The Culture War - Tim Pool - Feminism Is DESTROYING America, It's Reviving Wokeness & Introducing Communism w⧸ Andrew Wilson, Straighterade & Jennifer Galardi

00:00:00.000 Welcome to the Culture War, I'm Andrew Wilson. I'm here to host this thing today. I don't

00:00:06.420 know where Tim Pool is, and I forgot my beanie. Here with a great panel, we're going to be

00:00:12.060 discussing feminism. So the actual prompt here is, is feminism bringing in communism 0.89

00:00:19.240 as a resurgence? And is it, what's the rest of the prompt? What is the rest of the prompt?

00:00:23.860 Uh, is feminism is destroying America? That's too long. Yeah, is feminism destroying America? 1.00

00:00:31.160 Yeah, all that stuff. Yeah, exactly. So we're going to get into all of that. It's going to

00:00:35.520 be wonderful. It's going to be great. We got Straight Raid here with us. We got Ian here

00:00:39.660 with us. Oh God, Ian. If Ian argues with me, even one time, we play Hell Divers together

00:00:46.080 and I told him, like, there's going to be so many team kills. And then of course, on

00:00:49.780 this side of the table, we have Jennifer. So, uh, with that, let's roll right into our

00:00:55.720 first ad. It is bearskin. Oh boy. My friends, you've heard of the bearskin hoodie because

00:01:02.480 you watch the show, you know, and you need to get one now. Smart people are grabbing theirs

00:01:06.860 now because when it's already freezing, you want the gear that actually keeps you warm.

00:01:10.560 Bearskin is running a 60% off deal right now. So you can finally upgrade the sad excuse for

00:01:15.340 a winter hoodie you've been suffering in. You've been suffering, trust me.

00:01:19.780 These hoodies are built for serious cold weather. It's got 340 GSM of bearskin fleece,

00:01:24.480 10 legit pockets, a muscular fit, and even zips into the heavy storm rain jacket to turn

00:01:29.760 into full winter waterproof armor. Whether you're into hiking, hunting, traveling,

00:01:33.920 just hate being cold. It's the last hoodie you'll ever need. You'll get the free U.S.

00:01:37.760 shipping, fast delivery, and you're finally kitted out properly for winter. So it's a win-win.

00:01:44.200 Do yourself a favor, text the word TIM to 36912 to lock in your 60% off. Again, text TIM to 36912.

00:01:53.520 You'll get a link sent straight to your phone so you can check it out later if you're busy right now.

00:01:57.960 And when you shop with bearskin, you're not just getting killer gear. You're also supporting the

00:02:02.040 fallen outdoors and the hope for the Warriors veterans programs. Don't wait till you're freezing

00:02:06.820 to realize your hoodie socks. Get bearskin now. Wallet 60% off. Text TIM to 36912. You can also

00:02:13.240 check out baer.skin slash TIM. Thanks for sponsoring the show, guys.

00:02:18.140 It is Rumble Wallet on the App Store. My friends, you got to check it out.

00:02:23.840 Take, they can cancel your accounts. They can freeze your cards, decide what you're allowed to buy,

00:02:27.540 say or support. Big banks and financial institutions have total control and they use it.

00:02:31.540 That's why financial independence matters now more than ever. Go to wallet.rumble.com.

00:02:38.160 It's non-custodial. Okay, let's break this down. What does it mean?

00:02:41.160 On the Rumble Wallet, you can trade crypto with people who have accounts on Rumble. It's like an

00:02:46.460 app where you can send people cash, but it's either Tether, Tether Gold or Bitcoin, making it really easy

00:02:52.920 for you to tip people on Rumble and pay somebody money you owe them. Maybe you're going to the store and

00:02:59.580 you're like, hey man, I want to get a slice of pizza. I didn't bring cash. Hey, let me Rumble

00:03:03.100 Wallet use some Tether, which is effectively tied. It is effectively US dollars. It's tied to the US

00:03:07.660 dollar. There's no permission, no middleman, no cancel button. No one's banning you. No one's

00:03:11.600 spending your accounts. Rumble has no control over this. There's no reality where Rumble can go in

00:03:16.440 and ban you and shut down your ability to trade your currency. It is yours. It's not a credit line

00:03:22.060 that can be shut off. It's your wallet, permanently yours. When the systems fail, institutions turn on

00:03:27.340 their own people. Rumble Wallet is about politics, it's about freedom and ownership and protecting

00:03:31.120 what's yours. So take control, download Rumble Wallet now, step away from the big banks, go to

00:03:35.940 wallet.rumble.com and check it out. We got a link for you too. I think it's, okay, well, that's not a

00:03:43.100 good link I can say, but I'll have a link in the description below. Check it out. And we're back.

00:03:49.040 Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to dive into the topic. Before we do,

00:03:53.280 I want to go around the table, have everybody introduce themselves, kind of tell you a little

00:03:57.400 bit, just briefly about themselves, where you can find them. Hi, my name is Straderade, aka Erin.

00:04:03.360 I go, I'm live on Twitch, YouTube, doing React Stream political commentary Monday through Friday.

00:04:08.920 And then there's an empty chair over there, but the reason for that is because Ian never brings

00:04:13.280 anything to any conversation, so I send him to get me coffee. Over here. I'm Jennifer Gilardi. I'm a

00:04:18.560 senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, but for the purposes of this conversation, I was a

00:04:24.760 former feminist, 20 years in California, kind of got brainwashed and then saw the light around COVID, 0.98

00:04:34.580 started questioning things, and finally came back to being a normal woman, I'd like to say.

00:04:40.480 It's super hot. You might want to take the lid off and let it cool down.

00:04:43.940 Well, thank you, Ian. Ian, do you want to give your introduction? Yeah, I started making YouTube

00:04:48.000 videos in 2006, because I was like, what would Jesus do with this? I was having all these epiphanies

00:04:52.100 about saving the world, you know? I'm like, communication. If we can communicate, we can

00:04:57.040 overcome almost any issue. Almost, like, humanity is a pretty good track record of overcoming most of

00:05:03.060 our issues, even with global internet and stuff. So it's like the manifestation of it, 20 years later,

00:05:07.300 I'm glad we're doing something like this. This is great. Let's go.

00:05:10.380 How's it working out, though? Is YouTube saving the world?

00:05:12.880 A charmed life. I could never, I mean, it could be better. I could be a billionaire,

00:05:17.100 throwing money at this and that, but, and I didn't, AI is another issue, you know,

00:05:22.180 in the mechanicization of the universes. Could be, like, the dehumanization and the

00:05:27.660 robotization could be a problem, but, you know, I don't know. I'm not a luddite, but I think it's.

00:05:34.200 How many drugs, Ian? It's the best time to ever live as a human. Is that even debatable?

00:05:39.220 A lot of drugs? A little bit of drugs. Okay, a little bit of drugs.

00:05:42.160 Wired on caffeine right now. So, Erin, you're a communist.

00:05:45.640 I am a communist, yeah.

00:05:46.440 Okay, dive into that a little bit.

00:05:49.680 All for the stateless, classless, moneyless society, promote social equality. But I do think

00:05:55.620 that politics is more than just what we say we are. I feel that's, like, an ideological tenant

00:05:59.600 of mine that's kind of in my brain. But as far as, like, the actual change that I effectuate in the

00:06:03.360 world, it's pretty unexceptional and boring. I'm not out here organizing general strikes and

00:06:08.340 tenants and trying to get, like, a tenants union or anything like that. For the most part,

00:06:11.880 I advocate people engage in electoral politics, local politics at, you know, the municipal,

00:06:18.540 state, federal level. I generally align with Democrats on most things. On some, I'll be,

00:06:22.640 like, an independent or whatever. But I realize I'm further left than the majority of Americans.

00:06:26.460 But as far as, like, what I can achieve now or whatever, it's like, you know, I am pushing for,

00:06:32.700 like, a utopia here.

00:06:33.840 Yeah, you're promoting it as an ideology, though, you would say.

00:06:37.080 Okay. And you're pretty unabashed, unashamed about.

00:06:40.060 Yes.

00:06:40.380 Okay, gotcha.

00:06:41.300 And I would say that most, a lot of people that identify themselves as socialists are communists,

00:06:46.160 but because communism is, like, dirty word in America due to the Red Scare, people generally

00:06:50.120 in America not being so far left or whatever, they say socialist. But these are used largely,

00:06:56.100 like, interchangeably.

00:06:57.660 Well, how do we distinguish between what's a socialist and what's a communist?

00:07:00.420 I think it really comes down, honestly, to self-identification as far as most socialists

00:07:05.200 are more interested in, like, like, as far as ideology, they're more interested in preserving,

00:07:09.360 you know, some state apparatuses, have more, I think, priority over the sort of short term,

00:07:15.260 but there's not really a major distinction between them.

00:07:17.240 Okay, gotcha.

00:07:17.840 Which is why if socialists call themselves communists and communists call themselves

00:07:21.080 socialists, I don't really think that's...

00:07:22.840 So part of the prompt is, is feminism reviving wokeness and is it reviving communism?

00:07:29.040 Would you say that, would you, first, would you self-identify as a feminist? 1.00

00:07:33.520 Yeah.

00:07:34.060 Okay. And then do you think that it's bringing back communism?

00:07:37.520 No. But I don't think we've ever, there's ever been communism,

00:07:40.080 unless you can think of a communist society.

00:07:41.940 Well, is it moving us towards that or helping to move us towards that?

00:07:45.060 Yes.

00:07:45.080 Okay, ideologically. Okay. So that's not in dispute. And then do you think it's reviving wokeness?

00:07:51.280 No. But what is, what do you mean by wokeness?

00:07:53.220 Well, that's, I'm asking you from your metric, whatever, whatever you think wokeness is.

00:07:59.140 Um, I mean, generally speaking, like, wokeness is kind of this catch-all term that I feel like

00:08:04.960 people just play fast and loose with. Sometimes they mean kind of the excesses of social justice.

00:08:09.960 Other times it means kind of literally any promotion of social inequality.

00:08:14.060 Um, that's probably closer to my understanding of it or what constitutes, like, woke ideas.

00:08:20.460 And in that sense, yeah, feminism is moving us closer to, towards a more woke society. 1.00

00:08:24.740 Okay. I feel like we understand the ideology a little bit. And then over here,

00:08:28.200 let's dive into the same questions, exact same ones.

00:08:30.980 First, feminism, do you identify as a feminist? 1.00

00:08:35.520 No.

00:08:35.740 Okay. And then, uh, is feminism assisting with the revival of communism or moving us towards

00:08:41.680 that ideologically?

00:08:42.920 Yes. The communists use feminism as a tool to, to further communism. So the first international 0.96

00:08:50.080 day of women was, was founded and formulated by communists.

00:08:53.600 And then is it reviving wokeness?

00:08:55.260 Um, I didn't really, I didn't ever see wokeness really die. I saw maybe, uh, kind of moving away 0.98

00:09:03.020 from it in the past, you know, three, four years, but I don't think it's dead. I think it's alive

00:09:09.020 and well.

00:09:09.540 So since wokeness is such a nebulous term and both of you have kind of agreed that that's a

00:09:14.080 nebulous term, let's leave that off of the table for the purpose of the debate. And we'll focus on

00:09:18.520 whether or not feminism is destroying America and whether or not it's moving us towards communism. 1.00

00:09:23.380 And if that's a good thing, you think it is, you think it isn't. Uh, so with that,

00:09:27.800 I'll open the floor here a little bit so we can get kind of back and forth into this debate. So,

00:09:32.680 uh, it's a pro side for feminists. You can go ahead and open. 1.00

00:09:36.340 Pro side. I see a lot more upsides and downsides to the promotion of the social equality, economic

00:09:41.500 equality of women alongside, uh, men. I largely think that this promotes, uh, you know, better

00:09:48.640 social attitudes and relationships between, uh, genders, the sexes, however you want to,

00:09:53.380 you know, whichever lines you want to divide it amongst. I see more participation in the economy

00:09:59.140 as a net good, but overall, I also really care about, um, and I think most feminists care about 1.00

00:10:04.840 personal liberty, personal freedom. And the primary thing I'm always concerned about is people just

00:10:09.900 being able to have the ability to kind of make the choices in their life that they feel comfortable

00:10:14.420 with. If that means embracing motherhood, the family, being a stay at home mom, that's great.

00:10:19.700 If that means working and raising a family simultaneously, that's fine. If that means

00:10:24.260 solely working and you're not interested in kids, I think all of these things are fine. It just,

00:10:28.340 uh, yeah, I just want people to women specifically to largely be able to be in charge of the decisions 1.00

00:10:33.600 that dictate their life. Promise. I'll let you get into it before you do. You might have a little

00:10:37.580 opening that you want to give there to kind of in response. Well, I think the opening is, is kind of

00:10:42.580 pushing back on all those points because feminism never was about, well, we're okay with you doing 0.94

00:10:48.180 what you do and you do. It was, it was very antagonistic towards women who wanted to stay

00:10:52.920 in the home, especially if we want to call it second wave, sexual liberty, whatever it was,

00:10:57.980 it was, um, you're a slave, it's enslavement, you know, the drudgery of motherhood. It was

00:11:04.260 constantly framed as you are trapped by motherhood. Motherhood is a trap. So to say that feminism 1.00

00:11:11.880 promotes, Oh, it's just, you do what you do. That's a good choice. That's a good choice. That's

00:11:15.740 not, it did value women's independence over other choices. And it saw children as burdens,

00:11:23.900 which then gave rise to more abortions. And it, it really wanted to, I think, make women a superior 0.78

00:11:30.140 sex to men. Um, it, you know, it triumphed independence over everything else, over codependence,

00:11:39.300 over roles. So I don't, you know, I don't think that that's true. That feminism is all about just 1.00

00:11:47.740 choice. And then I think you also have to define what freedom is. Well, the first thing we should

00:11:52.220 do is make sure we get both of your definitions of feminism so that we're not speaking past each 1.00

00:11:56.780 other. Right. So starting with you, what we, how would you kind of define it? Now I understand you're

00:12:01.560 not going to be able to give me an Oxford definition and I'm not asking you to, uh, just even a proprietary.

00:12:07.120 Olivia loves a challenge. It's why she lifts heavy weights and likes complicated recipes. 1.00

00:12:16.040 But for booking her trip to Paris, Olivia chose the easy way with Expedia. She bundled her flight

00:12:21.120 with a hotel to save more. Of course, she still climbed all 674 steps to the top of the Eiffel

00:12:27.120 Town. You were made to take the easy route. We were made to easily package your trip. Expedia,

00:12:34.260 made to travel.

00:12:37.620 So we understand where you're coming from from the world view.

00:12:39.300 I would say the promotion of social equality between, uh, men, women, sexes, genders on,

00:12:45.500 uh, economic grounds as well. And prioritizing, you know, uh, liberty, independence for women,

00:12:51.980 uh, within that, obviously, I think it's not really, you know, the characterization you just

00:12:57.580 gave of what you understand to be feminism. There, there, I find a lot of people that push back

00:13:02.300 against feminists or like feminist goals, feminist aims kind of have this caricature of what they 1.00

00:13:06.400 believe the goals of feminism are, which is supremacy to men, supremacy over men rather than 1.00

00:13:10.960 equality. And I think to the extent that you can make that argument, uh, you know, the promotion

00:13:15.320 of social equality between the sexes might, but hang on, hang on. Let's just start with kind of a

00:13:19.520 summarized definition that we can work for.

00:13:22.540 But just generally, yeah, promotion of social inequality, but not supremacy over other genders 0.58

00:13:27.340 around to me. I mean, that's fine. We can, we can even look up. I mean, if we want to look up

00:13:31.280 what the dictionary definition, you don't have to use a proprietary one, but just the thing is,

00:13:38.340 is it doesn't matter. It's how has it played out, right? The definitions at some point don't matter.

00:13:43.520 The technical definitions with something with a movement, right? It is what people think it is.

00:13:49.000 And it is what the consequences to society has been. And the consequences have been taking women 1.00

00:13:55.180 out of the homes, um, trying to, uh, trying to, you know, it's weird because feminism says it's for 1.00

00:14:04.680 women, but what it's resulted in is men become women becoming more like men and almost regarding

00:14:11.060 men as the superior sex. That's how it's, that's how it's played out. 0.99

00:14:15.920 Very quickly. Maybe we can, we can summarize this easily then the official definition here,

00:14:21.380 the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality and sexes. I think that that's up for

00:14:25.940 dispute. I would just add that it's a movement towards egalitarianism, right? And the attempt

00:14:32.740 to deconstruct the patriarchy. Would you agree that that's about right in summarization?

00:14:37.580 I think that's important. The deconstruction of the patriarchy is an important term.

00:14:41.060 So now we've, we've established kind of something that we can both work off of here

00:14:45.460 for, for the purpose of the debate. And I'm sorry, we had to caveat this a little bit,

00:14:49.080 but I want to get to the heart of the issue or we'll never be able to debate it.

00:14:52.200 And even to segment this into four more complex things is there's four waves of feminism up to 1.00

00:14:57.340 this point and they're all different. And they, they use the same word feminism with the dev is 1.00

00:15:01.540 a different definition in every era that you see it. Like the women's right to vote was a big part. 1.00

00:15:06.120 The thing is though, is that she, she just said the advocacy of women's rights on the base of

00:15:10.860 equality and the deconstruction of patriarchy. She agrees for now. Well, they're operating off of this

00:15:16.960 worldview regardless of the wave. And so if that's going to help us get to the heart of the matter,

00:15:21.280 then let's use that to get to the heart of the matter. And I'm going to kind of open the floor

00:15:24.640 here a little bit. The other thing is that first, what we consider first wave in America, feminism, 1.00

00:15:29.280 which wasn't really the first wave because it goes back further than that. But in America,

00:15:32.960 the first wave, the suffrage movement, um, you know, the women, the right for women not to be defined

00:15:38.080 as property, they didn't identify as feminists. They didn't call themselves feminists. Um, 1.00

00:15:44.080 no, I can argue that I didn't even believe that their, their understanding of taking over the

00:15:48.400 patriarchy was correct. However, that, that term came to them retroactively. So that's just,

00:15:54.960 that's one thing. Yeah. You did say something earlier. Um, like Andrew was saying, just like

00:16:00.320 broadly, we've agreed upon this definition for the purposes of the debate. But as Ian mentioned,

00:16:05.280 there have been different iterations of, you know, first wave feminism, which is primarily what you 1.00

00:16:09.360 talked about women's suffrage, uh, political representation, uh, via voting, and then you

00:16:14.400 had like second wave feminism. And that is where you actually did see more attitudes where feminists 1.00

00:16:18.560 were speaking out against women being confined to the family. You have feminists like Betty for Dan, 1.00

00:16:22.960 who talked about, you know, the problem that has no name, um, and how communist, uh, suburbia and

00:16:28.240 these sorts of things. And, uh, you know, while they may promise a kind of dream life for women, 0.99

00:16:33.360 where they have the nuclear family, they're raising their kids, they're supported by a husband. 0.90

00:16:37.120 These don't actually fulfill or live up to what they promise. And they leave women feeling

00:16:41.280 alienated, depressed, et cetera. Um, and then you have, you know, third and fourth wave feminism that 1.00

00:16:46.640 are more often than not coming in contradiction now with second wave feminism, as they're more 1.00

00:16:51.360 interested in expanding equality for women beyond, uh, the basis of sex solely.

