly, incredibly well-trained people. No militia, no matter how well-trained, will ever stand a chance against the United States military. The fact of the matter is that there is no circumstance that we can think of in which the federal government would have, first of all, have any reason to attack its own citizens. And part of the reason for that is because we have a robust democratic and check and power check system. Now, the value of owning guns, which I support, by the way, I am a pro-gun lefty, the value of owning guns comes in community, local defense. That's where it comes from.  No, you are going to get owned. You will be killed by drones that can literally pick you out while you're sitting on the toilet, just trying to go to the bathroom.  And it is ridiculous to think that you can do otherwise. It is literally in the realm of fantasy land.  That is the value of gun ownership, not this fantasy idea of you and your buddies getting in your blue lives matter painted truck and driving towards the capital where you will immediately be vaporized by technology you didn't even know existed because no one, not even billionaires can go against an organized military that is the most powerful military in the world. Just, it's ridiculous. It's hilarious and childish. Okay. Now it's going to be Tyler to respond to that. You can unmute yourself. Okay, there we go. All right, my bad. Just had to unmute myself. Okay. So, so, so this is hilarious. So, so saying that we don't stand a chance against the military because citizens don't have the weaponry needed to attack the military while I'm saying, okay, well let's give citizens and make sure that citizens do have access to this type of weaponry. But you're just like, ah, not.  Like, you're not actually attacking anything.  You're just saying, oh, well, we cannot, we cannot outdo the government because the government has better weapons than citizens. I'm like, okay. So then citizens should have these weapons, right? You're just like, ah, well, no. And then you're talking about how many people are even in the military. You're talking about between two to four million people if the government all banded together. You're talking about inactive and active military. You're talking about police, everybody. Even going against, I mean, you have what? Here in the United States you have, what is it, like 110 million people between the ages of like 18 and like 60? Even if, even if we went against the government today with being outgunned, I would still likely put it on us to win. But I think that there would be many more casualties that are, that are, that are unnecessary. So, so yeah.   Can I respond to that real quick? I have a real- Sadly not. The thing is, everybody's piling on a one person.  Don't worry. Bastia, you're next.  You can unmute yourself. Thanks. So I admittedly, Dean and mom, I don't really understand your point about community self-defense. It just seems like a smaller version of what Tyler is discussing. I understand the idea of guns for self-defense, but like, like town and town violence, I don't get that. But maybe we can discuss it afterwards. I'll explain that anytime you'd like. The point that Tyler, though, that you're making, I guess it seems like when I think historically about, I guess, successful revolutions against tyrants, they typically have involved some factions of the existing military or the existing civil society sort of peeling off from that civil society and engaging some kind of insurrection. Whether it be, say, the Russian Revolution where some of the troops just refuse to enforce the Czar's laws or to think of a counter, a very bad example of Spanish Civil War where the military rose up against the government. Yeah, but typically, though, it's not just the government acts in unison against the people or the people acting in unison against the government. So that's one thing, I guess it doesn't really make a lot of sense. This idea that there would ever be this kind of war where the government is just against the people. But the other thing is that if you're serious about protecting freedom, then it seems like rather than thinking about some kind of deterrence with respect to weapons, you would want to be more active in participating in civil society and the democratic institutions that are on an everyday basis help prevent us from getting to a situation where the government actively tyrannizes people. So I mean, suppose, I guess what I mean here is instead of buying grenades or rocket launchers or private battleships, and it is interesting, there's a history of private battleships in this country, letters of marquee during the Revolutionary War and stuff. But instead of that, you would maybe want to go like to your, your local city commission planning board meeting and talk about why you should abolish single-family zoning, you know, make housing more affordable. So participating in government, I just finished this point, participate in democratic government rather than just kind of, I guess, withdraw and imagine that there's like, you know, imagine that, you know, if we buy enough grenades, they will never come for our freedom. Well, no, that's not the point that I'm making. That's not the point that I'm making. My big question to you would be like, why can't I do both of those things at the same time? Well, I think the thing with certain types of weapons, I guess as somebody who, you know, often argues against gun control, there's certain classes of weapons that inevitably lead to third-party harms even when properly used. Like, I guess that's the argument for why we don't have private nuclear weapons or private tanks. You know, if you fire a tank shell or- We do