00:16:57.040 But you would agree they're all moving towards the same goal.

00:16:59.840 But they're all broadly moving in the same goal, but there are a few times where, you know,

00:17:04.080 you do see differences like, like second wave feminists more likely to identify as like, 1.00

00:17:08.560 uh, you know, turfs, you know, the Andrew Dworkin and whatnot.

00:17:11.760 Because they see how to, how they protect women in a different way from their view,

00:17:16.080 but they're still attempting to deconstruct the patriarchy on behalf of egalitarianism,

00:17:20.640 right? Yeah. You would agree that each wave has this in common.

00:17:23.680 Yes. Yeah. Okay. So I think, I think we can consolidate that a bit. Go ahead.

00:17:27.920 So you go, you said, um, that the promise of marriage family wasn't fulfilled, you know,

00:17:33.280 women at home weren't fulfilled. I would say the opposite now.

00:17:35.760 I said that those feminists and second wave, like ready for Dan argument. 1.00

00:17:39.440 Right. So how's that working out for us now? Because the promises that the,

00:17:44.320 those women made that you'll be happier when you're independent, you'll be happier when you 0.83

00:17:48.800 can work like a man, when you can make money like a man, when you can have consumer purchasing

00:17:52.880 power, like a man, it doesn't seem to be working out so well.

00:17:56.320 There are upwards of 60% of women on SSRIs. We see this war between the sexes. Men and women 1.00

00:18:04.640 are not dating. They're not reproducing. They're not happy. They're miserable. Look at the women 1.00

00:18:11.200 out in Minnesota right now. I've never seen angrier women in my life. They have no direction. They 1.00

00:18:16.960 have no purpose. And they're fat. And I, you know, we can make an argument that there is an anger, 0.98

00:18:24.640 there is an inherent anger at the way God has made women. They are, they are rebelling against 0.95

00:18:30.960 what women would see as God as the patriarch. They are rebelling against their own form and function, 1.00

00:18:37.360 their wombs, their innate design. You can call it God, you can call it natural law, whatever you

00:18:46.240 want to call it. There's just this anger for themselves at who they are and what they were

00:18:50.640 made to do.

00:19:03.200 I don't disagree with you that they have the ability to start a family, etc. I don't disagree

00:19:06.720 with you that all of these problems persist throughout society. I just disagree with you

00:19:10.640 that it's the result of feminism, largely to the extent, or like when you talked about 1.00

00:19:16.240 there being higher instances of use for women like with SSRIs. What do you believe is the

00:19:21.200 reason for that? Do you really think it's just feminism? 1.00

00:19:24.080 I think it's a big part of it. I think it's, it's, they believe the lie that independence

00:19:29.280 is the primary virtue for women. I think that, you know, men and women are meant to be

00:19:36.160 complementary. They're meant to support each other's strengths. I don't think men and women are equal. 1.00

00:19:42.320 I think they're equal under the law. I don't think they're equal under natural order.

00:19:47.680 You know, and I'll play devil's advocate. I've been in a hospital with my mother the past week,

00:19:51.760 and I have to say the women doctors, I enjoyed them more because they, they, they weren't so 0.96

00:19:57.920 offended when I asked them questions. I know enough about the medical field to be dangerous.

00:20:01.920 And when I would ask them questions, it was like their, their ego wasn't bruised, right?

00:20:06.240 So I liked their bedside manner more. So there are certain careers that I think women and men can 1.00

00:20:11.360 both excel in. But when it comes to a surgeon, I don't care what his bedside manner is. If he's

00:20:15.440 working on my mother, I want him. And what I don't want is unfair. They're, that they're not,

00:20:22.320 they're being hired based on their sexual characteristics, right? Not on their, not on

00:20:27.200 their merit merit. Right. So anyway, I kind of went down, I veered off a little bit with that. But

00:20:31.840 all that to say is like, I'm not saying women can't work. What I'm saying is they, the second wave 0.99

00:20:37.120 feminists, what they promised has not come to fruition. Just like you said, what the family promised. 1.00

00:20:42.320 And I would say the family, the, the main cause of women being, uh, kind of depressed, 1.00

00:20:48.480 needing mother's little helper, right? In the fifties and the sixties was because it, it, it,

00:20:54.480 it was the industrial era. Everything used to be centered around the home. The whole economy

00:20:59.600 that we used to have with agrarian culture was, was almost like communist. It was sharing.

00:21:06.240 It was communitarian. It was communitarian. Right. And so, so when the industrial revolution

00:21:11.520 took the men out of the home, I understand why women felt burdened. They lost their partner.

00:21:17.200 They lost their mate. So we're going to have to shift. Like there's, I'm not saying there can't be

00:21:20.880 changes to how the family functions, that we need to go back to the agrarian. We're not going back 0.99

00:21:26.640 there, but the, you can't, I don't think you can deny the fact that a family unit, a mother and a

00:21:33.520 father and a loving relationship with children is, is the best to build a society.

00:21:39.760 I do think that the most important thing is that children feel supported. And right now,

00:21:44.320 given the current economic order, dual income households are necessary for people to be able

00:21:48.960 to adequately support all children that they have. But returning to a claim that you made earlier,

00:21:52.560 you said you don't believe that men and women are equal, right?

00:21:54.640 Um, not in, not by design, not by design, but you did say equal under the law. Do you support,

00:22:00.720 um, repealing the 19th amendment? Do you think that women should ought to be able to vote? 1.00

00:22:04.640 Uh, you know, I think that can be up for debate about the pros and cons of it. The fact of the

00:22:10.320 matter, again, it's definitions. It's never going to happen. It's not, it's not politically.

00:22:14.400 Hang on, hang on, hang on. I know it's up for debate, but that's what we're here. We're debating.

00:22:19.440 Right. But I also want to, I also don't want to get off. I don't want to go down into the weeds

00:22:23.920 into this. It's not going to happen. It's not, it's not politically viable.

00:22:28.720 I don't think it's the weeds to, to ask the questions, a fair question to ask.

00:22:33.360 Repeal the 19th or no.

00:22:37.120 I can see benefits from it. Yes.

00:22:40.160 So yes, you support it.

00:22:42.160 I haven't, to be honest, I would need to think about it more because I don't give.

00:22:46.240 You haven't thought about whether women ought to be able to vote? 0.99

00:22:48.880 Yeah, no, I've thought about that, but I can see the pros and cons of both. I do think that,

00:22:54.080 you know, as a single woman with no children, married couples, men and women have more skin

00:23:01.360 in the game about what happens to this country when you have something to pass down. I would say I'd

00:23:08.320 like to see things, but it's not as, it doesn't, it's not as visceral for me. I don't have children.

00:23:14.720 So what happens to this country after I'm gone? I can say, yes, I care, but I'm not passing anything

00:23:20.800 down. My kitty's not going to outlive me. You know, I love that cat to death, but you know what?

00:23:25.840 The truth is, so I can see why that only married couples with children should vote. 0.94

00:23:32.400 Now, assuming they are looking after the best for the whole country because of their,

00:23:38.240 they want to see this country thrive. I want to see it thrive too, but I don't have,

00:23:42.800 I don't have skin in the game as much. Let's say I don't have as much skin in the game as parents. So

00:23:47.120 I can make the argument. Would I, would I really want it to happen? Probably not,

00:23:51.600 but I can understand the argument. So why wouldn't you want it to happen?

00:23:56.400 Because I like, selfishly, I like having a say in what happens, but I, I went, I was out in

00:24:02.640 California completely apolitical. Well, not apolitical. I kind of got brainwashed and tugged

00:24:07.440 along, but I didn't vote for years. Nothing changed. Do you vote now?

00:24:11.440 My life, huh? Do you vote now?

00:24:12.800 Yeah. And you voted, who did you vote for in the most recent election?

00:24:15.920 Trump. I see. So I guess it's unclear to me why you would view that as selfish when I think the

00:24:23.600 principle being, you know, no taxation without representation is generally defensible. And I

00:24:28.560 don't see that as any more, you know, particularly self-interested or selfish. I do think it's

00:24:34.160 reasonable for participants in a society, regardless of their sex, gender, et cetera,

00:24:38.160 to want to be able to vote and have representation within, you know, representative or constitutional

00:24:44.400 republic, representative, democracy, et cetera, other than the United States.

00:24:48.000 Uh, so. But I can say a lot of the policies.

00:24:50.960 You wouldn't push for it, right? Not only because you think it's unrealistic, but I think that you

00:24:54.880 also seem to believe that it would be more unjust than just to push to repeal the 19th amendment.

00:24:59.760 I just don't see the policies that would come down from institutions of which I voted for. And they

00:25:09.280 actually don't change my life a lot.

00:25:11.280 I mean, maybe taxes, but like, let's say for, um, like medical care. I don't know. I've always kind

00:25:33.680 of lived outside the system. So personally, I don't think it would really matter to me.

00:25:40.240 But again, it wouldn't matter to you if you have the right to vote or if the 19th amendment were

00:25:43.840 repealed. I don't think it would change my, how I lived my life one way or the other that much.

00:25:48.320 I think it would change your life significantly. And I do think that you believe it's important

00:25:51.760 to be able to vote because you participated in our last political election.

00:25:54.480 I did.

00:25:54.880 And since you don't believe that, you know, if you believe that women's role should 1.00

00:25:58.000 primarily be relegated to the home, what are your thoughts on the Trump administration

00:26:01.200 having an unprecedented amount of women in power? Even both, both the first and second term, 1.00

00:26:05.840 like the first term he appointed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, that nomination went 0.97

00:26:10.320 through. So Trump's not a sexist, um, misogynist. No, I didn't go that far.

00:26:14.480 So he's a sexist misogynist who puts women in power?

00:26:17.360 Uh, no, I don't think those are mutually exclusive. Do you?

00:26:20.080 Well, I don't, I don't see a lot of misogynists who are sexist putting women in power. No. 1.00

00:26:23.360 But do you, so you think it's mutually exclusive? 0.91

00:26:25.600 Can you like, can you name for me the most sexist misogynist person you can think of who's

00:26:29.600 like, I love having women in power? Can you tell me if you believe it's mutually exclusive 0.99

00:26:33.200 first? Answer the question before you ask one.

00:26:35.120 I asked the question first and you never answered mine. No, I asked the question first.

00:26:37.680 I said, do you believe that it's mutually exclusive? Hang on, hang on. I asked the question first

00:26:41.600 and the question was, do you see a lot of misogynist sexist putting women in power or not? 0.95

00:26:46.880 And I asked my clarifying question first to get an understanding of where you're coming from.

00:26:50.320 Hang on, hang on, hang on. I'm sorry. I'm so confused. Which part of this are you not

00:26:53.920 understanding? Do you see a lot of misogynist sexist putting women in power or not? Anything

00:27:01.600 in there you need to find? Hang on. Anything in there you need to find, I'll define for you.

00:27:06.080 I like to answer your question. Okay, where?

00:27:09.040 The Bush administration. His secretary of state was Condoleezza Rice. I don't think that George

00:27:13.120 Bush would identify himself neither as a feminist nor somebody who really particularly championed him.

00:27:16.960 Did George Bush put a lot of women in power? 1.00

00:27:18.160 Um, yeah, I believe so. I don't think that he had quite the amount of appointees of female

00:27:23.120 appointees and people and women within his cabinet. So we just generally, so we just generally look

00:27:28.000 around at like corporations that put women and says boss CEOs and things like this and go those 0.99

00:27:33.600 fucking misogynist. Or does that usually mean something different? Like for instance, do you 0.99

00:27:38.240 think that maybe that would mean or give evidence towards they're not actually misogynistic sexist?

00:27:44.160 Wouldn't that be better evidence for that? No. I don't think so.

00:27:48.240 I think because it would be very naive to think that just because you're appointing or elevating

00:27:52.960 women to positions of status and authority, um, even ones as great as like political authority, 1.00

00:27:58.800 secretaries, et cetera, that that means the end you're like presupposing that those women in those 1.00

00:28:03.760 positions of power being appointed are fine with the social equality of women or feminists, 1.00

00:28:07.680 those sexist and misogynist always empowering women. That's a, that's like a contradiction in 1.00

00:28:13.120 terms. I don't think so. I think they're totally, it's a contradiction in terms.

00:28:16.400 Empowering women that have very rigid ideas of what womanhood and what women ought to be doing 0.99

00:28:21.280 with their lives. Um, and in those ways.

00:28:23.760 Which is what? Girl bossing in the administration? The most powerful positions in the world? 1.00

00:28:28.560 Those damn misogynists? 1.00

00:28:29.760 Do you think that, uh, it's mutually exclusive that you could be sexist, but also appoint a lot 1.00

00:28:34.400 of women to positions of power? I think, I think that it's logically possible, but practically 1.00

00:28:39.360 improbable. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. So do you agree with me that Superman's logically possible?

00:28:44.640 Yes. But practically impossible? Correct.

00:28:46.640 Okay, great. Glad we got that cleared up. Yeah. So sometimes it takes me a while to form my

00:28:51.440 arguments. So I do want to go back to your, like the voting thing. Um, because I do believe that

00:28:56.880 any policies that consider children first will be fundamentally good for all of society. So if the

00:29:03.440 people that are voting for those policies have a vested interest in the continuation of our country

00:29:09.920 as, as you know, a free, um, Republic, democratic Republic, if they consider the children first,

00:29:17.760 I think that's good for everybody. So that would kind of be my argument for that. And then you asked me

00:29:22.480 about, um, about his, his administration being women. I didn't say women can't work. I didn't say 0.96

00:29:29.040 they, they, they will only be fulfilled by a family. Like I said, I'm, I'm single. I don't have a family.

00:29:35.520 I just think for the most part, for most women, the lie that they were sold. And, and I, I guarantee

00:29:42.320 if you ask any of these women in the administration, if they were asked to give up their job to put their

00:29:46.880 family first, they would, I know Caroline Levitt would, um, she's probably the worst example you 1.00

00:29:51.840 could have picked. She went, she had her baby and then declined to have a maternity leave. I think 0.93

00:29:56.400 after like maybe two, three days after giving birth, she was right back on the job because she said it

00:30:01.760 was her duty to do this because Donald Trump had faced, I think I can't remember if it was one or two

00:30:06.160 assassination attempts at that time, but that's an example of a working woman that actually put her 1.00

00:30:10.720 motherly duties secondary to her professional life. But she's also working for someone that she sees that

00:30:16.160 is going to secure the future for her child. Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that she is

00:30:20.320 prioritizing girl bossing it up and going to work and her professional attainment. You don't know 0.99

00:30:25.840 what's in her head though. No, but I can draw inferences based on what she's saying.

00:30:28.880 But you don't know why she's doing what she's doing. You, I bet if you asked her, 0.99

00:30:32.720 she would say, I want to secure a future for my child that isn't going to tell me that my daughter 0.99

00:30:38.880 can become a boy. And it's temporary. Her job is only three more years.

00:30:43.120 Yeah. I'm sure that's her cope answer. Her job is three years.

00:30:47.520 Her subjective intent, when you analyze the effect that she's having on the world,

00:30:51.040 her actions, uh, yeah, she's putting herself first over her domestic duties of being a mother 1.00

00:30:56.560 when she could have taken that maternity leave. She could have done that, but she chose to 0.91

00:30:59.840 get ahead of her career. Didn't you say earlier that you have to,

00:31:02.880 by necessity, have a two income household? Uh, yeah, for the most part. Yeah. If you want to have

00:31:07.680 the best outcomes. Then I understand if it's the case that women need to have a two income 1.00

00:31:12.320 household, right? Then aren't they being forced into work situations? And if that's the case,

00:31:16.960 how can you say that her subjective intent is not to put her family first if the requirement to feed

00:31:22.160 her family's to work? I said that I think that that's her cope answer because it just seems to me

00:31:27.760 incongruent given the types of beliefs, but it seems like Caroline Levitt seems like your answer

00:31:32.320 is P and not P is kind of rules for the, not for me. Yeah, sure. Like she will make the prescription

00:31:37.440 that other women ought to, you know, focus on raising their family, their domestic duties, 1.00

00:31:41.920 being a good wife, et cetera. Yeah, maybe let's assume for a second, hang on, hang on, hang on. 1.00

00:31:46.880 There's kids all over there. Let's assume for a moment you're right. And she's a total hypocrite 1.00

00:31:50.800 and completely wrong. Right. That does nothing for your position. No, I'm not saying, I'm not 1.00

00:31:54.960 saying it does. I was only saying, hang on, hang on. Let me finish. Let me finish. I'm just saying

00:31:58.960 that does nothing for your position because your position's P and not P. It's like, yeah,

00:32:02.640 we require two incomes in order to raise a family, but look at her girl bossing out there working, 1.00

00:32:08.240 not prioritizing her family. That would be P and not P. Andrew, I'm doing an internal critique. I'm

00:32:14.320 saying that based off of Caroline Levitt's espoused personal values, that her actions are at odds with

00:32:20.000 that. Now, I personally don't believe that there's an issue with a woman who is able to provide for 1.00

00:32:24.640 her child via hiring nannies, private childcare, if her husband, et cetera, returning to work and

00:32:30.000 declining to have an extended. Well, let me do the internal critique back. So then if she's out

00:32:34.560 there and she's working, right, you would say that she is prioritizing family values. Well, yeah, 0.95

00:32:40.800 under my belief system, I don't think that those are mutually exclusive. Okay. Well then the argument

00:32:45.200 that you have then is pretty weak here, isn't it? Because isn't, well, isn't your argument here that

00:32:51.600 women who are in a position where they're forced to work, right? They have to, in order to take care 1.00

00:32:56.480 of their families. Everybody has to work. That's not actually a feminist ideal then. That's no longer 1.00

00:33:00.800 within the domain of feminism, is it? Because it's a force to work rather than a choice to work. 1.00

00:33:06.000 I mean, I would agree. Yeah. But then that gets into...

00:33:07.200 Well, then you're arguing from... But that gets into criticisms of like our economic

00:33:13.360 system and the fact that we don't do more. Yeah, maybe, but we're talking about feminist 1.00

00:33:16.480 values right now. And you can't say that it's a feminist value now that women work, 1.00

00:33:20.880 because by your own logic, they have to. It sort of, I think, supports the claim that feminism has 1.00

00:33:26.640 or is destroying the United States in that in the 50s, they were like, hey, ladies, you should go get a

00:33:31.760 job. Don't feel like you have to be stuck at home. They're like, okay, great. So they went and got jobs.

00:33:35.040 And then there was two incomes for the family. Then the economy formed around that. And now

00:33:39.760 we're in a position where like, it's not even feminism anymore. Like, if you don't have two 1.00

00:33:42.800 incomes, you better be making twice as much as, you know, it's like in the 1%. I don't know what the

00:33:48.800 numbers are. Well, it can even be argued. I mean,

00:33:50.480 it depends on what you value. There's plenty of families that have a lot of children and they just,

00:33:55.840 again, is it ideal? But what's your priority? Is your priority vacations to the Bahamas,

00:34:01.280 vacations to Florida? You know, there's plenty of families that sacrifice to do better and best by

00:34:11.200 their children, which means a mother at home. So I think it depends on where you live. If you're

00:34:18.880 insisting on living in New York City and raising a family, then you're going to need a two income

00:34:24.640 thing. But if you decide to live and, um, you know, traveling here from West Palm Beach, I really

00:34:30.640 literally went coast to coast to Florida. The middle of Florida is nothing like either side.

00:34:35.680 Yeah. But do you see that her criticism of you now no longer makes sense because from her view,

00:34:41.120 I still have issues with the way that you're characterizing. Okay. And then you can respond,

00:34:46.000 I promise. But within your view, if she's out there working and girl bossing all day to bring 1.00

00:34:50.640 home that paycheck, that's not a feminist ideal. You criticizing women for working is now no longer 1.00

00:34:57.120 on the plate. How can it be on the plate if you say that it's a requirement for survival? So they

00:35:01.520 would be prioritizing family for it has nothing to do with feminism. 1.00

00:35:04.080 Well, I think there's a difference between what I'm criticizing is that yes, under our current

00:35:08.880 economic order, if you want to maximize the outcomes for your children, be able to provide

00:35:13.760 for them adequately, dual incomes is ideal. But for one, I also champion change to be able to support

00:35:20.320 young people, families, et cetera, being able to have access to paid paternity leave,

00:35:25.520 not have it all fall solely to the mother. It doesn't change the fact that they have to work.

00:35:29.440 Well, if I could just finish, paid maternity leave. And as far as yes, Caroline Levitt has 1.00

00:35:34.080 to work, but does she have to be part of the Trump administration? I do think that there's a 0.99

00:35:37.680 difference between a woman getting a job. So now you get to pick women's skill sets? 1.00

00:35:41.120 Or she's already there. I think there's a difference between a woman getting a job just 1.00

00:35:44.960 because she needs to be able to survive and then trying to allocate the majority of her time, 0.99

00:35:49.360 like minimize the amount of professional time that she needs to spend working to earn an income 1.00

00:35:53.120 for her family and then maximize the time in the home versus Caroline Levitt, 1.00

00:35:56.960 who is going out of her way to maximize the time that she spends outside of the home and 0.99

00:36:02.800 advancing her professional career. So she needs to be a part-time waitress. 1.00

00:36:05.760 No, she doesn't need to be, but I'm saying- Does she need to get back to the kitchen,

00:36:09.840 Erin? Does she need to get back to the kitchen? No, but I think under Caroline Levitt's personal 0.97

00:36:13.280 worldview, these are the sorts of things that she would be saying that women ought to be doing. 1.00

00:36:19.520 Women ought to be relegated primarily to the home, taking care of their kids' domestic life. 1.00

00:36:23.760 If that's the case and you're saying there's no avenue to do that because you need two incomes,

00:36:27.280 then she's not even in, she's not, she's congruent with your worldview without being a feminist right 1.00

00:36:32.720 this second. Do you, do you really think that there's a, there's no, there's no way to the fact

00:36:38.720 that you think this? No, I'm about to ask you thoughts on my position. Do you think that there

00:36:44.240 is not sort of any tension that exists between Caroline Levitt's stated views or our guests' stated

00:36:50.480 personal views as, but as like contrasted against their choices that don't align with what they

00:36:55.600 espouse? Do you think that there's not a tension that undermines their own ideology there? Yeah,

00:36:59.040 but all you're doing at that point is saying that the prisoner doesn't like the prison food,

00:37:02.240 but eats it anyway. And that's what your view now has reduced to. The prisoner doesn't like the prison

00:37:07.760 food, but he eats it anyway. It's a terrible argument. And you're also assuming-

00:37:12.000 That's not an argument at all. It's a descriptive observation for one. And for two,

00:37:15.360 my argument is that we ought to expand programs so we can support people doing these things.

00:37:19.760 It is an argument because you used it as support for feminism. That would be an argument, one. And 1.00

00:37:24.560 two, you can make observational arguments. That's the second thing. You know this from philosophy.

00:37:29.520 I've seen your videos. You know at least basic philosophy. Sure. Yeah, you can make descriptive

00:37:33.760 observations, but I think what we're more interested in is exploring the normative claims surrounding

00:37:37.680 these descriptive observations. Well, we haven't just, we haven't done any normative claims. That means

00:37:41.600 moral. We haven't gone into any moral anything. Yeah. Just let me say something. I think that

00:37:48.000 the idea of, of people who kind of what I call myself is after feminism, a world after feminism,

00:37:53.680 it's not going back to women not working, but I do believe again, there are biological difference 0.83

00:37:59.200 between men and women. You can discuss what different professions where they're catered to her. 0.77

00:38:03.920 She has a very kind of feminine role, like press secretary. A lot of the times is a woman 1.00

00:38:09.280 and you don't know how often that child is with her in the White House. They've been extremely

00:38:15.120 accommodating to children in the White House. There's a lot of people. Does she bring her kid

00:38:19.920 to work? Yeah. They bring them in the White House. Do you think that children ought to be in the

00:38:23.840 workplace? Just wait, let me just finish. Why not? Yeah. Why not? Yeah. Yeah. Why not?

00:38:28.080 Put those little bastards sweeping the chimneys. Do it immediately. I'm a four years old. I want the 1.00

00:38:32.720 child laborers. No, no, no. This goes back to home economics. Children used to work on the farm. 0.72

00:38:38.480 They used to be part, there was, they were part of a valuable economic structure of the home.

00:38:43.440 So maybe that's shifting from the home to the workplace. You know, maybe they're not providing

00:38:48.160 economically, but why not? Why not be flexible about having children when mother can breastfeed? 1.00

00:38:53.680 Why not be accommodating to having children around every night? It's not just take your

00:39:00.400 daughter to work one day, one day a year. And again, there are roles I think that are going to

00:39:07.120 be more feminine that I think that are more conducive to women fulfilling than a man.

00:39:12.480 We can talk about construction workers. Do you want to go down in a manhole and do that job?

00:39:17.520 No. Right. I don't think most men want to be doing backbreaking labor either. Hopefully we get to

00:39:22.800 a point where we can automate beyond these jobs, but yeah. But they're more physically,

00:39:26.320 they're more physically built. That's actually, that's actually objectively incorrect. They're

00:39:30.320 more physically built for those jobs. Well, it's not just a matter of more physically built for the jobs.

00:39:36.080 Men have preferences also to work with their hands. Yeah. 1.00

00:39:38.480 Oh, sorry, it was to go underground. I mean, there is. There's physiological, not just...

00:39:45.040 Men much more often have, they have preferences towards physical labor and working with their 0.88

00:39:50.080 hands. Maybe, because I wouldn't just say working with their hands, because you can do a lot of

00:39:54.160 things. You can create art with your hands. You can... That ain't working with your hands.

00:39:57.680 I played some guitar. I mean, there's a lot of... Get down with a face mask when you're welding in a

00:40:03.600 food... You're talking about getting dirty. That's working with your hands.

00:40:05.600 I mean, you're now putting your... That's not so much working with your hands. You're talking about

00:40:08.880 safety. And men are more willing to tolerate...

00:40:11.040 And men are more willing to tolerate... Working with their hands is going to be a safety hazard. 1.00

00:40:13.440 Anything. I think men are more willing to tolerate high-risk jobs,

00:40:17.760 right? Coal mining, digging trenches.

00:40:19.000 Well, it's not tolerate. They're capable of doing it.

00:40:21.340 And capable. Fine, that's both. And women don't have the same 1.00

00:40:23.360 physicality that men have. Correct. 0.96

00:40:25.680 And if the guy dies, the girl can still go give birth, but the guy can't go give birth 0.86

00:40:30.080 if the girl dies. Now, Erin, this is usually where the argument from Outlier comes in,

00:40:31.840 where you say, some women, some women can work on the oil rig. 1.00

00:40:35.840 Yeah, they can, but generally, we're not choosing to do that.

00:40:39.200 To answer your question, Jen, why you wouldn't bring kids into work, if they disrupt the work

00:40:42.880 environment, if they create a vulnerability, like they might get sick. So there's a lot of reasons why

00:40:50.720 little children should not be around a work environment.

00:40:52.880 I'm not saying 24-7, but I'm saying we can, I'm not, what I'm saying is we don't need to go back

00:40:58.480 to the agrarian age to make more accommodations for family-friendly policies.

00:41:03.520 I agree with you on that. I do think that this more, as like society is becoming more secular,

00:41:07.920 I think that's something that has kind of been lost, but would be a positive thing to reintroduce,

00:41:12.960 would be more communitarian values. And I do think it takes a village to raise a kid. And if

00:41:17.440 workplaces want to be more accommodating to young families, to be able to help assist them

00:41:22.080 with childcare, et cetera, providing them support for childcare, or some offices I know have like

00:41:28.080 childcare centers where their employees are able to bring their children while they're working.

00:41:32.560 I think these sorts of things are positive changes.

00:41:34.320 It doesn't take a village to raise a kid.

00:41:36.320 It takes a mother and a father.

00:41:37.280 Kids are generally raised by them, by parents and extended family. And that's always been the case.

00:41:43.200 And I can tell you why it's always been the case. I can prove it to you.

00:41:46.480 Do you agree with me that once upon a time, there were way less human beings on the world

00:41:49.920 and they were spread out much more?

00:41:51.280 Yes.

00:41:51.760 And so on these plots of land that they had, they were usually cross-generational, right?

00:41:56.400 Yes.

00:41:56.800 That was not the village. That was the extended family who was taking care of their kids.

00:42:01.680 Andrew, when I say it takes a village to raise a kid, did you mean that I was,

00:42:04.560 did you mean, did you believe that I was saying it literally takes a village or did you,

00:42:09.200 what sentiment did you think I was expressing?

00:42:11.040 Well, due to the fact that you're a communist, yes.

00:42:13.440 I literally think that that's what you mean because you're a communist, you're a collectivist

00:42:19.360 by nature.

00:42:19.920 That's a rational inference. But to clarify that, I was not really using it in the most

00:42:24.560 literal sense of the word. I was just saying that, you know, support where necessary beyond

00:42:29.120 just the mother and father, I think is largely positive. And I don't think that's something

00:42:32.880 to be discouraged necessarily. But I don't think you need an entire community of people to literally

00:42:38.400 raise the children because as you're saying, we have plenty of historical examples where one or

00:42:42.960 two people is more than enough to suffice to raise a child.

00:42:46.320 And do you think childcare is of equal value to an auntie or a godmother or a grandparent?

00:42:53.680 In what sense? How do you mean?

00:42:54.800 Of taking care of a child?

00:42:57.520 Like somebody else's child? Do I think it's as personally valuable to them?

00:43:01.120 You have a child. Would you rather put that child in daycare or would you rather have them

00:43:05.920 taken care of by an auntie? Are they of equal value and worth? An auntie, a godmother, a grandmother?

00:43:15.040 Is it better for Consuela down the street to be taking care of your kid or you? 1.00

00:43:18.320 Or your own family. I think, well, she asked just, is it better for your own family

00:43:22.800 as opposed to like nannies, et cetera? I'd say, yeah, I would agree with that.

00:43:26.720 But I think so long as children are being supervised and watched by adults that are capable of providing

00:43:33.840 for them, that's adequate enough. But if we're asking about like what the ideal is,

00:43:37.760 then I think, yeah, raised primarily by their own family is good.

00:43:41.280 There's a point made earlier I wanted to kind of poke a hole in so you guys think that

00:43:45.120 both parents have to work. That was kind of a claim. It was like a hundred percent.

00:43:49.040 We've agreed. This is the situation now. It is, this is the need.

00:43:52.240 I didn't agree with that.

00:43:53.120 You kind of disagreed with it. You said you could have six kids and live at home and

00:43:56.640 stitch together. You didn't say this, but I'm thinking stitch together clothing for the kids.

00:44:00.000 Hang on. What actually happened there was a sequence of internal critiques.

00:44:05.440 I had her position. She gave an internal critique to her position. And then I gave an internal

00:44:09.440 critique based on that, based on her grounding foundational position,

00:44:13.040 that it largely requires two incomes, meaning that if that's the case, then women who are 1.00

00:44:18.000 working, this is not due to a feminist ideal. This is due to forced labor. 1.00

00:44:22.960 So should we from your view? Yeah, from your view. So if that's the case,

00:44:26.640 then we can take off the table that women working right now has anything at all to do with 1.00

00:44:32.160 them being feminist, that's where we can get out with them being feminist. Sure. Whatever. In some 1.00

00:44:38.720 instances, I guess not in some instances, you can't say that they're feminist because they're 1.00

00:44:44.080 working. That would be a contradiction to your view that it's necessary that they're working.

00:44:48.880 So the thing is, is like, again, that are that whole worldview, I think, is built on sand. But it is

00:44:53.920 your view that almost all women under your, your communist, and you're using a Marxist lens for 0.63

00:44:59.520 lens for analysis, I'm guessing, right? Sure. Okay. So under your Marxist lens,

00:45:03.920 right now, what's going on is that the proletariat is being exploited by the evil bourgeoisie

00:45:09.840 and forcing these poor women who would rather stay at home with their little kids suckling at the 1.00

00:45:15.920 teat into the workforce where they must slave away in order to, uh, you know, help their capitalist

00:45:24.400 overlords. They could bring the paycheck home when they'd much rather be at home. No, I'm not saying

00:45:29.920 that absent any economic coercion that you wouldn't see women opting to, to not have kids or still

00:45:36.080 participate, um, and do labor, et cetera, throughout their day. It would just depend on that individual

00:45:41.680 person at that point. I think you would be able to see, um, people being able to actually like

00:45:47.680 live true to their values absent this like massive economic. So we can't say it's defensible that

00:45:53.520 because a woman's working, it's contrary to her values of being an anti-feminist. That just doesn't 1.00

00:45:58.400 make any sense under that analysis. But as I said, I think that there is a tension there that exists

00:46:03.360 when you're going so far as to maximize your professional outcomes, as opposed to doing the

00:46:10.320 minimum that is necessary to be able to provide for yourself. That doesn't make any sense under

00:46:14.000 that analysis either. Why would you not try to maximize your earning outcomes if it's required

00:46:19.360 that you earn money in order to give your kids a better life in this particular environment?

00:46:23.760 Because of course you're going to maximize those. There's more to life than money just because I

00:46:27.120 think, I think it's rational for people, women included, to try to maximize their professional 0.76

00:46:31.840 achievements. If you really truly believe that a big part of your life ought to be centered around

00:46:36.720 domesticity, then I think that there would come a point where you would deprioritize taking every

00:46:42.640 single professional, you know, step, promotion, et cetera, to maximize those earnings and say,

00:46:47.680 if the entire point of working and the entire point of earning money is to be able to enable,

00:46:53.200 um, you know, a domestic life that makes my family happy, but that's just,

00:46:56.800 I don't need to go so far as to become like the press secretary for the United States.

00:47:00.880 It's feels and vibes. You're just like, I feel like now it's too much.

00:47:04.000 But you're also getting into the-

00:47:04.960 Where do we get to the actual threshold here? How many promotions can she take 1.00

00:47:08.800 before now she's a feminist? Do you just have to feel it and vibe it out or what? 1.00

00:47:12.640 Isn't this a continuum fallacy?

00:47:14.880 Well, it's not a continuum fallacy. If it's the case that your position is

00:47:19.840 you become a feminist at X point, when is that point? 1.00

00:47:23.280 Well, I will, I don't even disagree with you that a lot of it does come down to, uh,

00:47:27.200 uh, what you're saying is vibes, but I would say kind of subjective or arbitrary lines,

00:47:31.120 but just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean that we couldn't introduce some sort of like

00:47:34.400 subjective rubric to try to see what's the subjective rubric. I want to hear it.

00:47:39.040 Well, it's a diminishing return on, on work. Like if I need to max, if I need income,

00:47:44.800 it doesn't mean I need to maximize all the way because there's exhaustion that comes in. So you

00:47:49.680 have to, you know, there's like wind, there's resistance that picks up the more you do.

00:47:53.440 Can we just look at the practical aspect? Cause you're picking on Caroline Levitt, 1.00

00:47:57.200 right? You're saying she's a terrible example. You brought her up.

00:47:59.600 I did, but you said, I did. That's a good point. You did bring her up.

00:48:03.200 That's fine. But you said she's a terrible example. I will say she's not a terrible example.

00:48:06.880 That woman had a career before she got married and had children. That was the trajectory. 1.00

00:48:11.040 That was her trajectory. Would you rather her go just work at a restaurant now or do something 1.00

00:48:15.920 that she's not good at? I think Caroline Levitt is fine making the professional 0.99

00:48:19.680 choices that she does. Right. This is the trajectory she's on, right? Whether the way I

00:48:24.400 see it is God's given her talents. She is using the talents and treasures God has given her to the

00:48:29.200 best of her ability to provide for her family. There is no reason she should start a new career

00:48:34.880 because, you know, if she can manage, she also was obviously healthy enough to get pregnant. 1.00

00:48:41.040 When you talk to a lot of women in the workforce, and if we want to go to the fertility thing, 0.89

00:48:45.440 they will tell people, women who want to get pregnant, I'll get pregnant in a minute if I 1.00

00:48:51.680 quit my job. It's the stress of that workplace environment, the, you know, trying to act like

00:49:00.800 a man in the workplace environment that it doesn't allow them to be feminine. Somehow she's kept her 0.98

00:49:06.400 femininity. She's still getting pregnant. Her health is still there to allow her to have children, 1.00

00:49:10.640 and she happens to be on this career trajectory. Let's come back in three years and see what 0.99

00:49:15.600 decisions she makes after this job is finished. Again, her job is temporary. And you look at someone

00:49:21.440 like Susie Wiles. This is kind of like late stage careers. She's had her children. They're out of the 0.68

00:49:28.400 house. So this is good for her now. I truly believe, you know, women can work. It's just, 1.00

00:49:35.360 they can have it all, but not all at the same time, right? And so Megyn Kelly talks about this,

00:49:42.000 you know, her career kind of skyrocketed after her children were a little older. So I just think

00:49:48.960 that women can do different things at different times. Different jobs are more conducive to different 1.00

00:49:53.440 periods of women's life. You can't get away from the biological constraints that women are under. 1.00

00:49:58.800 So I want to ask you to clarify what you meant by like, women shouldn't try to act like a man in 0.99

00:50:04.560 the workplace. What do you mean by that? I think it depends, again, on the job. If the time and

00:50:11.280 dedication and stress it takes to become a good lawyer is a lot more demanding, right? So if a

00:50:17.760 woman wants to be a lawyer, that's going to take a bigger toll on her physical health than say if she 1.00

00:50:25.120 wants to, I don't know, um, be an artist or have something that's more, that's a little softer.