have, we do have private tanks. Well, why we shouldn't have privately owned tanks that have privately owned guns that privately work with private shells. I think that's also an interesting question. Because there are third-party harms there. I can fire a gun at somebody in self-defense and there's no, there's not an inevitable third-party harm, right? But if I use explosives, you know, that risk of third-party harm is very great, right? So it goes beyond just me and the person who maybe is attacking my property or attacking my person or something, right? And so there I think is a clear case for some kinds of weapons that they just, their use inevitably comes with collateral damage or is very likely to compared to say a handgun or an assault rifle, which these are deadly weapons, but they are less likely to be- Quick, quick, quick for chat. I just want to make clear. In the straw poll, you are voting, whoever wins this will be debating Vosh next Friday. So be clear that the person you're voting for, you want to see going head-to-head. Next Friday, I see a lot of people confuse exactly about what the winner will get. So next was, I think it was Denim's actual Jake then, Sean, but I think Tyler, did you want to respond to any of that? Yeah, just a couple of things there. So for one, you bring up the tank situation, which I think is a very interesting perspective. I mean, we have anywhere from a couple of hundred to up to a thousand privately owned citizens right now who have tanks. And it's not like you can't obtain shells for these tanks. You can't absolutely obtain these shells. And I mean, can you name one incident, write one incident here in the United States where someone has taken this tank and just mowed cities down or mowed blocks down? I think the only one that you'll be able to come up with is one where they didn't actually fire these guns. What instance are you going to bring up? Well, there was one where somebody stole a tank from military. Yes, but they didn't. There were zero casualties. There was also a kill-dozer. Okay, one second. I had no idea, though, that- We got to move it on because we don't have a lot of time. I'm going to have to extend this round a little bit because I want to make sure people, I don't want people to get voted off because they just didn't get a shot. So quick, I want to give it to Sean Denham's then Jake in that order. Sean? So two quick points. Like we never even got into like any reasonable like gun control, legislation discussion and all that. And I do agree with Tyler that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to fight back against the tyrannical government, but you don't need like armaments in order to do that. Like I completely disagree with the US military would crush the United States citizen. We have 300 million guns and we've already shown through our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that an insurgent force is not easily conquerable by the United States military. And these people don't have any, like we destroyed the Iraqi military incredibly quickly, but it's the people with small arms that are organized in small groups that we cannot handle. Also on top of that, while individual billionaires might not have the sophisticated armaments in order to fight in order to fight back against the government, military contractors make up the bulk of our forces in our foreign adventure. So private force is already in some respects, not in all respects, comparable to the government. Now the private military forces work for the United States government primarily, but we're gonna find out post Iraq war, post Afghanistan war, whenever that happens, what's gonna happen to this new industry of private force that we've created. So yeah, you can fight back against the federal government with the 300 million guns that are present in the United States of America. Like we can't conquer Iraq or Afghanistan, it's been proven. So I like, I don't know what the, I don't know what the case is against that, but I'll let somebody else out of the floor. I could argue against that. It was Denim's first, right? Yeah. Yeah, it was Denim's and then actual check. Okay, I'll be fast. Okay, first I'm not gonna respond to Sean because I was already gonna respond to Tyler with some of the other stuff. For starters, I'm gonna make two separate arguments. A, the average civilian is not going to even get close to the tech that the government has.  You just don't. And then the only people who might be able to afford this is billionaires. And you know what? Maybe I don't want a bunch of billionaires owning a ton of fighter jets, just an idea. Second of all, I would like the freedom to go to the supermarket and not worry that the entire building is gonna get bombed. Can you imagine?   And that was legal for him to have? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, we already have enough people dying, okay? I want, look, there is the freedom to own things in America, which I love. I wanna be able to own as many fucking, whatever the fucks I want. But I also want the freedom to be able to go places in public and not worry that the buildings are gonna start collapsing because I don't know who has a bomb on them. Okay, next is gonna be actually, well, Tyler, you can respond to that, of course. Yeah, so for one, okay, so then I guess I would ask you, if most citizens aren't gonna be able to have the funds to obtain these weapons, then what are you crying about? What are you crying about gun control about? If you say that most people are not even gonna have access to them.     Oh, what does that matter? Like, you get your algorithm, you just ask who could have them.  