00:50:32.720 But the fact of the matter is law, medical fields, they're kind of dog eat dog. If they're based on

00:50:39.200 skills, if they're based on skill set, if you're going by medical fields. But you just said that when

00:50:44.400 you were at the, you said a hospital, you were recently visiting your mother, that when you were

00:50:48.000 interacting with the female healthcare professionals, that you actually found them to be more suitable to 1.00

00:50:52.400 those roles. I didn't say more suitable. I said, I just had a better bedside manner.

00:50:57.840 So that is one of those roles that I also don't judge nurses or what roles were they in? Both 1.00

00:51:02.640 most of the, but all of the nurses were, were women. Interesting. Right. You did have a female 0.99

00:51:07.120 physician that you felt had exceptional bedside standard and you did trust with your mom's care,

00:51:11.760 right? Yeah. I'm not saying she's not able to, I don't. And I also don't judge her for whatever

00:51:16.640 choices she's made. I don't know her family life again. So this is where like, I think the debate

00:51:22.160 comes of, of, you know, what is good for women and, but they've made their own choices, 0.99

00:51:28.960 but I don't think it's at odds with feminism. Andrew saying that, like, he feels that too much

00:51:33.840 of my, you know, internal critiques or whatever rely on sort of cutoff lines that like vibes and

00:51:38.800 arbitrary red lines that I'm drawing. What you're outlining really does sound very vibes based,

00:51:45.360 which is that you're fine with women, you know, taking certain professional roles or whatever. 0.99

00:51:50.560 And every time I ask you for specificity, you're kind of like, well, it's really going to depend

00:51:54.320 on the individual and what we don't know their life story. We don't know this. And it just seems

00:51:58.880 like you're incapable of kind of making more. That's a fair critique. That's a fair critique.

00:52:03.040 I get it. It just seems like you're incapable of making kind of broad prescriptive claims that

00:52:07.520 don't lead to a bunch of examples that you will say, well, that's an exception that worked in that

00:52:12.160 case. And that's an exception that works in that case. But then just how many more examples would you

00:52:16.160 need to do what I need to introduce to you before you're like, you know, maybe these standards that

00:52:20.400 I've outlined just really don't hold up to scrutiny. And it's a lot more complicated than just saying

00:52:24.960 women ought to be doing this, but not up to that point, because now it's just coming down to like 1.00

00:52:29.040 your versus my vibes. No, no, no. I think it's complicated. But I do think again, if that woman 1.00

00:52:34.960 chose not to have, I don't know anything about her, just like you don't know anything about Caroline

00:52:39.680 love it. I don't. I don't know personally. I can only look at what she does and go from there and

00:52:42.960 try to make, you know, draw inferences off of her behavior. Right. But I think that's dangerous to

00:52:46.720 just draw inferences. Why is it dangerous? I mean, that's how we do everything. I would say we can't

00:52:51.520 make observations about what people do and then make judgments from there. What's dangerous about

00:52:55.200 that? You can make a judgment, but I think to... Is it dangerous? Well, I mean, it can be like,

00:53:00.480 for instance, I have a rolling chair at my house and I usually make the inference that if I sit back a

00:53:06.080 certain way, it's not going to fall over. And sometimes it does. And that can be dangerous.

00:53:10.000 So I mean, inferences can be dangerous, but I don't think, I think generally that's how we

00:53:15.360 reason things out is through logical inference. So the critique she's making is fair, right? My

00:53:21.280 criticism to her was, look, you can't be using vibes. I was attacking the foundation more than

00:53:26.720 anything. That was the end where I was moving into, you can't, you can't just use your vibes as an

00:53:31.840 arbitrary metric. But her criticism to you is also equally fair under that metric. It's like,

00:53:36.960 well, when do we get to the specificity? So, uh, to move this kind of debate along here.

00:53:42.160 Well, let me, let me kind of answer that. I think it might have to do with

00:53:45.680 low dose cortisol in the workplace. If a woman goes into a job that stresses her out, 0.99

00:53:50.000 it's going to cause fertility issues. And, but that's kind of up to the woman. Like 1.00

00:53:54.160 depending, some jobs are like, is she getting stressed out as a nurse or does she love her job as

00:53:58.000 a nurse? That still sounds vibey though. It is vibey because the different girl is going to have 1.00

00:54:01.440 a different experience in the job, some jobs, some jobs, a woman is no matter what going to 1.00

00:54:06.240 military, you go to the front line, you're going to have cortisol. Yeah. But a subjective experience

00:54:10.080 that's largely based off of self-reporting and vibes. Yeah. At one point you decide to invite like

00:54:15.200 medical intervention. No, she's right. I mean, that's still vibes. That's still vibey, right? And so,

00:54:19.840 it's not, he, he, he points out something, something a little more tangible is, is cortisol levels and,

00:54:26.640 and how those things affect. I mean, again, there are, I, there are a wide range of women. 1.00

00:54:33.520 I don't think women have to be all one thing. I don't think all women have to be mothers. I don't 0.99

00:54:37.520 think. I agree. Yeah. Feminists agree with you. Yeah. That's fine. But I do think there's a better 1.00

00:54:42.240 model for, for society to thrive. Yeah. But the patriarchy agrees with her too.

00:54:47.520 In what respect? That all women don't have to be mothers. Yeah. Okay. In that sense. Yeah.

00:54:51.920 That would be like, um, so, so the thing is, is like utilizing this idea that, uh, oh, well,

00:54:59.200 feminists want this for women. Feminists also want to deconstruct patriarchal systems. Right. 1.00

00:55:04.800 So let me give you a logical argument here. Okay. That I'd like you to, to respond to.

00:55:10.160 How can feminists do that without appealing to the patriarchy? How can they take down the 1.00

00:55:14.160 patriarchy without then appealing to the patriarchy in an infinite regress?

00:55:17.360 Yes. Um, how do you mean? Well, I would argue that men have the monopoly on force. 0.94

00:55:22.560 Okay. Overwhelmingly, they have the monopoly on force and they always will have the monopoly on

00:55:26.400 force. My proof and evidence is half of the world. Half of the world right now, if they decide women 1.00

00:55:32.240 are enslaved and did, they were. And women could never appeal to anybody except men for their rights 0.98

00:55:37.760 because they don't have force. So because that's true, you tell me how it is that women, feminists, 1.00

00:55:43.520 how it's actually logical for them to say, we're going to dismantle the patriarchy,

00:55:47.760 even though via the force metric, they're going to infinitely have to, to appeal to it

00:55:52.640 for their rights. I think there's kind of an, um, to address your question, I'm just,

00:55:57.360 I'm not trying to avoid it. I just will say that, like, I do take some issue with the framing

00:56:01.200 that maybe you could help me clarify. Sure.

00:56:02.800 I do remember you presenting this in a conversation that you had with Max Carson,

00:56:06.560 where you laid out this general premise, you know, force doctrine.

00:56:09.920 And this is Max Carson, uh, Mr. Girl. Oh yeah. Yeah. And I largely agreed with his view,

00:56:16.000 which is that he feels that you had set up a system that presupposes that there would,

00:56:20.800 there is sort of this like unity, uh, that exists between like, or like among men and among women,

00:56:27.440 very, very neatly. Um, so you're saying like, if all men wanted to enslave women, like they would

00:56:32.480 be able to do it because men are stronger than women, et cetera. Like half the world. Right.

00:56:37.360 But he, uh, it presupposes how, how most of the observable world actually operates.

00:56:42.880 In that respect. And that's not what I'm taking issue with. The part that I'm taking issue with

00:56:46.400 is just that it would break along these lines very neatly. No, no, no, no, no, no. Um,

00:56:50.160 that's not the argument. But what he presented to you is just that it would be like saying like,

00:56:56.240 if you have a group of people whose names start with the letter A, and then you have all the people

00:57:00.640 whose names start with the letter B to Z all, and all of those people work together to overcome

00:57:06.000 the people whose names start with A, then yes. Almost by definition, they would be able to like

00:57:10.640 overcome the people with A probably. No, no. Well, yes, but also no. So let's copy out a few things.

00:57:17.040 First and foremost, do you agree with me that there have been many revolutionary fights and

00:57:22.080 slave revolts? Yes. Okay. Can you name any of them that were led or fought by women

00:57:27.280 ever in history? No, I don't believe so. Ever in history. No, I don't believe so.

00:57:30.480 One time in history. No, I don't believe so. So then what's going on? Boudicca. Boudicca,

00:57:35.120 the Celtic, the Celts, they fought the Romans. No, that was men. Guarantee it. We can look it up.

00:57:39.680 No, Boudicca was a queen. I mean, like, they were, they were, they wrote the chariot, dude.

00:57:43.360 Hang on, hang on. Having a queen there doesn't mean that the people who have the monopoly on force 0.99

00:57:48.480 weren't men because it's always men who have the monopoly on force. And so the reason she can't point,

00:57:54.080 the reason she can't point to any time ever in history that slave revolts and things like this

00:58:00.160 were ever in operation by women, women can never successfully take their freedom back from a 1.00

00:58:07.280 patriarchal, hang on, let me finish. Okay. They can never take their freedom back from a patriarchal

00:58:12.640 force without appealing to a patriarchal force ever. Not that queen, not any fucking queen, 1.00

00:58:18.480 not any person ever in the history of all mankind. But it seems like you said because it hasn't 0.99

00:58:21.840 happened, it can't happen. It can't. But that's saying the only justification is because it hasn't

00:58:25.840 happened yet. No, the justification is that men are much, much stronger than women. But guns are 0.99

00:58:32.000 overwhelmingly. But guns are invented for that purpose. Yeah, I'll tell you what, show me,

00:58:35.280 let's get 10 women in a room and hand them a magazine and watch what happens. But the great 1.00

00:58:39.120 equalizer, the ballistic. No, it's not a great, it's not a great equalizer. Just like with the

00:58:43.360 monkeys, the biggest, strongest monkey would be the alpha. No, what happens is with these equalizers is

00:58:49.280 men take the equalization away from women because they're much stronger, which is why you see all 1.00

00:58:53.360 these police officers getting disarmed and women in combat getting their asses stomped. That's why 1.00

00:58:57.280 you don't see female Navy SEALs. That's why you don't see any of that because they can't do it. 1.00

00:59:01.120 They're physically incapable of doing it. Now, even if I grant you an outlier, even if I grant you GI Jane, 0.65

00:59:06.320 who never came to fruition, GI Jane never existed, never came to fruition because they can't do it. But

00:59:11.600 even if I granted you a GI Jane, an outlier, the exception would prove the rule. So the thing is,

00:59:16.800 is like the reason she can't name a single time that there's been a successful slave revolt or

00:59:20.960 women gaining their rights by force from men without appealing to men because it never happened 1.00

00:59:25.360 and it can't. So because of that, my argument is simply this. How do feminists ever take out 1.00

00:59:32.480 the patriarchy without appealing to an enforcement arm, which is going to be necessarily patriarchal?

00:59:38.080 How's that even possible? Well, there could be robots. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. There could,

00:59:42.800 there could be laser beams from outer space. An enforcement arm that is not human male.

00:59:48.400 I can logically grant that a powerful, all powerful gray alien species comes down here and 0.81

00:59:54.720 then you're appealing to the gray alien species to control the men. You're asking for a type of force 1.00

00:59:58.800 other than the human male that could be appealed to. I'm talking about robots and ballistics. Who

01:00:02.640 builds all the drones? At this point, more drones. Who builds them? Somebody built some drone that

01:00:08.080 builds more drones. I don't know. Somebody could be, could be men, could be women. Who builds all

01:00:12.320 the weapons? Men. Who knows how to use all the weapons? Men. Who can carry all the weapons? Men. 0.63

01:00:16.800 Who can load all the tanks? Men. It's not a 100% thing. There are women that also do that stuff. 1.00

01:00:22.480 But not the majority. Well, of course not. They're unique. Not everybody's the same,

01:00:26.000 but they're more outliers. How come these badass women don't go, 1.00

01:00:29.120 hey, I'm tired of wearing this really hot fucking burka in the middle of this sun. And we got like, 0.99

01:00:33.360 you know, millions of us. So we're just going to take out this patriarchy. Why not? Well,

01:00:37.360 they are stripping their burkas off in Iran. And appealing to men to come in and help them? 0.99

01:00:44.000 Yeah. I mean, ballistic force, appealing to the force, basically. Appealing to the force. So

01:00:47.920 force doctrine, unbeatable, always appealing to the patriarchy. So answer me this question.

01:00:53.440 How is it that women, feminists, how is it even a logical position to say that you want to repeal 1.00

01:01:00.640 the patriarchy with full knowledge that you'll always have to appeal to the patriarchy in order to

01:01:06.160 enforce your deconstruction of the patriarchy? It's like, it's the most circular, stupid thing 1.00

01:01:10.640 I've ever heard. No, no. I think you have to appeal to force. 1.00

01:01:12.800 And who has the monopoly on that? In the current state, the human male. 0.97

01:01:17.360 Okay. So right this second, right this very second, if women want to deconstruct the patriarchy, 1.00

01:01:27.440 who do they have to appeal to? Right. Yeah.

01:01:29.920 Men. Can you steal Manion's argument?

01:01:32.720 Yeah. Ian is saying, what if there was some technological marvel that equalized force?

01:01:36.640 Like guns.

01:01:38.480 I thought, the sense that I got from your arguments is that right now, the domain of force is,

01:01:43.840 and this is your view as well, one that is overwhelmingly dictated by, supported by, and led by men.

01:01:51.760 But there exists a world, potentially, where women could get access to this domain of force that 1.00

01:01:58.160 either, I don't even think you're saying entirely excludes, but leads them to have

01:02:02.080 an upper hand over men. Right? Because you're saying all of this technology is basically the

01:02:06.880 great equalizer because between drones, tanks, guns, et cetera, if it's just a matter of...

01:02:12.720 Yeah, where?

01:02:14.000 No, I don't think that you're saying it's happened yet, but you're saying that we can't just say

01:02:17.520 because it hasn't happened yet that it necessarily won't in the future.

01:02:20.240 And a lot of stuff originated, a lot of these weaponry that I'm talking about originated

01:02:23.920 because we had alpha males saying no one can stop you.

01:02:26.880 Sure.

01:02:26.960 I'm the biggest, strongest.

01:02:27.840 I'll tell you what then.

01:02:28.320 It's not the strongest that survives, it's the one that's the most adaptable.

01:02:30.240 I'll tell you what, then advocate for feminism in 200 years where it's possible, but it's 1.00

01:02:34.720 definitely not right now. There's no world right this second which exists or has in the last 7,000

01:02:40.320 years where women can do anything but address their grievances to those who have a monopoly on 1.00

01:02:46.000 force. That's always men. So you're necessarily always 0.83

01:02:50.080 going to have the patriarchy. It's a vicious circle.

01:02:52.880 No, no, that's the fallacy. Saying it always happened, therefore it will always happen,

01:02:56.000 is a misnomer.

01:02:56.480 Didn't say that. I said, peel for it in 200 years, then, when it does happen.

01:03:00.720 Or if we were asking about logical possibility, remember, Superman's logically possible.

01:03:05.280 I can grant a logical possibility where aliens come down and put shock collars on men, 0.99

01:03:09.520 and if they look at women cross-eyed, they get fucking zapped. That's logical. It could happen. 0.99

01:03:14.960 It's possibility pragmatically is like fucking zero, though. So because of that, 0.98

01:03:19.040 I'm going to look at this from pragmatic logic, practical logic. If I'm looking at

01:03:23.440 pragmatic and practical logic, Ian, I'm going to ask you again, right this second,

01:03:28.000 if men want to appeal anything by power of law, who do they have to appeal to to enforce it?

01:03:34.800 If women want to. If women do. If women do. 1.00

01:03:37.200 If women do. Yeah, generally the government, which is usually run by men. 1.00

01:03:41.040 Who's the enforcement, though? Yeah, cops.

01:03:43.120 It's going to be men. Usually men. 0.99

01:03:44.800 It's always, everywhere men. And if men decide to collectively enslave women tomorrow, let's just

01:03:51.440 say they did. No, that I don't agree with.

01:03:52.800 Okay, I'm not saying that you agree that it's morally correct. I'm asking whether or not they could do it.

01:03:57.280 They could try and then other men would stand up to defend against it. So who are you appealing to

01:04:01.360 again? Still. We would be appealing to ourselves. You'd be appealing to men again.

01:04:05.680 It could be men and women. What you just got done saying is if men came in and they tried enslaving

01:04:11.120 women, men would stop them. And women would stop them and probably kids would stop them too. 0.98

01:04:16.560 But who would those women and kids be appealing to for force? 1.00

01:04:20.000 They're rifle. What are you talking about? Men. They'd be appealing to the men.

01:04:24.320 If a bunch of dudes came to enslave the women in your neighborhood and you and your wife and 1.00

01:04:28.880 your kids grabbed their rifles, you would all be appealing to what? Are you talking? There's

01:04:33.040 no appeal. They'd be appealing to the men. You'd be, to God, your right to self-defense.

01:04:37.280 Can I just say, if someone comes after me and they have a gun, I'm going to look to my husband

01:04:42.880 with the gun. I mean, I might have the gun, but I'm going to look to my husband to protect me.

01:04:47.840 Hang on, Ian. There gets to a point where he's going to hand you a rifle because the two of you

01:04:51.200 are better shots than one of you. Yeah. So 300 men, they invade a suburban

01:04:55.920 neighborhood that has 700 women in it. Are they going to win? 1.00

01:05:02.000 What is the situation? So you're a walled compound that is only 700 women in this compound? 1.00

01:05:06.160 No, 700 women and they're in a suburban neighborhood and 300 men come in there and 1.00

01:05:09.760 they're like, we're taking this shit. Are the women strapped? 1.00

01:05:11.760 They're both strapped. They're all strapped. Probably 700 people are going to wipe those dudes out.

01:05:15.040 Oh, come on, Ian. They can shoot from windows. 0.99

01:05:17.120 These guys are walking out streets. What a tactical disadvantage. Are they, are they train killers?

01:05:21.440 Who are these men? Yeah. Okay.

01:05:23.760 Let's find out if this is true. Let's just take, let's just take a logical exercise here.

01:05:29.200 You are a prison warden and you're offered two choices for those who can guard your prisoners.

01:05:35.120 You'll either get twice the women or half the men to guard these prisoners. Now,

01:05:40.320 these are the worst fucking prisoners on planet earth. They're big, they're mean, 1.00

01:05:43.280 they're strong and they're fucking awful. Now remember, you're going to get two women for 1.00

01:05:47.760 every one male guard. Which one are you going to choose? The men. Yeah, that's what I thought.

01:05:52.480 All right. So anyway, back to the debate. They're not shooting to kill though, dude.

01:05:55.680 If you want to give, if you want to give me 700 rifles and you take 300 rifles,

01:05:59.680 I'll take 700 rifles. Okay. Okay. How about, how about,

01:06:01.680 If you guys are trained Navy SEALs, now it's a different argument. What if I give you three women 0.87

01:06:04.480 per one man? Are they armed? What are you talking about?

01:06:07.760 Hang on. Hang on. All things are equal in the guard towers. You can still have some women who are 1.00

01:06:12.400 armed. The ones who have to patrol the floor though, they're women. 1.00

01:06:15.280 If I need dudes in hand-to-hand combat, that's its own thing. But if I need guards with guns,

01:06:18.800 I'm going to take the triple the guns. What do you? Yeah. And the towers,

01:06:22.000 you're going to take guards in the tower, triple the tower. I get it. But who's walking the floor,

01:06:25.360 Ian? Put some, I don't know, big burly dudes down there. Yeah, that's right.

01:06:28.800 Well, that's not the argument is that men can arbitrarily enslave women because they're stronger.

01:06:33.120 I mean, it's the most, it's the most like black and white, like lack of evidence.

01:06:37.520 Let me ask you a question. That's why we built guns to defend against that mentality. 0.56

01:06:40.560 Ian, help me out. In Iraq, was there a right tone in AK-47? I don't know.

01:06:45.040 There was. How come the women didn't overthrow the vicious patriarchy? 1.00

01:06:49.600 In Iraq? Yeah. Are you talking about Saddam Hussein? Yeah. How come the women, 1.00

01:06:53.040 even though they could have an AK in every home, how come the women didn't grab that AK and just go 1.00

01:06:58.320 I don't know. I want my rights. Did they want to? Did they? Yeah. Well, don't they want to?

01:07:03.840 I don't think they wanted to overthrow Saddam. Would you want to live in an oppressive heat

01:07:06.080 with your burka? I don't think they wanted to overthrow Saddam. It's because they can't, 0.99

01:07:08.880 bro. They can't do it. They, there's never been a female revolution ever using physical 1.00

01:07:14.160 force against men, which has ever been successful or even really tried. I mean, the French Revolution.

01:07:19.120 Which was full of men who were- It was started by women, dude. Come on. Who was taking the men to the guillotines? 0.93

01:07:24.160 Who ripped the, who got the weapons out of the Bastille? Who- It was the women. Bro, who, and who was using them? 0.94

01:07:29.440 They all did. No, it was the men, dude. Come on. Are you unfamiliar with the women that started the French Revolution?

01:07:35.280 Ian, let's walk through the French Revolution. Who was taking the people to the guillotines?

01:07:41.920 I mean, I wasn't there. Men? You're saying 100% men? Is this your argument? It was all men. 0.87

01:07:48.240 Almost, yeah. No women. All men. Yeah, basically all men. No, I cannot believe that's an extreme.

01:07:53.040 I'll tell you what. I'll just grant it. It's 5% women. Dude, the women started the revolution, bro. Do you not know that? 0.97

01:07:58.240 I'll just grant it for you that it's 5% women who are fighting. The women started the communist revolution in Russia, too. 0.93

01:08:03.360 Let me, yeah. So what? It has nothing to do with force doctrine. It was a successful overthrow of the government, bro.

01:08:06.800 It has nothing to do with force doctrine. You just said there was no successful revolution started by women ever. 1.00

01:08:10.720 No, no, no. With physical force. That was the French Revolution. No, dude.

01:08:14.880 They robbed the... Sorry to interrupt. Make your point. Let's pretend for a second that you have 8,000 women in cages, okay, who are slaves. And then you have slave masters, okay? 0.98

01:08:28.000 Can we point to instances in history where those all men who are in cages, right, have successfully overthrown their oppressors?

01:08:38.240 You said there's women in cages? No, men. Okay, so there's 800 men? There's 8,000 men in cages. 8,000 men in cages. Mm-hmm.

01:08:45.520 Has there ever been an instance in history where they've overthrown the dudes? Mm-hmm.

01:08:49.520 Without external help? No. Well, yeah, even without external help. Not that I know of. I mean, people in cages, they're in cages.

01:08:55.520 The answer is yes. There has been many rebellions which were successful led by men of all men. Not a single one by women. Hang on. Ever. Not a single one will you ever be able to point to historically where women were enslaved in mass by men and ever were able to successfully use force. Stop, Ian. To get out of their enslavement.

01:09:16.800 Not once. They always have to appeal to males. Always. Which is why when I gave her the example, she was forced to agree. There's no choice around it. You always have to appeal to male force. There's no way around it.

01:09:28.100 You're talking about women using, like, loudspeakers and propaganda and shit to start fights. Sure. But they're not fighting the fights, is my point. They're always appealing to people who can. That's the point. 1.00

01:09:41.060 And so if it's the patriarchy that we're talking about, it's always going to be those who have a monopoly on force. So women, these feminists, are always going to have to appeal to those who have the monopoly on force, thus creating a new patriarchy. It's just like an over and over and over again cyclical. It's just cyclical logic. It's bizarre. It makes no sense.

01:10:00.220 But I just don't think that the monopoly on force equals male, necessarily.

01:10:07.080 Yeah, it equals male.

01:10:07.840 It usually does because men are physically stronger. But then we built guns. It's a relatively new invention. And now you started to see, like, even men kind of don't have a monopoly on force. Like, we have robots that can drone bomb shit. Like, we don't...

01:10:22.180 The robots... Dude, I'm sorry. Do robots operate and build themselves or something?

01:10:26.340 Well, not yet. But we're starting to lose the monopoly on force as human men.

01:10:30.180 No, we're not.

01:10:30.840 I mean, dude, a whole village can get blown up by an airplane.

01:10:33.640 Yeah, you're talking about, like, clean warfare. Like, largely a lot of it's happening from, like, the fucking sky because you have people just piloting drones. 0.98

01:10:39.240 Yeah, unless you're in the Ukraine. 0.97

01:10:40.060 You don't have men, like, rushing out into warfare anymore, like, always.

01:10:43.220 Unless you're in the Ukraine and you're in trenches and you're fighting in combat and the women all fled. They all fled. Women all fled. They're all in different countries. They got the fuck out of there. They hightailed it. They're not in the trenches fighting, Ian. How come? That's really weird.

01:10:55.760 Nah, I'm not there, man. I don't know if they're women fighting or not.

01:10:58.160 That's really weird. Where are all these fucking... Where are all the... 1.00

01:10:59.900 I thought your point was that we're largely moving away from, like, this sort of trench warfare or whatever. 0.99

01:11:04.400 But we're not.

01:11:04.660 Yeah, exactly. And we're starting to move towards, like, informational warfare, drone warfare, AI warfare, et cetera.

01:11:10.140 There will always be trench warfare. There will always be guys getting up in each other's faces.

01:11:13.860 But, yeah, ballistics have altered the way force is wielded and the way monopoly is drawn.

01:11:20.620 Oh, yeah? Is that so?

01:11:21.800 Yeah.

01:11:22.100 No, let me ask you a question. All things equal between a man and a woman, right?

01:11:25.900 You give them both a gun, right? One of them has to watch your back. Who are you picking?

01:11:31.620 It's such a vague question. I don't know them.

01:11:34.260 You don't know them.

01:11:34.880 Who are they?

01:11:35.260 You're just going to pick two.

01:11:36.640 It's going to be completely random. You're going to push a button.

01:11:38.780 It's going to be a random woman or a random man who shows up with a gun to watch your back. 0.66

01:11:44.000 Which button are you pushing, Ian?

01:11:46.780 I don't know, man.

01:11:48.020 You don't know?

01:11:48.720 I don't know.

01:11:49.160 You're not sure?

01:11:49.700 Just pick the guy and get it over with?

01:11:51.320 Yeah, that's right.

01:11:51.760 What if Kamala Harris had become president? Who would have had the monopoly on force? 1.00

01:11:55.960 It's still always going to defer to the enforcement arm.

01:11:58.480 They're always going to have the monopoly on force.

01:11:59.860 I'm sorry you said they always look to their leader, right?

01:12:01.720 They look to the one to lead them?

01:12:02.920 Who would be leading them?

01:12:03.860 You can look to leadership unless you get to overthrow.

01:12:07.120 Well, now you're just saying that leadership doesn't matter, and that dismantles your initial argument that people have to appeal to leadership.

01:12:13.300 No, not saying leadership doesn't matter.

01:12:15.020 I'm saying that men always have an option of force to change leadership, and women don't. 1.00

01:12:19.800 Yeah, that argument is saying that leadership doesn't matter.

01:12:22.140 No.

01:12:22.400 Because we can just overthrow it anyway, so it always comes back to whoever wants it.

01:12:26.260 No, men can overthrow it. 1.00

01:12:27.200 I don't know.

01:12:27.660 Not women. 1.00

01:12:28.260 Women can also overthrow it. 1.00

01:12:29.360 No, they can't.

01:12:30.060 People with weapons can overthrow systems of humans.

01:12:33.140 Yeah?

01:12:33.600 Then when's the last time women did that, ever? 1.00

01:12:35.640 I just said they can.

01:12:36.700 I didn't say they did it.

01:12:37.600 I said they can.

01:12:38.480 They can't.

01:12:39.060 They don't have the physical problems to do it.

01:12:41.180 If Kamala had been the president and the issue for the drone bombs, it would have been much easier for a female to take some physical, like, I don't want to dominate this combo, but I think I'm right. 0.99

01:12:48.600 She's going to use drones that men built in order to dominate her enemies? 1.00

01:12:54.560 That's adaptability.

01:12:55.700 Yeah.

01:12:56.180 What's going to happen is this, is that if men want to change the conditionals of the state they're in, they have the option to, and women don't. 0.81

01:13:03.500 And that's a fact. 0.97

01:13:04.780 And so the thing is, is that if men universally decide that they're going to enslave women, there isn't a fucking thing in the world women can do about it. 0.90

01:13:11.500 But if portions of men decide that they're going to enslave men, there is something men can do about it. 0.89

01:13:16.120 But the thing, no.

01:13:17.240 Yeah, that's the most historically accurate fact on planet Earth.

01:13:20.480 Yeah, but you're saying if this total incapable fail, all men are in.

01:13:24.540 No, no, right now it is.

01:13:25.080 If all men come together. 0.81

01:13:26.300 No, no, not all men even.

01:13:27.880 This is your position.

01:13:28.840 If it's the case that in the Middle East, the Middle Easterners want to enslave women, didn't they already do that? 1.00

01:13:36.520 Yeah, but that's different.

01:13:38.480 Are you talking about the theocracy, the Iranian theocracy? 0.98

01:13:40.840 Well, any place you want to look at across the world where women are second class citizens, can women do shit about that without appealing to men? 1.00

01:13:49.580 I don't know, but the point that you made is that. 0.99

01:13:51.240 No, no, no, no.

01:13:51.260 Answer the question. 1.00

01:13:52.220 Can women do shit? 1.00

01:13:53.400 I can answer the question any way I want to answer the question. 1.00

01:13:56.240 Yeah, but you have to actually answer the question I'm asking.

01:13:59.060 No, I don't have to.

01:13:59.820 I can answer whatever I want.

01:14:01.300 Well, that's fine.

01:14:01.360 I mean, you can obfuscate.

01:14:02.440 If you don't like it, that's still my answer.

01:14:04.900 Oh, okay.

01:14:05.460 Well, then your answer is I don't like your question.

01:14:07.340 You just gish-galloped three questions in a row.

01:14:09.260 I didn't gish-gallop anything.

01:14:10.400 I'm trying to disprove your first point.

01:14:11.380 Are you asking two questions about the Middle Eastern slave women?

01:14:12.560 I'm only asking one question I want actually answered.

01:14:16.020 Give it to me again.

01:14:16.960 Okay.

01:14:17.300 The question I want answered is right this second in the Middle East, okay, if women want to determine to get their rights back themselves, right, without appealing to men, can they do it or not?

01:14:33.000 They'd have to appeal to like an external authority.

01:14:35.680 Similar to the American revolutionaries.

01:14:37.500 They couldn't do it alone.

01:14:38.340 They had to appeal to the French. 0.78

01:14:39.560 Like when you're under the boot, it's hard to get out without appealing to.

01:14:43.060 But it doesn't have to be a man.

01:14:44.360 It could be a queen, you know, Queen Elizabeth or whatever.

01:14:46.860 It could have been.

01:14:48.260 Or you've got to flip people.

01:14:49.320 You've got to find defectors, like male defectors that are willing to fight on their side.

01:14:52.480 Males again. 1.00

01:14:53.680 Back to males again. 0.64

01:14:54.760 Oh, I mean, females make the best spies. 1.00

01:14:56.660 Yeah.

01:14:56.960 That's true.

01:14:57.400 But you're always appealing to those pesky men for force, and there's nothing you can do about it.

01:15:01.740 Every single time.

01:15:02.560 And that's why force doctrine is an unbeatable position, because it's the observable fact of the world.

01:15:08.500 That I agree with.

01:15:09.340 Force doctrine, yeah.

01:15:10.100 But I don't think it always has to be a male in control of it.

01:15:12.500 But it is always men who are in control of it. 0.98

01:15:14.240 No.

01:15:14.320 I mean, Elizabeth is an example of someone that was a dominating military force that was not her. 0.98

01:15:19.420 Of who?

01:15:20.100 A dominating military force made up of which sex? 0.84

01:15:24.980 I don't know.

01:15:25.360 All of them.

01:15:26.060 Men.

01:15:26.540 Men and their wives. 0.99

01:15:27.760 And they were the dude going on the boats.

01:15:29.200 Like, if we look up, let's look at, can we find out what percentage of her military was men real quick?

01:15:35.300 Her military?

01:15:35.820 Like, yeah, but dude, earlier you were talking about how people appeal to their leader.

01:15:39.720 Like, the masculine, that you're always going to appeal to.

01:15:42.160 I'm talking about who can change the conditionals of their leader.

01:15:44.860 The argument that strength gives you primary control is a fallacy.

01:15:50.140 It is adaptability.

01:15:51.640 Strength.

01:15:51.900 What's the fallacy?

01:15:53.720 That the stronger you are, the more likely you are to be in control.

01:15:56.300 That's not fallacious.

01:15:57.560 No, strength has diminishing return.

01:15:59.340 And it also makes you a target.

01:16:00.620 But that's not a logically fallacious argument.

01:16:03.200 That would be a proposition.

01:16:04.900 And so the thing is, is that propositionally, there's no fallacy there to make that statement.

01:16:08.960 Especially if it's observably true, and it is.

01:16:10.980 No.

01:16:11.600 Yes.

01:16:11.900 The strongest men are often the easiest to destroy.

01:16:14.820 Sure.

01:16:15.400 By other men.

01:16:17.020 By guns.

01:16:17.720 By people with guns.

01:16:18.660 I'm not talking.

01:16:19.120 Wielded by men.

01:16:19.740 We're past hand-to-hand combat, dude.

01:16:21.420 It still exists.

01:16:22.420 But that age of, like, men can strangle their woman until she does what he says is gone.

01:16:27.100 I mean, you technically can, but there are cameras on you now.

01:16:29.960 Do guns require hand strength?

01:16:32.460 A little.

01:16:33.160 Yeah.

01:16:33.400 Do they require you to be able to carry a lot of equipment with you?

01:16:36.400 Do you have to feed yourself?

01:16:37.720 Yeah.

01:16:38.080 Well, I'm sorry.

01:16:38.920 You don't have to.

01:16:39.980 Well, yeah.

01:16:40.500 If you're going to use guns for the purpose of combat, you're going to be carrying a kit.

01:16:45.160 You're going to be carrying a kit.

01:16:46.080 You're going to be carrying food.

01:16:46.860 You're going to be carrying all sorts of equipment.

01:16:49.000 Not to mention that.

01:16:50.100 You just carry in Florida.

01:16:51.460 You're going to carry 300, 400 rounds of ammunition.

01:16:54.960 You're going to carry it in a chest rig.

01:16:56.100 Then you're going to carry a sidearm on top of that.

01:16:58.520 Then you're going to have your helmet on.

01:16:59.680 Then you're going to have body armor.

01:17:00.660 You're going to have all this stuff.

01:17:01.900 I'm talking about carrying your gun in Florida, bro.

01:17:04.720 In your belt, on your holster.

01:17:07.080 That's all you got.

01:17:08.240 That's not collective defense.

01:17:10.960 And it's not collective assault.

01:17:12.720 That's not how that works.

01:17:13.920 Can I just say, even if I have a gun and a man wants, depending on positioning, a man can always overpower me.

01:17:21.740 He can wrestle the gun from me.

01:17:23.260 He will be, by brute force, stronger than I will be in a certain position. 0.99

01:17:29.660 Now, could I shoot him? 0.96

01:17:32.040 I mean, I went shooting with my boyfriend the other week. 0.99

01:17:35.340 He's just a better shot than I am.

01:17:37.960 Maybe if I practice more, but I do think, no matter what, most men will be better shots than women. 0.97

01:17:44.720 And then if I have a gun in that situation, it's just my, I will probably panic more.

01:17:53.020 I will probably not feel as confident with a gun.

01:17:59.460 And a man can overpower me, even with a gun.

01:18:02.600 So do you think that women should have Second Amendment rights? 0.93

01:18:05.260 Sure.

01:18:05.680 Yes.

01:18:06.280 It doesn't mean that they're not better at it, that they are not physically more capable of wielding it.

01:18:11.800 Like he said, if you're in combat, there's a lot of other factors.

01:18:14.800 There's, like, you have to carry more.

01:18:17.040 You have to carry rounds of ammunition.

01:18:18.920 You have to be, like, there's just, there's differences between men and women.

01:18:23.640 And we can go swirl down in these arguments over and over and over again.

01:18:28.500 But there's differences.

01:18:30.720 And the more we deny that, and the more we deny that those differences have consequences out in the real world in jobs,

01:18:41.800 in the military, it's just, it gets exhausting.

01:18:45.540 I'm listening to the two of you, and I'm like, oh, my goodness, there's differences.

01:18:49.740 And usually the men, as well, if somebody denied that there were differences between men and women,

01:18:54.000 because obviously there are, I don't dispute that. 0.99

01:18:55.940 But then I would be on your side that anybody who's trying to do is a moron. 0.99

01:18:59.640 Because that's how we've gotten to this point where some people believe there are no differences, 0.99

01:19:04.500 and a man can be a woman, and a woman can be a man. 1.00

01:19:08.540 Feminists just paved the way for that. 1.00

01:19:11.180 I think that they recognize those differences because, if you're talking about trans individuals,

01:19:15.240 they want to transition because they recognize differences between themselves as men versus as women.

01:19:20.120 No, they don't.

01:19:20.840 Right?

01:19:21.580 They're actively trying to transition so they can go from being a man to being a trans woman.

01:19:27.060 There's no such thing as a trans woman.

01:19:29.960 If they really don't believe that there's any difference, why would they ever transition? 0.87

01:19:35.720 Well, why couldn't, why, the argument is, if you're a gay man, why can't you just be a gay man?

01:19:43.300 Why do you have to be a woman? 1.00

01:19:44.560 Well, we're not talking about gay men, we're talking about trans people.