I get like, you have any data. I'll ask you this, do you have any data to back up that if billionaires had so these grenades or bombs that somehow people would be like more unsafe? Do you have like data to back this up? I'm not claiming, that's not even cool. Okay, so you're just crying. I'm saying to people who force people to pee in bottles. I'm not sure I want those people to have a fall off. Okay, so you're just crying. Okay, so you're just crying. Okay, it sounds like you're not capable of recognizing where people's positive freedoms come from. I promise you, please look it up. It's really important. Okay, yeah. Okay, thanks for the beads. When a woman says something, your response is, Karen, like what the, every time? Did you call me Jared, buddy? Yes, Jared, I did. Okay, what does Jared mean? Don't worry about it. Well, I'll explain it to you later. So as far as Sean's take on like, ah, look at the success stories of the Mujahideen and the brave soldiers of Vietnam and like their countries were fucked for years because of our military industrial complex.  Is that like what you want in urgency? Like that's the idea. Did North Vietnam win? What? No, no, no, they didn't win that one. What cost is the point, right? Yeah, but we didn't win. Listen, I'm not gonna call out the military force. Not that I want that. Actually, to bring up Vietnam, this is quite interesting. It's still my turn, though. It's still my turn. Yeah, it is still my turn. Foreign countries would help. But it's, but it's still my turn. Jake, it is your turn, yes. Thank you very much.  Your honor.  You're not.  I'm sorry, they won the arms race long ago. And as far as the 1800s grenades, have you seen those things? They look like lawn darts. They don't have shrapnel in them. They just go gunpowder.   You don't want tyranny?   Now like, that's literally what's gonna happen. It's literally just tyranny, but you allow capitalism to provide the catalyst to create the tyranny rather than at least having some sort of government powers of separation here. Where's the proof that's gonna happen? What do you mean the proof it's gonna happen? Literally the Dark Ages. What? There's a really huge- A monopoly of violence is how the Dark Ages were incorporated. I wanna make sure that Tyler has a time to respond. I see Sean- He wasn't talking about- He was talking about Bessie. Oh, okay, it was- I should be able to respond is what I'm saying. Or Sean- No, he was talking to Sean. I'm sorry, what that? He was talking- Oh, it's okay, Sean, I'm sorry. Sorry, just seeing everybody was piling on Tyler. It's hard to know what he's not piling on Tyler. Yeah, that's why I jumped down. I went off some critical support for Tyler here. Well, my point that I wanted to make in response is that I never said Iraq and Afghanistan is ideal. My point was this is an example of a small arms force fighting against the best trained, most well-equipped military in the history of the world. Like we have not been able to conquer them. You brought up Vietnam. I don't know why- Wait, hold on, what was- I need to ask what you mean by conquering- We had fear of power against the Vietnamese as well. I need to- Like the whole point is if the government was tyrannical, could we bog down that tyrannical government in a never-ending struggle where they'll eventually give up? The United States will give up on Afghanistan. That's what's going to happen. But will they give up on them? We gotta cut it. We have already gone 10 minutes over the actual vote time. So we have to- Don't worry, you're gonna have more time to talk about this.  So you might actually not get more time to talk about this. Okay, so- Oh, you know- The president sent me their votes. Okay. Okay. Did you do? Okay. So the votes are in, and they're, again, a split vote. The first vote for somebody to be kicked is Sean. The second vote for somebody to be kicked is Denims. And the third vote for somebody to be kicked is Denims. I'm very sorry, Denims. You've been voted off by the judges. Thank you so much for having me, sir. I was happy to have you. Hey, you made it to the final six, though. True, true. All right, we'll have a good one. I'm Denims, switch.tv slash Denims. I stream at 6 a.m. PST every single day. And chair shot, done. Okay, so now we're down to the final five. Now there will be no more audience voting. Your votes now are worthless, like real democracy. Now it will be cited only by the judges, which the audience is showing their appreciation for right now in chat. They're mad. They seem very happy. They don't like that. They look very happy. They're scripting with their voice. Screw these plebes. I mean, I'm the electoral college. Anyway, pass the water to them, we don't need them. So now we will continue to talk on gun control. You may continue. Okay. Anyway, James, can you take over? I need to call somebody. It's really important. Okay. Can I offer a little support to Tyler's position here since everybody has a dog piling on him?  The only argument that Tyler's making that I have some sympathy for, because again, just to be clear, I think your prescription for gun control here is ridiculous. The idea that we should have none of it and that the purpose should primarily be to fight the government. Yeah, you don't- The point though, I think that's ridiculous. The way to preserve freedom is to participate in civil society actively rather than to rely on weapons. But if you, your argument though, the argument here that you could never win, I don't think that's borne out really by like real experience here. I mean, the combination of a heavily armed population plus the inevitable foreign support that would come to anybody, I suppose, trying to overthrow the American government.  