01:19:46.820 That's people's sexuality. 0.99

01:19:47.680 Right, and if sexuality is just, so do, do, do, like, who do trans women want to have sex with? 0.99

01:19:56.700 Anybody? 0.99

01:19:57.440 Again, sexuality. 0.66

01:19:58.620 I'm only talking about, you said that there are these people that think that there's no differences between the sexes,

01:20:04.260 and if that were the case, why would they be bothering to undergo a physical transition or a medical transition

01:20:09.920 if they really believe, oh, men and women, there's really no differences between us, or whatever.

01:20:14.920 You wouldn't even see trans people if that were the case, or to the extent that you saw it as a phenomenon,

01:20:18.660 it would literally be refined to just, like, social transition and, like, cross-dressing and changing their names.

01:20:23.540 But they take cross-sex hormones, they take puberty blockers or whatever,

01:20:26.640 because they recognize that there's differences between the sexes.

01:20:30.280 But they're trying to be something they're not.

01:20:33.080 They will never be women. 1.00

01:20:34.020 Okay, but it's a separate argument from whether or not they believe that there are differences between the sexes.

01:20:38.920 Trans people recognize that there are differences, which is why they want to transition. 0.96

01:20:46.320 Andrew, do you disagree with this?

01:20:47.900 Of course.

01:20:49.380 Sure.

01:20:49.900 Oh, I did want to ask you about, wait, wait, really quickly.

01:20:52.680 Can we go right to the fourth doctrine thing?

01:20:53.760 We can't move into this argument?

01:20:55.160 I thought you were like,

01:20:55.780 No, no, no, we can do it, we can do it, but I had a question about the-

01:20:57.660 I thought we were about to move into one of my favorite topics!

01:21:00.080 No, no, no, I had a question about the fourth doctrine thing, though.

01:21:01.840 Okay.

01:21:02.440 So given that this is your view, how do you explain there being social rights movements for women

01:21:09.540 and more parity now between men and women than there existed a thousand years ago?

01:21:14.560 Well, I mean, I don't know about parity.

01:21:16.940 That's a hard one to prove.

01:21:17.920 What do you mean, parity?

01:21:18.760 Parity how?

01:21:19.560 Political power.

01:21:20.620 Suffrage, for example.

01:21:21.740 Oh, I see.

01:21:22.280 So are you saying that can you appeal to men for rights and they give them to you? 0.72

01:21:26.420 Sure.

01:21:27.200 No, I'm asking you, how do you explain different social movements-

01:21:30.700 That women appealed to men for rights and got them, yes. 0.59

01:21:33.860 But they were appealing to men for them.

01:21:35.900 Right.

01:21:36.280 And now they want to deconstruct the patriarchy, which is the same thing they're going to end

01:21:40.260 up having to appeal to again for rights.

01:21:42.340 And it's just going to be a vicious cycle.

01:21:44.040 They're going to appeal to men again, and then they're going to appeal to them again, 0.93

01:21:46.900 and then they're going to appeal to them again, and then they're going to appeal to them again

01:21:50.160 after that, because that's all that they can do.

01:21:52.040 And any time, collectively, men decide to not let women appeal to them, they don't have to.

01:21:57.380 And there's nothing women can do about it. 1.00

01:21:58.860 And that's the actual fact of the world.

01:22:01.420 Now, you may not like it.

01:22:02.580 You may say, Andrew, that's immoral.

01:22:04.320 Andrew, do you morally support that?

01:22:05.780 You can make all those claims if you want to.

01:22:09.020 But this is a descriptive truth of the world, is that if men decide that you don't have rights,

01:22:13.940 you don't.

01:22:15.080 If they do that, but I think that's highly improbable.

01:22:17.280 Why?

01:22:17.740 By what you mean, if they want to do it, is it logically possible for them to do it?

01:22:21.180 No, no, no.

01:22:21.540 Yes, it's logically possible for them to do it.

01:22:23.300 It's actually pragmatic.

01:22:23.900 It's pragmatically possible.

01:22:25.260 Is it the most possible or plausible?

01:22:26.320 No.

01:22:26.480 Yes, it is.

01:22:27.980 Yes, it is.

01:22:28.420 No, because like Ian was saying, there would be defectors.

01:22:31.400 You would see, there would be plenty of men, and probably men that you would call like 0.94

01:22:35.500 feminized, sissy men, etc. 0.98

01:22:37.100 Do you? 0.99

01:22:37.460 Gay men, men that don't see themselves as, you know, benefiting from patriarchy or whatever,

01:22:43.280 that would be totally down to join this women's liberation movement. 1.00

01:22:46.620 I understand the argument. 1.00

01:22:47.580 Similarly, you'd find women that are like, yeah, fuck this. 1.00

01:22:49.500 I don't want equality. 1.00

01:22:50.340 I'm going to support men.

01:22:51.280 But can we point something out, which is also an objective truth, that it doesn't matter.

01:22:57.160 It's not a guarantee of victory because you have some men who defect, and it's not a guarantee

01:23:01.140 of victory because you really don't want it to happen.

01:23:03.800 The fact of the matter is, is that we've had many republics in the past that have failed.

01:23:08.920 And they end up-

01:23:09.380 Well, no victory is guaranteed.

01:23:10.100 They end up coming back, right?

01:23:12.380 It ends up coming back to the idea of force, and then you have empires, and they end up

01:23:15.980 falling because it comes back to the idea of force.

01:23:18.380 And while all this great technology and electricity and all this stuff that women like to take 1.00

01:23:23.040 for granted, which makes them believe in some crazy fucking world that they're the equals 0.99

01:23:28.500 of men physically, which is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard in my life, or that 0.99

01:23:33.060 they some way have equity with men or ever could, at least in that domain, right? 0.99

01:23:38.320 I wouldn't say that they have less moral value.

01:23:41.880 I would never make that claim. 0.99

01:23:43.780 Only the claim that there can never be equity, and that that's stupid, and it's based on the 0.97

01:23:47.480 technological marvels which allow modern women to do any of these jobs successfully at 1.00

01:23:52.920 all. 0.98

01:23:53.660 And if men decide at any time that they want to take that away, women can't do shit about 1.00

01:24:00.200 it. 0.99

01:24:01.000 But men can.

01:24:03.300 Meaning if groups of men want to take rights away from other groups of men as collectives,

01:24:08.480 men have choices there.

01:24:10.040 We have revolutions.

01:24:11.600 We fight them. 1.00

01:24:12.660 We kill them, right? 1.00

01:24:13.900 Or they kill us. 1.00

01:24:14.840 Isn't it always as simple as like the stronger party winning, though?

01:24:16.840 I agree.

01:24:17.080 I was going to bring this up while you were talking, like an example of like, okay, the

01:24:20.540 Vietnam War, right?

01:24:21.900 By all metrics, but previous to that starting, it would be rational to assume that the United

01:24:27.140 States is going to crush the Viet Cong, right? 1.00

01:24:29.740 They did.

01:24:29.940 They did crush them.

01:24:30.460 Well, yeah, there were tons of deaths, obviously, but the Viet Cong were able to make significant 1.00

01:24:35.220 dents and cause high casualty rates.

01:24:37.720 We had to have a lottery and conscript men to go fight in this war that they were not 0.83

01:24:42.960 really interested in fighting.

01:24:43.800 The Viet Cong had a ton of women in it. 1.00

01:24:45.260 You know, so it's not, even though you can, you know, you can have high likelihood that

01:24:49.680 one party is going to succeed or another, but like, you know, would you say like the

01:24:53.740 first of all, let's revise a couple of things.

01:24:57.880 The United States lost our objective of the Vietnam War, which it was to stop the spread 1.00

01:25:03.560 of communism.

01:25:04.540 That's true.

01:25:05.500 I agree with that. 0.99

01:25:06.600 We fucking crushed the North Vietnamese army and absolutely fucking destroyed the NVA. 0.99

01:25:12.160 Yes. 0.99

01:25:12.660 Okay.

01:25:13.680 Brutally and quickly, and it wasn't even close. 0.91

01:25:17.080 And if we wanted to level all of Vietnam in three weeks and kill everybody in there, 1.00

01:25:22.160 we could have done it. 0.63

01:25:23.660 We had a specific objection or objective, which was a police action.

01:25:28.220 And failed in that objective.

01:25:30.260 The military is not designed to be a police force. 0.99

01:25:32.720 They suck at it. 0.96

01:25:33.820 Historically, all militaries have. 1.00

01:25:35.920 The army is designed as this big giant machine to roll over everything and fucking crush it 0.97

01:25:40.400 into dust. 0.99

01:25:41.020 That's what his job is.

01:25:42.060 It's not, it's not there to police populations.

01:25:44.140 That's what policemen are for. 0.99

01:25:45.460 They police populations.

01:25:46.680 The military is not good at that.

01:25:47.840 Never has been.

01:25:49.020 But if you're asking me, if we're appealing to force doctrine, oh yeah, we could have crushed

01:25:53.560 Vietnam like it was nothing. 0.96

01:25:54.940 We could, MacArthur could have invaded China and crushed them too if he had wanted to. 0.92

01:25:59.280 The thing is, it's like, ultimately it's always coming back down to the idea of force

01:26:05.600 and who has the monopoly on it.

01:26:07.240 And I've never seen any historic evidence ever that women have ever had the monopoly

01:26:11.980 on it, nor ever successfully fought for any sort of independence or freedom where they

01:26:17.140 don't have to appeal to men. 0.73

01:26:18.740 But I've always seen men do it where they never had to appeal to women.

01:26:21.660 And so the historic standards on my side, the strength of force and half of the conditions

01:26:28.040 of half of the world right now is on my side for my argument.

01:26:31.340 What you guys have is vibes and maybe one day vibes.

01:26:35.820 And one day though, Andrew, one day we'll be able to overthrow that evil patriarchy with 1.00

01:26:41.080 fucking robots and shit like that. 1.00

01:26:43.180 And it's like, I don't think so. 1.00

01:26:44.600 I don't think so.

01:26:45.300 But that's just me.

01:26:45.920 I think in regards to like maintaining authority, you need the strength to seize the authority

01:26:52.700 and then you need the wherewithal to maintain the authority.

01:26:55.760 And that's more of the feminine energy of the leadership. 1.00

01:26:58.620 You need wisdom.

01:27:00.080 You need to see your own flaws.

01:27:01.640 You need to admit when you're wrong.

01:27:03.080 Like that's how you, but you do need strength to take it and to protect it.

01:27:07.640 And to keep it.

01:27:08.060 But what's on the inside is where the women become very important. 1.00

01:27:12.220 Well, this is not what's in dispute here.

01:27:14.980 What's in dispute here is not whether or not you can craft societies in which men grant

01:27:20.080 women rights. 0.98

01:27:21.280 Because I would argue that obviously we can see societies right this second.

01:27:25.720 We live in one where men grant women rights. 1.00

01:27:27.400 Well, God, I don't want to interrupt you, but God grants the rights in our society.

01:27:30.500 Oh yeah, does he?

01:27:31.300 Well, that's what the constitution says.

01:27:33.000 Well, the constitution operates on an axiom that all men are created equal under God, right?

01:27:40.660 This is axiomatic.

01:27:41.620 I'm not saying I don't think it's grounded and I don't think it's well philosophically

01:27:46.160 grounded.

01:27:46.540 While I, as a Christian, would argue that there's some positive rights, or at least

01:27:53.880 could argue that there's positive rights, from her view, there isn't rights at all. 1.00

01:27:59.860 From your view, rights are a social construct, aren't they?

01:28:03.760 I mean, rights are whoever is able to enforce them.

01:28:06.300 That's right.

01:28:06.720 So it's a social construct.

01:28:08.540 But I don't even really dispute with you about the force thing.

01:28:11.900 Like, you know, who determines a right?

01:28:14.120 Is that by divine right, by God, or whatever?

01:28:16.920 But like, as far as like the practical reality of like, who can enforce their rights, that

01:28:20.520 really comes down to for sure.

01:28:21.460 I just want to make sure we get this clear.

01:28:23.320 Is a right a social construction from your view?

01:28:26.360 We make it up.

01:28:28.880 And then we have guns and say, do it or else.

01:28:31.900 Or these people are allowed to do it, or else.

01:28:34.300 There's something about my answer intuitively that wants to say, no, I don't believe it's

01:28:38.720 just like a social thing or a social phenomenon or construct.

01:28:43.200 I don't know.

01:28:43.880 Not divine command theory, though.

01:28:45.080 So I'm not sure.

01:28:46.180 So you can't ground it in anything, can you?

01:28:48.360 I guess not, no.

01:28:49.360 Yeah. 0.60

01:28:50.100 Because you just make them the fuck up, don't you?

01:28:52.920 What are you grounded in? 0.97

01:28:54.060 Well, I grounded in God, but I have a different worldview than you.

01:28:57.460 And when we're debating this, we're debating it from the prism of our world.

01:29:01.660 While I, as the Christian, might be able to grant that there are rights, why should

01:29:06.000 I ever grant them to you, Kami?

01:29:07.680 You don't believe in them at all.

01:29:09.400 From your view, if I take away all of your rights, we just made them the fuck up anyway.

01:29:15.360 I feel like it's a highly reductive way to characterize my arguments.

01:29:19.940 I'm sorry you feel that way, but how is it not the case that from your view, we just

01:29:24.200 made them the fuck up, they're not grounded in anything, and if I take them away, how's

01:29:27.320 that even immoral? 0.96

01:29:28.900 Um, you can see these things and look at them through lenses that I just don't find

01:29:33.320 useful, or I have not thought to do so.

01:29:35.860 From the Marxist lens?

01:29:37.020 They could be useful.

01:29:38.120 Um, no, I'm sorry, from a Marxist material sense, yes.

01:29:41.740 But like, I mean, my general opinion on rights is that they're useless if you only have them

01:29:46.000 du jour, but you don't actually have a way to enforce them.

01:29:48.480 Or similarly, it is, I wouldn't say equally as futile, but it's also a precarious position

01:29:52.900 to be in where you can enforce your rights, but you have not actually secured the legal

01:29:56.880 protections and the du jour actually gotten them ensconced in writing in a constitution,

01:30:01.000 et cetera.

01:30:01.320 But how is it not the weakest sand on earth to say that we need to enforce these rights 0.95

01:30:07.140 that I just made the fuck up? 0.90

01:30:10.440 Because they're not grounded in anything. 0.93

01:30:13.240 I just made them up.

01:30:14.320 And you think that them being grounded in God makes it more superior?

01:30:17.680 Well, I think that the only argument that you can give to men, the benevolency of the

01:30:23.540 patriarchy, is the entire appeal from people with your worldview is to appeal to us and

01:30:29.080 our view, who believe in rights because of God, and say to us, don't we deserve them

01:30:35.020 too, even though we don't actually even share the view? 1.00

01:30:38.340 To which I tell Christians, no, fuck them. 1.00

01:30:41.020 Give them nothing, because they're appealing to your benevolence. 1.00

01:30:44.120 And they should beg, beg for you to be as benevolent as you are, because from their

01:30:49.520 worldview, they have nothing to ground it in.

01:30:52.280 Like you said, you have nothing to ground it in.

01:30:54.400 You just made them up.

01:30:55.980 Why should I believe them?

01:30:57.060 Why should I believe that you have a right to do anything?

01:30:59.300 You don't even believe you have a right to do anything.

01:31:01.180 Why should I believe in like divine command theory and that because God says it is, then

01:31:04.600 it is.

01:31:04.740 That's the beautiful part of the argument.

01:31:06.340 You don't.

01:31:07.500 Because if we're operating off of your view, I'm just going to, I'm just going to grant

01:31:11.440 that it's false.

01:31:12.660 Who cares?

01:31:13.180 If we're both building it off of a house of sand and I just made up divine command theory

01:31:17.880 and you just made, which by the way, I don't believe in divine command theory, but if I

01:31:21.260 did, okay, if I did, if I just grant that I made it up, it doesn't help your position

01:31:26.320 a bit.

01:31:26.580 What is divine command theory?

01:31:27.580 It only helps, it only helps my position.

01:31:29.440 Hang on a second again, one second.

01:31:30.940 It only helps my position.

01:31:32.780 Sure.

01:31:33.420 I made the whole thing up.

01:31:34.800 How's that helpful to you?

01:31:37.060 Well, I'm asking, how do you intend to spread this to people that don't believe in your

01:31:41.060 worldview?

01:31:41.360 With this argument.

01:31:42.220 Because you're going to have to appeal to my worldview, whether it's true or not, because

01:31:48.800 it's the only one, right?

01:31:50.700 Which I'm going to postulate, I'm going to ground rights in. 0.99

01:31:53.360 You just got done saying rights are not grounded in fucking anything. 0.97

01:31:57.000 So if that's the case, fine. 0.97

01:31:58.860 I lied and made the whole thing up, but rights aren't grounded in anything anyway.

01:32:02.500 So it doesn't help you a bit if I take them away.

01:32:05.840 But you think they're grounded in the divinity.

01:32:07.800 So I'm saying that a lot of people...

01:32:09.080 So you're appealing to my view again?

01:32:11.060 Yeah.

01:32:11.380 So I'm appealing to your view.

01:32:13.540 And in a world that's increasingly secular, how do you intend to persuade people?

01:32:17.320 Do you think that Christians ought to be using force or persuasion?

01:32:19.700 What do you mean?

01:32:20.700 I'm sorry.

01:32:21.320 Me?

01:32:22.240 Why do I need to do anything when the view of my opposition is that they have no rights,

01:32:27.340 can't ground them any...

01:32:28.020 I'm not saying that you need to do it.

01:32:29.140 I'm asking you how you intend to...

01:32:30.700 Yeah, right.

01:32:30.780 This is how I intend to do it.

01:32:32.440 By pointing out that you live in...

01:32:34.580 Your whole house is built on sand.

01:32:36.820 Persuasion?

01:32:37.360 And you have to literally appeal to me.

01:32:39.760 Well, even if I used force, you have no appeal against that.

01:32:42.160 Nothing's grounded in anything. 0.98

01:32:43.320 It's just all made the fuck up.

01:32:46.940 Sure, yeah.

01:32:47.580 I guess I sleep fine at night knowing this or whatever.

01:32:49.900 I guess I would consider...

01:32:50.540 I'm like a moral anti-realist.

01:32:52.120 I don't believe in these sorts of like...

01:32:53.280 And that's why you have to...

01:32:54.300 And you guys always have to appeal, you moral anti-realists, to moral realists who believe

01:32:58.800 in moral facts because that's what prevents us from enslaving all of you.

01:33:02.780 But to answer your question...

01:33:04.540 But hang on, hang on.

01:33:05.400 Isn't that true?

01:33:06.500 That what prevents us from enslaving all of you is you're appealing to our benevolence as

01:33:11.060 moral realists.

01:33:11.840 You mean Christians?

01:33:12.540 What prevents Christians from enslaving everybody else? 1.00

01:33:14.540 Yeah, yeah.

01:33:17.900 I don't believe so, but okay.

01:33:19.900 They're not appealing to their Christianity and Christian ethics to just not go ahead and 0.58

01:33:23.480 enslave all women and stuff them in cages? 1.00

01:33:25.640 Just stuff them in there? 0.99

01:33:27.620 No, I don't think so, no.

01:33:28.660 Why not?

01:33:29.520 I don't think that that has necessarily been the basis for people arguing for equality

01:33:33.540 or whatever.

01:33:33.960 I don't think that you're presupposing that it's always been by virtue of appealing to

01:33:38.340 Christian benevolence, ethics, et cetera.

01:33:40.680 Never seen any appeal that was not dogmatic and religious for why women have rights ever 1.00

01:33:45.960 in all of human history.

01:33:47.640 They always appeal to a God.

01:33:48.840 They always appeal to a higher power.

01:33:50.140 They always appeal to something external to them.

01:33:51.800 You just got them saying it's not grounded in anything. 0.97

01:33:53.540 You made it the fuck up. 0.96

01:33:54.300 If it's completely made up, it's not grounded in nothing, then you're appealing to Christians 1.00

01:33:59.380 and Christian benevolence in their view.

01:34:01.260 Even if it's not true, you're appealing to their view that they believe it's true to

01:34:06.120 not just stuff you in a cage.

01:34:07.700 And if you said that's wrong and they asked you, why is it wrong?

01:34:10.320 You'd have to say, I don't know.

01:34:11.780 It's not grounded in anything.

01:34:13.000 I just made it up.

01:34:16.220 And that's the most persuasive argument on planet earth from, in my opinion.

01:34:20.080 I think that the founding fathers sat around and had this conversation and they're like,

01:34:23.480 look, we know through all human history, rights were dictated by who had the guns, who

01:34:27.060 had the strength.

01:34:27.780 We have to change that because it constantly goblin King switches hands.

01:34:32.040 The next strongest guy overthrows.

01:34:33.940 Oh, so they're like, let's say it's from God or they really believed it.

01:34:38.200 I know they were like Christian dudes.

01:34:39.780 Not all of them were like Catholic or anything.

01:34:41.920 I mean, they were all their own.

01:34:43.980 Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible.

01:34:45.920 What's that?

01:34:46.880 I said very few were Catholic.

01:34:48.240 Yeah.

01:34:48.460 So, so they said, let's just appeal it to God, whether or not it's true.

01:34:52.120 I don't know.

01:34:52.860 I don't know what God is, but they knew, they knew that the, that the moral order depended

01:34:57.780 on a Christian worldview.

01:34:59.820 The more you, the more you go into like arbitrary kind of reason for rights, even if they weren't

01:35:06.740 Christian, I think, was it John Adams that said a democratic Republic is only

01:35:11.860 fit for a moral and Christian society. 0.81

01:35:14.180 There's actually, there's actually several foundational contributors who talked about

01:35:19.620 how a morality, there has to be a shared sense of morality inside of a public in order

01:35:25.040 for there to be a Republic.

01:35:27.200 So that's true.

01:35:28.580 I think that that's true of any society.

01:35:30.060 I think there has to be some shared glue, right?

01:35:32.140 Here we used to have like patriotism.

01:35:33.900 We used to have all sorts of things that were a shared glue.

01:35:36.020 That's all gone, right?

01:35:36.940 Now I have to share my country with communists, right? 0.88

01:35:39.300 That's, and it used to be that we persecuted communists.

01:35:42.520 That was so base.

01:35:44.320 We get back to that. 0.99

01:35:45.140 We get back to, can we get back to fucking persecuting the communists? 0.98

01:35:48.180 But the point is, is like that this type of poison, in my opinion, is so invasive to 0.98

01:35:54.920 the fabric of the United States that people who literally tell me they can't ground anything

01:36:00.020 and nothing know that they can't ground anything and nothing, that there's no such thing as

01:36:04.460 moral facts. 0.98

01:36:05.100 Then tell me it's wrong if I stuff them in a rape cage. 1.00

01:36:08.200 And it's like, what are you talking about? 1.00

01:36:11.260 That's the stupidest shit that I've ever heard in my life. 1.00

01:36:14.260 But that's my opposition, unfortunately. 1.00

01:36:17.400 And so they appeal to the benevolence of those like me in order to prevent us from doing

01:36:21.780 the thing that they don't want, that they don't even believe we shouldn't do because

01:36:24.860 there are no moral facts.

01:36:26.220 That's the retarded state of the world that we're in. 1.00

01:36:28.980 And Andrew is very magnanimous for not stuffing lowly communists like me and gulags and whatnot. 0.54

01:36:34.540 Did you, were you always, I mean, from your view, how is that anything but benevolent?

01:36:38.320 Why shouldn't I?

01:36:39.560 As a moral anti-realist, why shouldn't I do that?

01:36:42.220 What would make that immoral? 1.00

01:36:44.260 Tell me, what would make it immoral as a moral anti-realist for me to stuff your ass 1.00

01:36:49.000 in a gulag? 1.00

01:36:49.820 What?

01:36:50.620 It's a more consequentialist outlook that I think that based off the outcomes.

01:36:54.800 Wait, wait, there's no moral facts, right?

01:36:56.940 No, they're not real facts, no.

01:36:58.680 So then there's nothing I'm really doing that's immoral, is there?

01:37:02.160 No.

01:37:02.680 No.

01:37:03.000 Again, that's highly, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, I disagree with

01:37:05.580 the answer. 1.00

01:37:05.640 Hey, stuff your ass in a gulag, is that immoral? 1.00

01:37:07.320 No. 1.00

01:37:08.100 It's, no, no, no, it's immoral, but not under the same framework.

01:37:10.600 I'm not using the same, like the moral realist framework to say that it's wrong, it's wrong

01:37:13.680 for other reasons.

01:37:15.120 Yeah.

01:37:15.580 Do you believe in objective truth?

01:37:17.460 No.

01:37:18.340 No?

01:37:18.660 Is that true?

01:37:21.640 Subjective.

01:37:22.340 So you believe in it, you don't believe in objective truth.

01:37:24.520 Are you like a math realist?

01:37:26.060 Hang on, and I ask you if that's true, and you say, no, that's not true either.

01:37:29.600 So I can't believe anything you say, and you don't believe that there's any such thing

01:37:33.900 as rights, but it's wrong for me to do something bad to you, even though there's no moral facts. 0.99

01:37:39.440 Fucking genius. 0.98

01:37:40.620 This is your opposition, ladies and gentlemen. 1.00

01:37:42.840 These are the communists who are taking over academia and teaching your kids. 0.76

01:37:46.580 So wait, wait, what's your, you know, if you believe that, then what I think that goes

01:37:51.860 to show that there are, you know, more powerful means than simply force to be able to enact

01:37:57.960 your political will amongst the masses and the population.

01:38:00.860 You're saying that there are soft power and institutions that you can access that can erode

01:38:06.600 these sorts of protections for Christians, for moral people, et cetera, and there's not even

01:38:10.920 a single drop of bloodshed.

01:38:12.780 There's not a bullet shot ever.

01:38:14.660 But there could be if they wanted it to be.

01:38:15.380 There could be.

01:38:16.960 There could be, but that's not, you know, what's happening.

01:38:20.220 They're using soft power and that in and of itself is, is pretty strong.

01:38:23.520 But what will win, soft power or force in the end?

01:38:26.740 Well, force will win.

01:38:27.760 But I'm saying that I don't think that the, you know, even under his view, he's not discounting

01:38:32.920 that there is a significant advantage in having these sorts of soft power and having access

01:38:37.380 over these institutions, even if they're, you know, academia or whatever.

01:38:40.420 There is, but the only reason it works is because you're appealing to people that, that

01:38:45.340 say, if you, if you kind of just come in here with force, that that's wrong.

01:38:48.420 And we have a moral order that would tell you that it's, but it still works.

01:38:52.520 So what you're doing is, and what a lot of women do, we can maybe go back to the feminism 1.00

01:38:56.840 thing for a bit, is, is appeal to, to emotion and say a morality, an objective morality to

01:39:05.180 say it is wrong to enslave other people.

01:39:07.080 It is wrong to use violence against people because they don't believe.

01:39:11.260 And this is what the left has done.

01:39:12.820 And this is why they've worked because they appeal to the goodwill of Christians, particularly

01:39:18.240 women and empathy that says, oh, I feel bad for this immigrant who's just murdered an American 1.00

01:39:24.660 child or a nursing student.

01:39:26.320 The amount of tears that were wept for somebody like Lake and Riley over some arbitrary person

01:39:32.980 they don't know that doesn't, isn't from this country, a small child that, that hasn't

01:39:37.900 of like a five-year-old who supposedly was taken in by ice.

01:39:40.900 It's, it's unbelievable.

01:39:43.060 It's, it's selective empathy.

01:39:46.160 It's empathy in this broad, I'm not saying compassion isn't there, but these women have 0.99

01:39:52.380 this empathy for broad, abstract people more than the people closest to them, more than

01:39:57.340 the family.

01:39:58.060 This, this Renee Goodwoman put her own family in jeopardy.

01:40:02.060 She is now has a, her son or daughter is without a mother because of this abstract idea of that

01:40:12.200 we should protect some boy that she doesn't know.

01:40:15.000 I think empathy is work, should work in the particular.

01:40:18.640 If you're going to put yourself in someone else's shoes, know who that person is, but

01:40:22.900 this kind of broad, abstract, we should feel good.

01:40:25.600 We, we should feel, um, for everybody.

01:40:28.920 You can only do so much and she put some broad abstraction of, of, um, children in cages,

01:40:36.680 whatever, whatever the moral appeal was over her very own family.

01:40:40.480 So you don't think it's virtuous to have concern for other people, even if you don't know them?

01:40:46.220 No, I think it's, I think that's compassion.

01:40:48.060 I think, but to, I think there's an order of virtue.

01:40:52.180 She, I think she misplaced her priorities. 0.86

01:40:54.700 She misplaced her emotions.

01:40:56.220 She misplaced who should she be, who she, who she should be caring for first.

01:41:02.820 You have a child.

01:41:04.420 Are you going to put that child's life at risk to go fight for some cause where you could

01:41:11.400 potentially die and leave that child alone?

01:41:13.420 Are you going to go fight for some abstract cause and abandon your child for that?

01:41:18.640 So your argument is that her duties were misaligned or out of order because she was prioritizing

01:41:24.760 other people's, uh, kids, strangers, et cetera, over her own personal family.

01:41:30.500 But I don't think that Renee Good woke up that morning thinking that she was going to be shot

01:41:33.600 in the head three times, even with the actions that she was taking.

01:41:35.740 But why would you take that risk?

01:41:37.040 You know, you're going to an armed conflict where there's force, where there's a potential

01:41:41.400 Wait, wait, wait, an armed conflict?

01:41:43.660 There's ICE agents.

01:41:44.780 There's people with, with guns around.

01:41:47.240 I would never do.

01:41:47.880 Well, yeah, yeah, yeah.

01:41:48.340 But that's, I view that differently as an armed conflict, conflict.

01:41:51.560 This happened in like a cul-de-sac, right?

01:41:53.020 Or like, like a suburb.

01:41:54.620 Fair point.

01:41:55.060 Yeah, but why would you go into potentially dangerous situations?

01:41:58.660 These, the tensions have been known to be heightened in Minneapolis, right?

01:42:02.340 Why would you just abandon your duties and responsibilities as a mother to your child

01:42:08.120 to go fight for some abstract cause where the reality is you're not going to make much

01:42:12.860 of a difference?

01:42:14.560 So, well, there's, I guess, two things that I have to dispute with that.

01:42:17.880 Yeah.

01:42:18.060 For one, again, I don't think that she views this as sort of like an all or nothing thing.

01:42:21.640 I don't believe that she thought that as she was doing that, she was going to be abandoning

01:42:26.000 or one, she didn't anticipate that she was going to be shot in the head three times.

01:42:28.940 Two, I don't think that she believed that she, by making that choice, it's mutually exclusive.

01:42:34.200 And therefore, by going to this ICE protest, that she was going to be abandoning her family

01:42:38.920 for one.

01:42:39.820 So I think that kind of explains her subjective, rational state of mind.

01:42:43.580 But then you're at, the second part of your question was like, why would you do that?

01:42:47.280 And it's the same reason that Kyle Rittenhouse decided to take up arms and head to

01:42:51.180 Kenosha and take matters into his own hands, as far as he saw, and try to defend the police,

01:42:56.720 defend buildings or whatever, because he had a superseding moral principle and duty that

01:43:00.800 he felt he was compelled to act on.

01:43:02.360 But he didn't have a family.

01:43:04.180 Kyle Rittenhouse didn't have a family?

01:43:05.580 No, he didn't have kids.

01:43:06.800 Yeah, he doesn't have a father.

01:43:08.600 He's not a father.

01:43:09.840 I wonder if that would change his decision-making process to go into a risky situation.

01:43:16.180 He has a mother.

01:43:17.900 Right.

01:43:18.160 But he's not responsible for the life of another human being right now, or at that moment

01:43:22.500 that he made that decision.

01:43:24.760 That very based decision.

01:43:27.280 Yeah.

01:43:27.560 So then single people, you're fine with doing this because they don't have a duty to their 1.00

01:43:30.780 children because they have no children to speak of.

01:43:32.620 Or no, that wouldn't be okay either.

01:43:33.700 Well, no, my risk calculations of what I do on a day-to-day basis are much different than

01:43:37.920 probably a woman with children. 0.99

01:43:39.340 Yeah, absolutely they are.

01:43:40.700 Different.

01:43:41.220 But if Renee Goode had been single, would you be saying, oh, well, it's okay because she 1.00

01:43:45.940 wasn't in violation of her moral duty to her son?

01:43:49.660 I would say that the calculation would be different.

01:43:53.140 In what way?

01:43:53.760 You're just saying it's different.

01:43:54.720 But in what way would it be different?

01:43:56.120 Well, she's not considering she has to take care of a family when she goes home, or she has 1.00

01:44:00.280 a moral responsibility for her son.

01:44:02.000 So I'm going to be more risk tolerant to go in a situation that's highly charged, where

01:44:10.340 there is the possibility of force, where is the possibility of her getting hurt.

01:44:14.000 And she didn't back down.

01:44:15.580 That was the thing.

01:44:16.680 They were very antagonistic to these ICE officers.

01:44:19.940 It just seems like a red herring because I think that you fundamentally believe that

01:44:22.860 she was fighting for a cause that was not righteous and that is unjust.

01:44:26.040 And why not make the criticism on that grounds instead of saying, well, it's actually

01:44:30.040 immoral because she has a duty to her family and to her son.

01:44:33.380 I didn't say it was immoral.

01:44:33.760 I didn't say it was immoral.

01:44:34.320 What did you think it was?

01:44:35.500 I just think it's a, it's a dis, I think her priorities are disordered. 0.94

01:44:39.940 I didn't say it was immoral.

01:44:41.660 Okay.

01:44:42.100 Well, her priorities were disordered.

01:44:44.880 But again, then the disordered priorities just seems like a red herring to me because

01:44:48.460 it doesn't really seem like that's the thing.

01:44:50.380 But you're that you're really sanctioning her for or indicting her for.

01:44:54.080 It does seem like the issue is that you don't really think that the cause was just because

01:44:57.840 if the cause became just enough, then it would reach a threshold where suddenly you would

01:45:01.500 say that the duties maybe could be, there could be leniency as far as them being reordered.

01:45:05.860 And that there could be other causes that are more important than your family or you as

01:45:10.280 an individual.

01:45:11.240 I don't think there's any social cause worth risking your life for and, and risking leaving

01:45:17.040 your child without a mother.

01:45:18.740 I don't.

01:45:19.080 So how do you, how do you feel about ICE agents then?

01:45:23.180 Cause they're putting themselves in a risky, difficult position.

01:45:26.140 These, these ICE agents have family.

01:45:27.840 They're going out there with, with guns.

01:45:30.580 They're not, they're not charged with their family.

01:45:32.720 They're not charged.

01:45:33.480 They're not charged with the nurturing and taking care of their children.

01:45:36.700 But they still have moral duties to their families.

01:45:39.200 They do, but they're, they have different, they have different capacities.

01:45:45.540 Like we said, they're, they're more forceful.

01:45:47.420 They're more likely to be safe in that situation than a woman is. 1.00

01:45:50.720 You're, but you're just saying they're different.

01:45:52.160 They're different.

01:45:52.640 They are different.

01:45:53.200 I agree that they're different, but why this leniency for men to be engaged in these sorts

01:45:58.000 of behaviors and not following their duty of carrying, not putting themselves in situations

01:46:02.100 that could wind up dead.

01:46:03.320 Because they have different roles.

01:46:03.420 Because fathers and mothers have different roles within the family.

01:46:07.100 Their, their charge is to protect and defend.

01:46:09.120 And a mother's role is to nourish and, and so male ICE officers. 1.00

01:46:15.700 Okay.

01:46:16.060 Female ICE officers. 1.00

01:46:17.080 How do you feel about that?

01:46:18.160 I would probably argue it's not, I mean, again, do you have a family?

01:46:22.380 Does she, is she?

01:46:23.200 A female ICE officer with a family.

01:46:24.620 Do you think that she's engaged in something immoral?

01:46:26.800 No, I didn't say it's immoral.

01:46:28.160 Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.

01:46:29.180 You're right.

01:46:29.640 You didn't say that.

01:46:30.220 You did say that their priorities are misaligned, right?

01:46:32.620 Yeah.

01:46:33.140 Okay.

01:46:33.440 Would you say that the female ICE agent with a family has misaligned priorities? 0.96

01:46:37.320 Yes.

01:46:38.200 Okay.

01:46:39.000 If Kyle Rittenhouse had been a woman or a teenage girl instead of a boy, would you be condemning

01:46:44.400 them?

01:46:45.620 I'm not condemning anybody, but I would say does that teenage- 1.00

01:46:48.560 Or indicting their character, their actions, their choices, because it was a girl doing 0.95

01:46:53.280 it now instead of a boy.

01:46:55.040 Does that girl have a family? 1.00

01:46:57.140 Yes.

01:46:58.040 Then yeah.

01:46:59.240 Then it just comes down to, it really just comes down to whether or not they have kids.

01:47:03.220 And if she didn't have a family, then you wouldn't be criticizing them. 0.99

01:47:08.540 I would say it was a stupid move, but I don't think I would be as maybe judgmental. 1.00

01:47:13.480 Correct. 1.00

01:47:14.120 Okay.

01:47:14.800 You're talking about people getting whipped into a frenzy, like a moral frenzy to go fight

01:47:18.420 for some purpose that they barely understand.

01:47:21.140 And I keep thinking like the war in Iraq.

01:47:22.600 Weapons of mass destruction.

01:47:23.680 They rallied the men to go fight some conflict.

01:47:26.380 They garnered my empathy with 9-11. 1.00

01:47:28.460 And then they used it for conflict.

01:47:31.000 But do you think that feminism, this whole bet has made it so that they're drawing women 1.00

01:47:35.780 into that frenzy?

01:47:36.840 Because seeing women out on the street marching like this, it feels like, it does feel like,

01:47:42.800 I mean, it feels like the United States is being manipulated by the world through the

01:47:46.960 internet.

01:47:47.540 Like liberalism is being obliterated with new ideas.