And it's certainly, like again, while again, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, I think it's a little different because I don't think it's actually so cut and drive that it's just over and we're just gonna leave. People have been trying that one for a while. It ain't happened yet. But Vietnam and Iraq though, by contrast, I mean, Vietnam, we didn't win that one and Iraq mixed at best in terms of America achieving its outcomes there. So, yeah. That was pretty one-sided. So that's pretty one-sided though. Like, hold on a second. I wanna respond to this. I wanted to respond to this for a minute. So like, okay, so first of all, there's a couple of big problems with this. First of all, we can talk about Iraq all day long. The casualties on the US side were not very high and the casualties on the Iraqi side were ridiculous. Was it a smart move? No, of course not. There's a whole bunch of other reasons, but as far as the war goes, we pretty clearly won that one, unfortunately. Like, that was- What would be the fortunate outcome there? Wait, the fortunate outcome would have not been to go to war at all. That would have been- Yeah, okay, all right. In what scenario? What was the war in Iraq? In the Iraq war? Oh, yeah, absolutely. I think we can all admit that like, there were geopolitical issues that led to that not being a victory, not actually the military. We pretty much crushed the military victory. Yeah, like, I don't like the idea of us picking bad wars, but that's neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that there's a different problem in America, which is that we're going against the government that built this country, that can easily access all utilities. We're talking about, you would have to look at not a war where the US goes against an insurgent populace, but a war in which a highly technically powerful power goes against its own people. And I don't think we have a whole lot of precedent for that. And I don't think it's going to go well, especially when we know that every single consumer-used product that we would use to like find our way around everything from Google Maps and all of this has backdoors that are literally designed specifically for the government. The government will know everything and everywhere.  And of course, on top of all of that, you have the fact that there are problems of scale, which is no matter how big of a people's militia that you put together, you will never, ever, ever be able to run a nuclear carrier. That will not happen. The US government has like 11, if I remember correctly, it's not going to happen. Like this is, I think that I recognize that there is an argument to be made for the power of insurgent forces, but let's be real, most of those are born out of absolute desperation and the results are not good. If you go look at countries where this happened, everywhere from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the cost was so great. And the reason why it was able to even unfolded that way is because it was America saying, yeah, who cares? We can carpet bomb this place. And guess what? The countries are economically devastated. So this idea that like there would even be anything left to win at the end is ridiculous. I agree with you, Bastiat though, at the very end of the day, that we should not look to solve these problems by some inevitable war, but that we should instead participate in building a better society. And yes, while I do think that there are specific instances in which having an armed community can be very, very valuable, that's because I don't believe that there is ever going to be a situation, and I should hope so, because it would be a horrible situation if it were to happen, where the federal government is at war with citizens in the United States, because that would be a dreadful affair. I see Jay's hand is not so... What would you consider at war? Well, what I consider at war, well... Yeah, what would you classify it like just bombing sentences or what would you consider? Jay could be right after Tyler, I'll give Tyler a chance to give a quick rebuttal.  So yeah, so Damon, what would you consider just like a bombing or what would you consider? I don't know, I think that civil wars are a lot harder to determine. I would say that prolonged sieges, executions, killings, shootings on a daily basis would probably be considered a war. But again, I think the standards for what classifies a civil war are probably pretty complicated. It's not really my area of expertise. So my thing is, is that I think our fundamental disagreement is that from what it sounds like what you've just been saying over and over again, which is a lot of words, is just that we are not gonna win. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just... I mean, I've heard that one like literally a thousand times. You're just saying that, hey, well, citizens, you're not gonna win, so what's the point, right? So my thing is that, well, no, even if, even if you're saying that, well, it's unlikely that we're gonna win, that seems to be more of a reason that, okay, well, then we need to make sure that we have this level of weaponry, right? So the government has already, government has bombed its citizens, the government goes against its citizens all the time. So to say, I know you're not saying that they wouldn't, but if they are doing those things, it makes logical sense that we would need the weapons that we need to minimize the casualties on our side when we will go over to the casualties objectively. Let me ask you this. Once again, just because Jake's been patiently waiting. So we'll give you maybe a really quick rebuttal, even mama, and then quick over to J