01:47:51.000 And so I do think that people are like, yes, break up the family, poison yourselves, eat

01:47:55.480 bad food.

01:47:56.040 This is how we'll defeat you from within.

01:47:58.460 But I mean, the argument I'm getting is that feminism has led to now enticing women into 0.79

01:48:04.300 this toxically empathic state of being. 0.99

01:48:07.720 Whereas they used to not give a shit. 0.99

01:48:09.600 They wouldn't go out. 0.99

01:48:10.580 They didn't, I mean, they did start the French Revolution.

01:48:12.820 They were, the women were the ones that went out because when the food runs out, they went 1.00

01:48:16.400 out there with their cookware and they were pissed off.

01:48:19.680 But I mean, that was a really big deal.

01:48:21.520 They ran out of food.

01:48:22.360 You know, the women stepped up. 1.00

01:48:25.700 I don't know.

01:48:26.660 I'm asking you about your argument.

01:48:28.160 Are you saying that feminism is, is, is making women crazy, is making women severely empathic 0.99

01:48:34.740 to a fault? 0.93

01:48:36.960 Yeah.

01:48:37.140 I mean, I think it's appealing to, I think there's, uh, there's positive attributes to

01:48:43.840 male qualities and positive attributes to female qualities and, and vice versa.

01:48:48.900 You can have what you call toxic empathy.

01:48:52.160 I don't like the word toxic in general.

01:48:55.160 I don't think, you know, masculinity is toxic.

01:48:57.460 I don't think femininity is toxic. 1.00

01:48:59.160 I think them aimed in the wrong direction leads us to where, to chaos, um, as opposed to

01:49:07.320 order and compassion in the right direction.

01:49:10.060 I think these women are placing their empathy in the wrong direction because they don't, it 1.00

01:49:16.560 is natural instinct.

01:49:18.580 It is biological difference.

01:49:21.580 Women are more, uh, empathetic. 1.00

01:49:25.060 They're more agreeable by nature.

01:49:26.640 These kinds of five personality traits.

01:49:29.100 And I think they have been manipulated to, to feel things, to redirect what would normally

01:49:38.340 be directed at a child or a family to these kinds of abstract social justice causes.

01:49:44.640 So what is your prescription for these, uh, these women? 0.99

01:49:48.120 I'll go back to the female ICE agent with her, her family.

01:49:51.460 Do you think that any female ICE agent who has a family ought to resign from ICE? 0.82

01:49:57.720 I, I don't, I don't think that most women, because of their differences, because of their 0.99

01:50:03.760 physiological tendencies, the way they think, the way they are in their, in their femininity 0.79

01:50:09.200 would want to be a female ICE agent. 0.94

01:50:11.960 Now, if they do, that's fine.

01:50:13.540 So do you think that they, if they, if they exist and they have families, do you think

01:50:18.180 they ought to resign?

01:50:18.940 Yes or no?

01:50:20.280 I'm not going to force them to resign.

01:50:22.280 I wouldn't do it.

01:50:23.000 I'm not asking if you would force them.

01:50:24.120 I'm asking if they ought to resign.

01:50:27.760 But they're there already.

01:50:29.340 I don't know.

01:50:29.780 They made the choice.

01:50:30.600 Hang on, hang on.

01:50:31.080 I'm not asking you to make a descriptive observation.

01:50:32.480 To be fair, to be fair, she's asking a direct question.

01:50:35.500 It's an ought claim.

01:50:37.020 She's asking yes, yes or no from your view.

01:50:40.280 Okay.

01:50:40.360 Then yes.

01:50:40.800 You think they ought to?

01:50:41.680 Yeah.

01:50:42.160 Okay.

01:50:42.420 And you see this, like, I guess this kind of cuts against your kind of vibes argument

01:50:48.100 because you're finally drawing lines in the sand with what professional, you know, achievements

01:50:53.120 that you're willing to accommodate women making in this society.

01:50:55.800 And you draw the line at female ICE officers with family, for example. 1.00

01:50:58.860 Yes.

01:50:59.240 I would say risking your life.

01:51:01.480 There's a higher risk that your life is in jeopardy as an ICE officer than there is

01:51:06.640 as a doctor in a hospital doing rounds.

01:51:09.460 Do you extend this to female police that have family? 0.64

01:51:12.800 Yeah.

01:51:13.600 So there should be a police force that's entirely comprised exclusively of and only of men.

01:51:19.540 Depends on their role in the police force.

01:51:22.480 Are you talking about a higher risk kind of role?

01:51:26.360 I'm sure there's, I don't know much about different roles in the police.

01:51:30.260 I mean, in the army, can women do certain things? 1.00

01:51:32.660 You mean like payroll clerks and things like that, I'm guessing?

01:51:36.280 Not just that.

01:51:36.600 Yeah.

01:51:37.000 Or PI.

01:51:37.400 Well, I'm not even talking about the more kind of like to the extent that a blue collar

01:51:41.120 job like police work has like white collar aspects.

01:51:43.560 I'm not talking about the paper pushing or the admin stuff.

01:51:45.760 I'm talking about people that go onto the field, effectuate arrests, are actually out

01:51:50.380 in the community enforcing law.

01:51:52.080 Do you believe that that should be comprised of any women?

01:51:54.740 I think there are, if they want, if the, yes, it can be comprised of women. 1.00

01:52:02.540 But I'd be curious to know how many women choose that path. 1.00

01:52:06.460 So how come female ICE agents with families, you're saying that's a no-go, they ought to 1.00

01:52:10.980 resign in your view.

01:52:12.160 But when it comes to the police force, domestic duties, law enforcement, et cetera, that can

01:52:17.700 accommodate having women within its ranks.

01:52:20.140 Why is that?

01:52:20.700 I'm not saying it can or can't accommodate.

01:52:22.640 I am saying the rule, the exceptions do not prove the rule wrong.

01:52:28.760 That's all.

01:52:29.540 You can, sure, you can have, if they could, first of all, if those women can live up to 1.00

01:52:33.580 the standards of what needs to be.

01:52:35.240 I'm not saying that they disprove it.

01:52:36.180 I'm asking you to delineate and explain why in one case with the female ICE officers that 1.00

01:52:42.060 have families, you say they ought to resign.

01:52:44.120 But when it comes to the police force, you're not going to call, you're not calling for

01:52:48.020 female cops or ones that have families to resign. 1.00

01:52:50.840 It leads me to a binary to say, should they resign or not?

01:52:52.960 I force you to answer a hypothetical question.

01:52:55.620 And I'm asking you claims about your worldview and your normative claims.

01:52:58.760 Which is fair.

01:52:59.600 That's fine.

01:53:00.240 I get it.

01:53:00.940 But what I'm saying is how many women are actually as ICE officers, right? 0.74

01:53:06.260 You can have exceptions to a rule.

01:53:09.960 I don't know.

01:53:10.800 So maybe I'll have to back away.

01:53:12.140 So would I ask them to resign?

01:53:13.300 I know.

01:53:13.720 But the thing is, is how many, I just don't think that you want a majority of police officers

01:53:20.780 or ICE officers to be women. 1.00

01:53:23.980 The fact is, those are roles better suited for men.

01:53:27.820 Are there some women that can fill those roles? 1.00

01:53:30.660 If they are as strong as men, if they meet the requirements, sure.

01:53:34.260 And if they want to, I can't force a woman to say who has children, don't do that. 0.99

01:53:40.700 I do think-

01:53:41.380 You can, but if you could, you would call on them to resign from ICE.

01:53:44.640 ICE is already struggling with recruits, even getting men, even with all of the generous

01:53:49.020 benefits that they're offering.

01:53:50.380 And under your worldview and your normative claims that you've laid out in this conversation,

01:53:54.720 you would be fine with working against the goals of the admin that you voted for and

01:53:58.440 supported and whose policies you champion.

01:54:01.180 Only if those women could meet the standards. 1.00

01:54:03.960 Let's say that ICE, 40% of it, again, comprised of women with families, you'd say it's more 0.98

01:54:10.140 important that they ought to resign and work against your goals for the domestic agenda

01:54:14.520 within this United States to be able to prioritize that.

01:54:19.020 And I find that to be futile under your worldview.

01:54:21.680 And I find that to be strange, honestly.

01:54:23.560 I think that at that point, it just seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot and

01:54:28.280 you're not- I would call on more men to step up and fill those- 0.87

01:54:31.060 I would call on more men to step up and fill those roles.

01:54:33.520 They're calling on men and they're struggling to even get men to recruit, even with the

01:54:36.720 incentives that they're laying out.

01:54:39.300 But it just seems self-defeating to me.

01:54:41.060 It seems like at that point, a little feminism could do you some good because if ICE were, 1.00

01:54:47.060 you know, 40% of it were comprised of women and that works in your favor because they're 1.00

01:54:51.500 effectuating deportations, you know, detainments of undocumented citizens and you ultimately

01:54:56.920 think that that's a righteous cause, it's a righteous goal.

01:54:59.420 I don't see why you would get tripped up over the fact that like, oh, well, I want that

01:55:03.100 to happen, but it needs to be men doing it, not women. 0.98

01:55:06.940 Then it just seems like you're getting needlessly picky and working against your own interests.

01:55:10.460 Well, I also think ICE is different in what they're supposed to be doing and now what they

01:55:15.680 have to do within kind of what's happening in the culture right now.

01:55:21.340 ICE's main job is to enforce immigration law, right?

01:55:25.700 Now they're being kind of forced into these violent conflicts.

01:55:28.900 By Trump or how do you mean?

01:55:30.840 Because Trump is the one deploying them and saying that they need to be going to these 0.99

01:55:33.780 cities doing all of the shit. 0.99

01:55:34.900 So when you say they're forced into this position, who's forcing them? 1.00

01:55:37.500 You mean Donald Trump?

01:55:38.100 No, no, no, no.

01:55:38.820 I mean, I mean, typically if an ICE agent or ICE agent was just to do their job, they

01:55:44.240 would go in, take the illegal immigrants or whomever they're supposed to deport and take 0.98

01:55:48.960 them out of the communities, right?

01:55:50.240 They wouldn't be involved in these violent conflicts if there wasn't this, this mass

01:55:55.480 deportation program underway, which I assumed you supported.

01:55:58.620 Do you not support the mass deportation program?

01:56:00.280 I support what they're doing.

01:56:01.380 Yes.

01:56:02.260 OK, but you're saying when you said like, well, they're doing things that they're not supposed

01:56:05.720 to be doing.

01:56:06.140 I got the impression you can correct me if I'm wrong.

01:56:08.760 They're coming up against conflict where that's not normally in the job description.

01:56:14.540 They're being not normally in the job description that ICE is going to come up against conflict.

01:56:18.320 Well, no, if they're they're they're coming up against mass riots and blocking traffic.

01:56:23.660 This there's there's plenty of cities where ICE agents are doing their job and they're not

01:56:28.240 they're not encountering all of this this crazy behavior.

01:56:32.340 You're the whistles, the things that put them into into kind of a sympathetic state of mind.

01:56:37.380 The whistle blowing people standing on the sidewalk blowing whistles or whatever.

01:56:40.800 You know, you think that's not what I would define as craziness.

01:56:45.260 You think the behavior you're seeing in Minneapolis and Los Angeles and the rioting that that's

01:56:51.560 that's kind of normal behavior.

01:56:54.760 People who are who are whose whose emotional nervous system is well balanced.

01:56:59.780 You're saying that the people that are demonstrating protesting against ICE, they're doing so because

01:57:06.720 they're hormonally imbalanced.

01:57:07.900 No, I'm saying they're not exhibiting behavior.

01:57:10.600 Somebody like Alex Petty, who's who is punching out lights that that's not that's not calm protesting behavior.

01:57:20.380 They are antagonizing people.

01:57:22.040 They are intentionally antagonizing people.

01:57:24.420 They are blowing whistles.

01:57:25.500 They are screaming.

01:57:26.260 They are asking people for papers when they are not they are not law enforcement.

01:57:31.240 They're not.

01:57:31.940 But you put them in this situation.

01:57:33.300 Trump deployed them and now it's incumbent.

01:57:35.000 Trump's doing what's absolutely legal.

01:57:36.700 Guys, guys, guys, we're coming to the top of the hour.

01:57:38.900 So my moderation style as I'm a debate participant here, too.

01:57:44.200 I want to make sure you had plenty of time to also engage in your views with the side of the table.

01:57:48.740 I think I did a good job of that and also engage with my views.

01:57:52.800 Which you lost on.

01:57:53.740 But the thing is, is that I do want to point out a couple of things.

01:57:57.960 First and foremost, I want to give you both kind of a chance to wrap your thoughts up.

01:58:02.900 So let's start with you, Aaron.

01:58:05.500 Just take a quick minute and kind of wrap your thoughts up on the conversation that we just had.

01:58:10.500 I think reflecting on the.

01:58:12.000 Just consider it like a closing.

01:58:13.000 Sure.

01:58:14.000 As a closing statement, I think the conversation that we just had is that if you want to indict my priorities as a feminist, as a communist or whatever, look no further than the arguments that were laid out by my interlocutor over here that were to me filled with internal contradictions.

01:58:28.500 Had a bunch of that were even though I was being indicted for appealing to arbitrary morals or nonexistent ones for going off vibes and feels or whatever that there were many times.

01:58:41.500 And Andrew even granted this to me that my debate upon it was doing the exact same thing.

01:58:46.500 And then from there, I would ask the audience and the viewers and participants to evaluate our performances, evaluate our arguments and see if we're if I'll even grant we're both just going off vibes.

01:58:56.500 Whose vibes are more compelling?

01:58:57.500 My interlocutors over here or my vibes?

01:59:01.500 Can I shot myself out or? 0.86

01:59:02.500 Of course. 0.99

01:59:03.500 We vibing, man.

01:59:04.500 We're vibing.

01:59:05.500 We're vibing, man.

01:59:06.500 Since we're vibing.

01:59:07.500 I'm a live streamer.

01:59:09.500 I live stream on Twitch and YouTube Monday through Friday.

01:59:12.500 I'm at straighterade, straighterade underscore on everything.

01:59:15.500 And yeah, that's my closing statement.

01:59:17.500 I do have a question for you, though.

01:59:18.500 Can I ask it?

01:59:19.500 Yeah.

01:59:20.500 Would you be interested in dropping the fee that you have to debate Pisco Liddy, the lawyer?

01:59:25.500 No.

01:59:26.500 Do you know why that fee is in place?

01:59:28.500 No.

01:59:29.500 Why is the fee in place or what?

01:59:30.500 It's because of how he treated my friend Rob Knorr and he's going to pay the piper for it.

01:59:33.500 And so everybody else in the world gets access to my enormous platform except him till he pays the fee.

01:59:38.500 How much is the fee again?

01:59:39.500 It's only 4K.

01:59:40.500 4K.

01:59:41.500 And he can't.

01:59:42.500 He has to pay it himself, right?

01:59:43.500 Nobody else can help.

01:59:44.500 I don't care if he fundraises.

01:59:45.500 Oh, he can fundraise it?

01:59:46.500 Of course.

01:59:47.500 Okay, if he crowd funds.

01:59:48.500 I don't care.

01:59:49.500 As long as liberals are paying it, he's paying it.

01:59:50.500 I don't care.

01:59:51.500 As long as they pay it, I will accept it.

01:59:53.500 Now here, to be totally fair to me, right?

01:59:56.500 That's like a three hour stream for me on a normal night.

01:59:59.500 So I don't feel like I'm asking for much.

02:00:01.500 And it's a little bit of penance.

02:00:03.500 He should have thought about that before he treated my buddy Rob, who's blowing up, by the way,

02:00:07.500 is going to be on Timcast tonight. 1.00

02:00:09.500 You shouldn't have treated him like shit. 0.99

02:00:11.500 Made me very upset. 1.00

02:00:12.500 Made me very, and I'm a very petty, vengeful person.

02:00:15.500 I know it's not very Christian of me.

02:00:17.500 Very petty.

02:00:18.500 Very vengeful.

02:00:19.500 Ian, your quick wrap up.

02:00:21.500 Yeah, I felt like we opened up the toy boxes and threw a bunch of toys all over the room.

02:00:26.500 And then we're like, we're going to play with these and these and these and these and then the show ended.

02:00:29.500 So maybe we'll play with these toys some more in the future.

02:00:32.500 This was a great conversation.

02:00:33.500 Oh, I enjoyed the heck out of it.

02:00:35.500 And it was it was night or back and forth.

02:00:37.500 It may have looked pretty brutal to the audience because it was.

02:00:40.500 And Ian argued with me.

02:00:42.500 And you know what's going to happen in Helldivers now.

02:00:44.500 You know, I told you what was going to happen.

02:00:45.500 I'm choosing the grenade launcher every time.

02:00:46.500 No, you're the scout from now on.

02:00:48.500 And if something happens to you in the field together, we'll go straight up.

02:00:52.500 Anyway, go ahead with your wrap up your closing statements here.

02:00:55.500 No, I mean, I think that, you know, I heard somewhere this week that a nation can't survive when it denies nature.

02:01:02.500 And I do think feminism denies the inherent difference, different natures of men and women and tries to make them equal. 0.99

02:01:09.500 I don't think they're equal.

02:01:11.500 But I think that the crux of the debate ended up coming down to, you know, the moral orders.

02:01:17.500 And that's not where I expected the debate to go.

02:01:20.500 But, you know, you can have at least we we have something we stand on and yours is is nothing.

02:01:27.500 There are no there are no laws.

02:01:30.500 So I kind of let him fight that battle for me and I agree with him.

02:01:36.500 But I do think feminism, I think, well, no matter where we are now with feminism, we need to we need to move towards a world after feminism.

02:01:46.500 We're here and I'm like, I just feel like sometimes the nitpicking, it doesn't matter because the practicality of it.

02:01:52.500 And I like debating. But at some point it just feels like circular tail wagging and navel gazing.

02:01:58.500 And I just want to I always want to get to, OK, we're here now.

02:02:02.500 We're so like repealing the amendments.

02:02:05.500 It's like it's not going to happen. Right.

02:02:07.500 We're not we're not there.

02:02:09.500 We're not going to appeal the 19th.

02:02:11.500 We're not I don't think it's politically viable.

02:02:13.500 So I also work in the in the realm of I like philosophy to to undergird my arguments.

02:02:18.500 But I also work in the in the realm of policy and what is politically viable, what is practical, what is policy is always an alternative between solutions.

02:02:26.500 It's never a best solution.

02:02:27.500 I don't think policy and politics will ever be.

02:02:29.500 And I'm sorry, we're going to have to leave it there.

02:02:32.500 Make sure that you subscribe.

02:02:34.500 Make sure you smash the like button.

02:02:37.500 Make sure that you pump those numbers up.

02:02:40.500 Ladies and gentlemen, I'll see all of you back for Timcast tonight.

02:02:59.500 Bye.

02:03:00.500 Bye.

The Culture War - Tim Pool - February 06, 2026

Feminism Is DESTROYING America, It's Reviving Wokeness & Introducing Communism w⧸ Andrew Wilson, Straighterade & Jennifer Galardi

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript