The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 362 - “Queer” Is Not A Bad Word

00:00:00.000 Is queer a bad word? The mainstream media and big tech are now equating the word queer

00:00:05.400 with the n-word. We will explain why there is no comparison between the two terms.

00:00:10.460 Then the New York Times publishes the most defamatory fact-free piece in the gray lady's 0.99

00:00:17.120 long and sordid history. We will pick it apart point by point. A radical feminist admits abortion 0.99

00:00:22.260 is murder. A 13-year-old pro-life activist gets booed for saying abortion is murder.

00:00:26.620 And President Trump wins big with Mexico. I'm Michael Knowles, and this is the Michael Knowles

00:00:30.880 Show. So much to get to today. We've got to talk about all those awful, terrible bigots

00:00:44.020 that the New York Times wrote about. Those awful bigots like Dave Rubin or Phil DeFranco or Milton

00:00:50.880 Friedman. We will also analyze the left's new campaign to censor conservatives. But first,

00:00:57.020 if you are carrying around revolving debt, that means that you are not paying off your credit

00:01:01.320 card every month, and you could be paying thousands in interest every year that you don't have to.

00:01:06.040 Some of my friends have done this. It's very stupid. Don't do it. Don't carry around these

00:01:11.640 high-interest credit card rates when you could go to Lending Club and consolidate your debt

00:01:16.240 or pay off credit cards with one fixed monthly payment. It's just smart. It's just not being a

00:01:22.380 total dummy with your money. Since 2007, Lending Club has helped millions of people regain control

00:01:27.760 of their finances with affordable fixed-rate personal loans. No trips to a bank, no high-interest

00:01:32.520 credit cards. I refuse to have credit card debt now. I'm perfectly fine having other sorts of debt,

00:01:39.120 but I will not carry around this high-interest credit card debt, and you shouldn't either.

00:01:42.940 Go to LendingClub.com. Tell them about yourself, how much you want to borrow. Pick the terms that

00:01:47.160 are right for you. If you're approved, your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account

00:01:51.400 in as little as a few days. This is like millennial proof. It's so, you don't even have to move. It

00:01:57.080 just gets deposited. That's why it's the number one peer-to-peer lending platform with over $35

00:02:01.480 billion in loans issued. Go to LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S. Check your rate in

00:02:07.020 minutes. Borrow up to 40 grand. LendingClub.com slash Knowles, K-N-A-W-L-E-S.

00:02:11.800 LendingClub.com slash Knowles, all loans made by WebBank member FDIC, equal housing lender.

00:02:19.360 I have got to start off the show today with a quick point that is probably going to get this

00:02:25.020 episode kicked off of YouTube and maybe get me arrested and thrown in jail by the left-wing 0.54

00:02:29.920 speech police, but that is the problem itself, so I will just say it. Queer is not a bad word. 1.00

00:02:36.700 It's not. It's a perfectly fine word. It's a word that's been around for a very long time,

00:02:41.740 and it's perfectly fine. The left right now is trying to equate the word queer with the N-word, 0.90

00:02:47.760 and this is absolutely absurd, so it's absurd for a few reasons. The first and most obvious is that I

00:02:54.460 can say the word queer. I can't say the N-word. When I'm referring to the N-word, I have to say 1.00

00:02:59.540 the N-word, so right off the bat we see these are not exactly similar circumstances. Now, the

00:03:05.900 mainstream media are trying to change that right now. I've noticed in the last few days news networks

00:03:10.400 are bleeping the word queer because the left's campaign to get this word banned is working, but

00:03:17.920 they are not similar at all. Another reason that the word queer is not like the N-word is that the 0.84

00:03:24.920 word queer is a very old word. It has very broad meaning far beyond the narrow application to gay

00:03:31.360 people. The word queer is 500 years old. It means strange or odd. The reason that it is used to

00:03:37.240 describe gay people is because gay people have sexual practices that are strange or odd. Just by 1.00

00:03:42.480 definition, they are not like most people's sexual practices, like 97 or 98 percent of the population.

00:03:48.520 If people are doing something that only 2 or 3 percent of the population are doing, by definition,

00:03:53.000 that's a little unusual, at least. That's where the word queer comes from. Now, in recent years,

00:03:59.700 the word queer has been used to refer to gay people with both a positive connotation and a negative

00:04:05.560 connotation. This is also like the word gay, by the way. Even when we say gay people, the word gay has

00:04:10.660 only been used to refer to gay people for the last 50 years. And what does gay mean? Gay means happy.

00:04:16.300 That's what it meant. Now the word almost exclusively is referring to people who are homosexual.

00:04:21.460 Queer has a lot of usages for a very long time. The n-word does not. The n-word is only a slur for

00:04:30.540 black people. We don't even really know the history of the n-word or the etymology of it.

00:04:35.280 Some people erroneously think that it derives from the word negro. It doesn't. There's no evidence of

00:04:41.020 that. Or they think it derives from the word niggardly. It does not. They're also not related.

00:04:45.840 Now, presumably it does derive from words that, or it is at least related to words that are associated

00:04:52.540 with blackness. So negro, noir, niger, Nigeria, there's country Nigeria. It at least probably has 1.00

00:05:00.100 some relation to those words, but we don't really know where it derives from. We do know that the n-word,

00:05:05.560 hard r, itself is only used for centuries as a negative slur for black people.

00:05:13.080 The word queer has a zillion applications. It's a generic word. Another reason why queer is not 1.00

00:05:20.240 like the n-word is that queer is used by gay people themselves to refer to themselves. If the word queer

00:05:25.920 is a hateful slur, then the acronym LGBTQ is also a hateful slur. The Q stands for queer.

00:05:34.440 It also now, in later years, it's also been used to refer to questioning. Like you don't know if you're

00:05:40.020 gay or straight or whatever, but the Q still stands for queer. Now, one argument against this is they'll 1.00

00:05:47.600 say, well, the left will observe black people have taken the n-word and reappropriated it for 0.96

00:05:53.860 themselves. So in the same way, gay people are reappropriating the word queer. Again, this 0.69

00:06:00.060 argument totally breaks down because it's not just gay people who are using the word queer for

00:06:05.900 themselves or some derivation. Like you don't have the hard R. They'll just say queer or something in

00:06:10.820 rap songs. No, that's not how it works. Everybody refers to gay people as queer. Politicians who are

00:06:16.920 gay or straight or whatever all refer to the LGBTQ community. Corporations refer to the LGBTQ community.

00:06:23.980 The government refers to the LGBTQ community. So it's not just that it's a term that only I can use,

00:06:31.120 but you can't use it. And that's our word. No, it's used by everybody. Now, could you imagine a

00:06:36.940 politician referring to the N-word community? Could you imagine a government office saying, listen,

00:06:42.100 we just want to welcome all of the N-word community here. You'd have a riot. You'd have riots in the 1.00

00:06:46.540 streets. How about in academia? The word queer is used regularly in scholarship. There's a famous book

00:06:52.720 called Queering Elementary Education. Could you imagine a book called N-Wording Elementary Education? 0.51

00:06:59.840 Probably would not be allowed on Amazon for very long, but you can get queering elementary education

00:07:04.880 on Amazon. Academic journals regularly refer to queer times or queering. Could you imagine 0.90

00:07:10.600 N-word times or N-Wording? There are whole academic departments at universities around this country

00:07:17.460 called queer studies. Now, it's true. There are similarly disciplines called African-American

00:07:25.220 studies or Africana studies or black studies. There are no departments called N-word studies.

00:07:31.860 Something tells me there would be some lawsuits against that university if they had those departments.

00:07:36.880 There's no comparison whatsoever. The left, however, is insisting that there is one. They're trying to

00:07:43.080 get this word banned. They're trying to not get it banned from the left using it. The left is still

00:07:47.660 allowed to use it on television or on YouTube or in the popular culture. It's just conservatives who are no

00:07:53.280 longer allowed to use it, which is obviously absurd. Now we're saying that the only way that you can

00:07:58.600 ascertain if someone is publicly allowed to use a word is if you can predict and read their minds and

00:08:05.040 understand the motivations that they have and their thoughts about all of these various sexual

00:08:09.840 questions. Then we can determine who's allowed to use the word queer and who's not. That's crazy.

00:08:15.120 But let's just say, I'll take it even further. Let's say for a second that the word queer did

00:08:20.500 primarily have a negative connotation. It doesn't. We just had pride parade yesterday. Queer word

00:08:26.740 everywhere. LGBTQ. It's on every building. It's on every business. So it does not primarily have a

00:08:31.880 negative connotation. But let's say that it did. What that means then is that what the leftist censors

00:08:40.700 want is for us as a society to no longer be able to come to our own moral conclusions about certain

00:08:48.300 sexual acts. What that means is that now you can't go on YouTube and say, I approve of certain sexual

00:08:55.880 acts, but I disapprove of other sexual acts. I have a view of sexual morality that says you can do this

00:09:01.620 and that, but you can't do this and that. What this means is that now on YouTube, if a priest or a

00:09:08.980 rabbi or an imam went on and made a YouTube video in which they expressed their orthodox views about

00:09:16.260 sexual morality, their views that have been held for at least 1400, if not 2000 or more years,

00:09:22.840 that would be hate speech. That would be banned. They would be deplatformed. They would be kicked

00:09:27.760 off of YouTube. And if the left gets their way, they would be banned from polite society

00:09:32.440 for expressing the orthodox and traditional views of every major world religion.

00:09:39.480 Anybody who holds orthodox views in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, any of these things,

00:09:45.320 what the left wants to censor you from polite society. You can't say that. Well, some people

00:09:50.040 say, okay, what if the, the, the priest and the rabbi and the imam, they can go on YouTube,

00:09:55.200 they can discuss their certainly terrible views of sexual morality, but they have to do it in a

00:10:00.500 respectful way. How can they do that? If someone's going to go on YouTube and say, I think you're going

00:10:05.040 to go to hell if you keep doing this thing. Is that respect? That's not respectful. What if a rabbi 0.99

00:10:10.940 goes on YouTube and he quotes Leviticus, major book of the Bible, which refers to homosexual acts as an

00:10:18.400 abomination, regardless of your views of sex or gay sex or whatever, do you think that a rabbi 0.98

00:10:25.320 should be banned from YouTube for reading the Bible? That is the conclusion of what they are trying to do.

00:10:33.380 This is radical. What they're, what they're trying to do, it's, this is what they always do. They have this

00:10:40.480 radical idea that now, if you quote a book from the Bible, or if you disagree with the very, very recent

00:10:46.720 modern leftist orthodoxy about sexual morality, if you disagree with, with what has only become a mainstream

00:10:53.480 view in the last 10 years or so, that you are radical, you're crazy, you're radicalized. That's what the left is

00:11:00.220 saying. But that idea that they're saying is itself a totally radical idea. You're saying that even

00:11:07.500 Barack Obama's view of sexuality while he was president, which said that marriage is between a

00:11:14.180 man and a woman, even that view is radical, bigoted, hateful, should be deplatformed, shouldn't be allowed 0.96

00:11:20.700 in polite society. That is the true radicalism. And what the left always does, because they project and

00:11:25.740 they invert reality, is the left is saying, no, no, you who hold the views that everyone has held for

00:11:31.360 the entire history of civilization, you are really the radical one. It's a complete lie. The New York

00:11:36.760 Times shows this explicitly in the most dishonest, ridiculous, I mean, actually funny article that they

00:11:46.340 have published in my lifetime. They published it over the weekend. It was the main story in the New York

00:11:51.340 Times homepage. This obviously took a long time to put together. It's called The Making of a YouTube

00:11:56.500 Radical. And they're using it in conjunction with Fox.com and in conjunction with YouTube and Google

00:12:01.880 themselves to censor conservatives on the internet. We'll get to that in a second. But first, let me

00:12:07.200 tell you why I look so good. I'm feeling a little proud of my nice baby smooth face today because of

00:12:12.940 Dollar Shave Club. Because Dollar Shave Club has everything that I need to look, feel, and smell my best.

00:12:18.860 You might have seen, I put out a video, or a picture rather, on a Friday of me licking a cake

00:12:24.440 that says taxation is theft and I was shirtless and I was just, you might think, Michael, how does your

00:12:30.540 skin get so smooth? How do you look so, mmm, like a little snack? Well, the answer is Dollar Shave

00:12:35.200 Club. I never have to go to the store because Dollar Shave Club sends me everything I need right to my

00:12:40.220 door. Also, they keep me fully stocked on what I use so that I don't run out. I don't even need to

00:12:44.800 think about it, which is the key because I don't think about these things. So before Dollar Shave,

00:12:49.100 I would be using whatever razor I had, reusable or something, and I would shave with it until it was

00:12:54.300 just a perfectly rusted piece of metal. And I don't know, I'd be like ducking tetanus every time I

00:13:00.760 shaved. Now, Dollar Shave, I don't need to think about that. They have everything you need to get

00:13:04.880 ready no matter what you're getting ready for. They have you covered head to toe, from your hair to your

00:13:08.360 skin to your face. And whatever product you want, I mean, they have got it and they automatically

00:13:13.600 keep you stocked up. You determine what you want when you want it. So you're not going to get

00:13:17.600 overloaded with stuff you don't need. It shows up right at your door from once a month to once

00:13:22.180 every six weeks. Plus, they have their handsome discount, which means the more you buy, the more

00:13:27.680 you save. Right now, they've got a bunch of starter sets that you can try for just five bucks, like the

00:13:32.780 oral care kit. You can get the starter set for five dollars right now. Go to dollarshave.com

00:13:37.960 slash covefe, C-O-V-F-E-F-E. That is dollarshave.com, dollarshaveclub.com slash covefe, C-O-V-F-E-F-E.

00:13:47.520 It is fabulous and you're going to love it. This New York Times article, the most dishonest

00:13:54.220 tripe, I don't know that there was an honest word in the article. It's called The Making of a

00:13:59.320 YouTube Radical by Kevin Roos, a fake journalist. I'm just going to pick it apart point by point. I

00:14:06.620 can't even give you just the broad overview. Every paragraph is a lie. So it starts out on the,

00:14:13.340 it was on mobile, it was on the website, lots of photos and it was all of these awful people,

00:14:18.900 these radicals. Do you know who the radicals were? Ben Shapiro, probably the most mainstream

00:14:25.240 conservative voice in the country. Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Dave Rubin, who is amiable to a fault.

00:14:32.160 Dave Rubin's whole show is he has people who have different points of view on and then they discuss

00:14:35.580 them. Dave Rubin radically presenting both sides and taking the center of an argument.

00:14:41.160 Do you know who else? Phil DeFranco. I don't even think that guy's conservative.

00:14:45.940 And then do you, this is my favorite one of all these pictures, because they mix them in with people

00:14:49.880 who are maybe a little racist, maybe a little bigoted, maybe you've never heard of,

00:14:53.160 really extreme. And then in the middle of it is Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman, probably the

00:14:59.600 most famous economist of the 20th century. He's just a guy who supports free markets and free

00:15:06.400 economics. And he's like a grandfatherly figure who won a Nobel prize in economics. This is Milton

00:15:12.800 Friedman. This is radical, according to the New York Times. Look at this lead pencil. There's not a

00:15:18.420 single person in the world who could make this pencil. Remarkable statement? Not at all. The

00:15:25.500 wood from which it's made, for all I know, comes from a tree that was cut down in the state of

00:15:30.160 Washington. To cut down that tree, it took a saw. To make the saw, it took steel. To make the steel,

00:15:37.200 it took iron ore. This black center, we call it lead, but it's really graphite, compressed graphite.

00:15:45.940 I'm not sure where it comes from, but I think it comes from some mines in South America.

00:15:51.960 This red top up here, the eraser, bit of rubber, probably comes from Malaya, where the rubber tree

00:15:59.160 isn't even native. It was imported from South America by some businessmen with the help of the

00:16:04.680 British government. This brass ferrule, I haven't the slightest idea where it came from, or the

00:16:12.180 yellow paint, or the paint that made the black lines, or the glue that holds it together. Literally

00:16:19.460 thousands of people cooperated to make this pencil. Okay, David Duke. All right, Richard Spencer,

00:16:26.340 calm down with your description of how different peoples around the world can cooperate in free

00:16:31.380 markets to produce goods at a relatively low price for consumers around the world. All right,

00:16:35.960 calm down there. Mr. Adolf, gosh, that's a radical, according to the New York Times. That was my

00:16:43.320 favorite one. All of them were ridiculous, but that was my favorite one. How does it begin?

00:16:48.560 You see the makings of a YouTube radical. Story begins with all these pictures. You scroll through,

00:16:53.660 and it says, Caleb Kane was a college dropout looking for direction. He turned to YouTube.

00:16:59.620 You scroll up. Soon he was pulled into a far right universe, watching thousands of videos filled

00:17:07.400 with conspiracy theories, misogyny, and racism. Yeah, that's how I would describe Milton Friedman.

00:17:13.880 Conspiracy theories, misogyny, and racism. Because he talked about the color of the pencil. I guess

00:17:17.900 that's racist. Then the final, the final line, I was brainwashed. And here you see the point of the

00:17:23.300 article. From the very beginning, what the New York Times is trying to tell you, what the whole left is

00:17:28.600 trying to tell you, is that we don't really have any choice. We don't really have free will. We don't

00:17:33.980 really have the ability to watch whatever we want on the internet. See, that's what the internet does.

00:17:39.060 It lets you watch whatever you want. It's not like the old mainstream media that keeps people out.

00:17:43.380 They're gatekeepers. No, on the internet, you can see whatever you want. Their thesis is, no, you can't.

00:17:47.700 You really have no choice. You're just brainwashed. You're brainwashed by yourself.

00:17:51.780 You have brainwashed yourself with YouTube helping you along. It's not about free will. It's all about

00:17:59.360 the all-powerful algorithm. Capital A. This is essential to the leftist argument that YouTube

00:18:06.700 has to censor conservatives. They say it's not about the viewers. It's not even about the content

00:18:11.720 creators on YouTube. Carlos Maza from Vox.com was saying that. He said, look, of course I want

00:18:16.320 Steven Crowder censored. But it's not really about Steven Crowder. It's about the algorithm.

00:18:22.100 It's all of it. So they're trying to get YouTube to do this, the work of leftists to censor their

00:18:27.640 opponents. So the author of this, this guy, Kevin Roos, what do we know about him? Well,

00:18:32.200 we found out through a simple Twitter search, he's friends with Carlos Maza. At least he knows him.

00:18:36.840 They've interacted before months and months ago. He had tweeted out something about how he'd been

00:18:40.800 working for a long time, for months on an article. Carlos Maza thanked him in February for all the work

00:18:46.020 that he's done. And then Kevin Roos liked the Carlos Maza tweet. These guys know each other.

00:18:50.480 They're interacting with one another online. Then they open up this story. I mean, the timing is a

00:18:57.200 little suspect too. Carlos Maza from Vox.com launches his crusade on conservatives to get them

00:19:03.660 kicked off of YouTube on May 30th, two days before Pride Month. Then, not three, four days later,

00:19:10.000 a little longer, I guess a week later, the New York Times publishes this major piece. This piece took

00:19:15.940 a lot longer than a week to produce. Obviously, there was some communication going on here as

00:19:20.600 YouTube is ramping it up. This is an all-on assault, not just at the beginning of Pride Month,

00:19:24.720 but more importantly, at the beginning of the 2012-20 election cycle. So the New York Times piece

00:19:31.260 begins. The common thread found in many of these stories of radicalization on YouTube and its

00:19:39.220 recommendation algorithm, the software that determines which videos appear on users' homepages

00:19:46.260 and inside the up-next sidebar next to a video that is playing. The algorithm is responsible for

00:19:52.560 more than 70% of all time spent on the site. Because what does the algorithm do? It recommends

00:19:58.840 similar videos. This makes perfect sense. If you're watching a video of Milton Friedman, maybe you want to

00:20:03.700 watch another video of Milton Friedman. I'm sure, well, now they've probably changed it, but I'm sure if

00:20:08.340 you're watching a video of this show, it'll probably recommend some other stuff that I've done. Why?

00:20:12.580 Because you're obviously interested in what I'm doing, and so you want to see more of it. Or maybe

00:20:16.760 similar things. I mean, that's just natural. And they're saying, this is terrible. So this is the

00:20:22.000 setup. What YouTube is doing is they need to change the algorithm to suppress the right-wing material

00:20:27.120 before 2020, before we get another Republican election. I mean, that's, I think, the long game of all of

00:20:33.260 this. The piece goes on. They're talking about this kid, this kid, Caleb Kane, who says he was,

00:20:40.720 he was radicalized, right-wing radical because of YouTube. And this took place over the series of

00:20:46.940 three years, 2016, 2017, into 2018. And he just became more and more right-wing and, and he became

00:20:54.500 a total radical. So what did he do? Well, this is what the New York Times says. If alienation was one

00:20:59.940 ingredient in Mr. Kane's radicalization and persuasive partisans like Stefan Molyneux,

00:21:06.160 a YouTube creator, were another. The third was a series of product decisions YouTube made

00:21:11.340 starting back in 2012. In March of that year, YouTube's engineers made an update to the site's

00:21:16.920 recommendations algorithm. For years, the algorithm had been programmed to maximize views by showing

00:21:22.400 users videos they were likely to click on. So they're saying this is some nefarious thing.

00:21:26.540 No, what is really happening is YouTube is giving people more of what they want to see.

00:21:30.920 Should YouTube be giving people stuff that they don't want to see? Should it be like you go to a

00:21:37.260 restaurant and you say, I really like clam chowder. And they say, oh, perfect. Here's a taco bowl.

00:21:44.400 I'm sure you'll say, no, but I really like this clam chowder. Say, well, yeah, but you can't,

00:21:48.200 you can't have any more of that. You have to have a, no, of course, businesses want to cater

00:21:51.240 to what you want. I mean, they want the customer to be happy. The customer is always right.

00:21:56.540 New York Times goes on. By the night of November 8th, 2016, this is my favorite paragraph in the

00:22:02.200 whole thing. Mr. Cain's transformation was complete. He spent much of the night watching

00:22:07.840 clips of Ms. Clinton's supporters crying after the election was called in Mr. Trump's favor.

00:22:13.140 His YouTube viewing history shows that at 1.41 a.m., just before bed, he turned on a live stream

00:22:20.020 hosted by Stephen Crowder with the title, Trump wins. So on election night, this kid, this radical,

00:22:28.420 he started out, he was kind of a moderate liberal guy. On election night, he was watching videos

00:22:33.420 titled Trump wins on the night that Trump won. That's the, that's the big, that's the radicalization

00:22:41.500 is that on a night when most of America voted in Donald Trump, he was celebrating that the guy who

00:22:48.500 won the presidency won the presidency because he was watching videos about it. He might not even

00:22:52.620 have been celebrating it. He was just watching videos about it. Still doesn't seem very radical,

00:22:57.840 does it? No, of course not. It's all just this, this ambience. It's all the pictures, the graphics.

00:23:05.140 So the word is radical in the title. So what actually happened to this guy? What the New York

00:23:10.020 Times, as always, like 20 paragraphs in, they give away the whole story and they show that actually

00:23:15.140 what they're saying happened is the opposite of what actually happened. We'll get to that in a

00:23:18.840 second. But first, speaking of great stories, code names, deception, gadgets. This might seem

00:23:25.360 like something out of the movies, but these are just some of the essential components of being a

00:23:29.680 spy. We got a lot of spies around in the world. Attorney General Barr was talking about this the

00:23:33.400 other day. Every country has spies and most spies are ordinary forgettable people, which makes them

00:23:38.920 all the more dangerous. What does it really take to be a spy? Every week, the Parcast original

00:23:44.300 espionage tells the stories of the world's most incredible undercover missions and how these

00:23:50.320 covert operations succeeded or sometimes failed. Find out the real world spy tactics required to

00:23:57.080 impersonate, exploit, and infiltrate the most confidential places in the world. You are going

00:24:01.480 to be fascinated by the story of FBI official Mark Felt. Does that name ring a bell? Maybe not.

00:24:07.300 Mark Felt was the anonymous FBI informant who went by the name Deep Throat. He gave the crucial

00:24:12.040 information to the Washington Post that led to President Nixon's resignation over Watergate.

00:24:16.820 There are episodes on British codebreaker Alan Turing as well as triple agent Henry Derricore.

00:24:22.940 Am I pronouncing that correctly? They're out right now. It's really, really cool because we all have

00:24:26.560 the idea of spy movies and what it's like. The real life stories are more interesting than the

00:24:31.080 movies. Search for and subscribe to Espionage wherever you listen to podcasts. Search Espionage or visit

00:24:37.720 parkast.com slash espionage to listen now. So you're reading this New York Times story and you think

00:24:43.700 the guy doesn't sound very radical at all. So far the story is just about a guy who finds some right-wing

00:24:50.080 videos on YouTube and he watches them, right? So does it get any more radical than that? Are we going to

00:24:55.720 actually get what the New York Times is promising? Well, listen to what they write. One channel run by

00:25:02.560 Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist magazine American Renaissance, posted videos with

00:25:07.980 titles like Refugee Invasion is European Suicide. Others posted clips of interviews with white

00:25:14.300 supremacists like Richard Spencer and David Duke. Mr. Kane never bought into the far right's most extreme

00:25:21.220 views like Holocaust denial or the need for a white ethnostate, he said. Still, far right ideology

00:25:27.800 bled into his daily life. He began referring to himself as a trad con, a traditional conservative

00:25:34.380 committed to old-fashioned gender norms. He dated an evangelical Christian woman and he fought with

00:25:41.460 his liberal friends. By the way, that last part isn't, that isn't even true. He disagreed with his

00:25:47.580 liberal friends. He didn't fight with them. What are they saying actually happened? They're saying on the

00:25:52.920 right-wing YouTube, there are people who are vicious, vile, racist, neo-Nazis. Caleb Kane never

00:26:00.700 listened to any of them or really believed them at all, but they exist. Well, I thought the article

00:26:05.640 was about the making of a radical. You said this was about the making of a YouTube radical, and then

00:26:10.160 you explain, you describe some views that actually are radical right before you say that the kid never

00:26:15.220 believed any of them. The most radical thing that this kid did, according to the New York Times'

00:26:21.180 own reporting, is he referred to himself as a traditional conservative. That's it, guys. That's

00:26:28.520 it. When they use the term, the alt-right on the left, when they use that term, they're just talking

00:26:34.960 about you and me. They're just talking about anybody who believes that the genders are different.

00:26:40.380 That's what they said. They said, he started to believe in gender norms. Oh, he believes that men and

00:26:45.340 women are different. Okay. And then he disagreed with his liberal friends. Oh, the guy who has

00:26:53.860 conservative viewpoints disagreed with people who have different viewpoints. Okay. And this is the

00:26:58.920 most shocking thing of all. He dated a Christian girl. He dated a Christian girl. That's, that's the 0.73

00:27:06.420 radicalization. Is that a guy in 2019 in America dated a Christian girl and called himself a

00:27:13.960 conservative. That's it. That's the most extreme thing in the whole article. I don't know how many,

00:27:20.260 and this is a very long article. Do you see what they do? They say, look at all these awful people,

00:27:25.840 David Duke, Richard Spencer, probably Adolf Hitler himself. Yeah, this guy had never listened to any of

00:27:32.200 them, but, but they're there. And then he dated a Christian girl. Now that's what makes him radical.

00:27:38.020 So it goes on. He says, in 2018, nearly four years after Mr. Kane had begun watching right-wing

00:27:46.300 YouTube videos, a new kind of video began appearing in his recommendations. These videos were made by

00:27:51.860 left-wing creators. Okay. So it starts in 2016. He's watching right-wing videos. And then a couple

00:27:58.220 years later, he starts watching left-wing videos. Now, why did the left-wing video pop

00:28:02.120 up? I guess maybe they changed the algorithm or he was just searching for titles that brought up

00:28:06.980 some left-wing videos and he started watching them. Maybe the videos kind of looked a little

00:28:10.680 similar to the right-wing videos. And then he became a left-winger. Notice how they take all the human

00:28:17.160 agency out of it. It's not that in 2016, he started watching right-wing videos and he started to think of

00:28:23.460 himself as more conservative. And then in 2018, he started to watch more left-wing videos. And then he

00:28:28.420 started to think of himself as more liberal. That's not what happened because he's not allowed

00:28:32.900 to have any thought. People don't have any agency or free will. What really happened is the algorithm,

00:28:38.000 the secret, all-powerful algorithm was controlling him and brainwashing him and moving his mind.

00:28:44.220 That's obviously not how human beings work. That's not how knowledge works. And then,

00:28:49.720 then they say, they're quoting Caleb Kane now, the kid. I just kept watching more and more of that

00:28:55.600 content, sympathizing and empathizing with the left-wing creator and also seeing that, wow,

00:29:01.820 she really knows what she's talking about, Mr. Kane said. There is nothing newsworthy about this at all.

00:29:10.240 What that guy just said is, I took in some information and thought about it and it changed

00:29:15.300 my mind. And then I took in other information and then I changed my mind again.

00:29:18.180 There is nothing newsworthy about changing your mind. People do that all the time.

00:29:25.140 And then they talk about his new life. So I guess they say he's been radicalized and then I guess

00:29:28.860 he's come out of the radicalization. We've never seen any radicalization in the whole article,

00:29:32.440 but that's what they say. Then at the end, they say,

00:29:35.400 what is most surprising about Mr. Kane's new life, his new left-wing life, on the surface is how similar

00:29:41.580 it feels to the old one. He still watches dozens of YouTube videos every day and hangs on the words of

00:29:47.400 his favorite creators. It is still difficult at times to tell where the YouTube algorithm stops

00:29:53.100 and his personality begins. No, it's not. It's not difficult to decide that. You have no respect

00:30:01.280 for this guy, obviously, and you have no respect for anyone else, New York Times. So you think that

00:30:05.940 they don't have any brains in their head, that they're just robots, zombies being controlled by

00:30:10.780 YouTube. But it's not difficult to figure out where someone's personality ends and where YouTube

00:30:16.120 begins. What they think and say and do is their personality and the videos they watch are the

00:30:21.140 videos they watch or the books that they read. We all learn from what we see and what we hear and

00:30:28.760 what we observe. So this, they're saying YouTube is special and different because there are videos

00:30:33.120 and you can learn things from videos. Okay, what if he read a book? Let's say he read a book from

00:30:39.020 Milton Friedman, for instance. Let's say he read a book on Friedman's economics and then he thought,

00:30:43.740 I agree with this Milton Friedman guy. I think he's got good economic views. Would you say that

00:30:47.740 books are now the path to radicalization, the library, the making of a library radical? No,

00:30:55.340 of course not. We learn. That's what we do. The New York Times is pretending that the YouTube

00:30:59.980 algorithm is the first magical device ever to influence how people think. Everything influences

00:31:05.500 how we think. Conversations influence how we think. Observations, movies, events, critical thinking.

00:31:11.000 It's not the algorithm either. It's not, it's not the order of the books on the bookshelf in the

00:31:17.400 library. It's the content. That's what changes how we think. Content is thought-provoking and this,

00:31:23.720 the last paragraph of this stupid article gives away the whole game. They write, 0.82

00:31:29.000 they're quoting Caleb Cain here, YouTube is the place to put out a message, he said, but I've learned

00:31:35.400 now that you can't go to YouTube and think that you're getting some kind of education because you're not.

00:31:41.000 What? What are you getting then? What if you watch a college lecture on YouTube? You're not getting

00:31:49.140 an education. What if you learn something that you didn't know before? You're not getting an

00:31:53.300 education. What if sweet little Elisa does this all the time? You go on YouTube and you look up a new

00:31:56.920 recipe, how to make some new meal, and then you learn how to make it and then you cook it. That's a,

00:32:02.280 that's an education. What if you look up some academic question? Obviously you're getting an

00:32:08.480 education, but this is what the left has to do. They're saying this is not about education.

00:32:14.140 It's only about entertainment. See, this is critical to the argument that YouTube should

00:32:18.420 censor conservatives because even the left, if these guys were really being honest and they said

00:32:23.820 we want to censor ideas that we disagree with because we can't refute them with argument, even

00:32:27.880 the left probably doesn't want to say that they want to do that. They at least pretend to oppose

00:32:34.080 academic censorship, censorship in the name of ideas. So what the left has to do is pretend that

00:32:38.980 YouTube is just sort of entertainment. They have to pretend that it's just sort of right-wingers

00:32:43.860 being provocateurs. They always use this term to refer to right-wingers, provocateurs or radicals or

00:32:49.340 fringe or whatever. Because what they, what they need to say is that right-wing commentators and

00:32:54.960 speakers, they're not dealing in ideas. They're not engaging in arguments. They are, they're just

00:33:00.140 interested in shock value. And there is nothing new about this argument. This argument, which the

00:33:05.300 New York Times thinks is brand new, Carlos Maza, YouTube, they all think it's brand new.

00:33:10.420 They've been making this for 50 years. We'll tell you what the argument is in a second.

00:33:14.600 But first, I have got to go to dailywire.com. Get off of YouTube. We're probably already off of

00:33:20.140 YouTube because I use the word queer. So we're probably already off there anyway. Go to Daily Wire,

00:33:24.340 10 bucks a month, $100 for an annual membership. You get me, you get the Andrew Klavan show,

00:33:27.960 you get the Ben Shapiro show, you get the Matt Walsh show, you get to ask questions in the mailbag.

00:33:31.720 That's coming up on Thursday. You get to ask questions backstage. You get another kingdom and

00:33:35.820 you get Leftist Tears Tumblr. Mmm, that's good. Mmm. Oh, that's radical. That is, that's totally rad,

00:33:44.320 dude. That's a totally radical drink today out of the Leftist Tears Tumblr. Go get yours before you

00:33:48.480 drown. We'll be right back.

00:33:57.960 In 1969, a major leftist intellectual, Lionel Trilling, made the argument, quote,

00:34:07.320 liberalism is not only the dominant, but even the sole intellectual tradition in the United States.

00:34:15.060 As if to say, there's no reason to engage with these conservative ideas. Get, get them off of

00:34:20.420 YouTube. Get them out, get them out of the public square. He even said it more directly. He said

00:34:25.200 that conservatives don't express themselves in ideas, but in, quote, irritable mental gestures

00:34:32.200 which seek to resemble ideas. He said that in 1969. How many decades later, they say the same thing.

00:34:42.040 They say, oh, these people talking on, on YouTube, these are not, these people are not dealing in

00:34:48.340 ideas. They're just, they kind of resemble ideas, but they're not. They're wicked. They're awful.

00:34:52.380 They're dangerous. We have to get rid of them. They've been using this argument for half a century

00:34:56.480 to silence conservatives. They're going to use it for half a century more. Ironically, this is the

00:35:00.460 best part of the New York Times article, the stupid article. The arguments that they present

00:35:06.580 undercut the thesis of the article. The thesis of the article is that this guy was radicalized to

00:35:13.240 become a right-wing radical. He started out left-wing, then he became right-wing.

00:35:17.480 Actually, though, this guy's own YouTube searches, which he gave to the New York Times to write this

00:35:24.460 article, show exactly the opposite. He started out watching far right-wing videos, and then he ended

00:35:30.380 up watching left-wing videos. If he was radicalized in any direction, he was radicalized to the left.

00:35:36.380 This is, the New York Times admits this. They say he started out watching far-right videos by people

00:35:41.100 like Stéphane Molyneux in 2016. Who is Stéphane Molyneux? He's a libertarian guy. He is an extreme

00:35:47.340 libertarian. He calls himself an anarcho-capitalist. So, yeah, he does have extreme viewpoints.

00:35:54.160 Started out in 2016. Then he moved on to the intellectual... Well, first, then he moved on to

00:35:58.840 Crowder. So, Crowder, a more mainstream figure than Stéphane Molyneux. Then he moves on to the

00:36:04.160 intellectual dark web, specifically people like Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan. So, he's moving... Dave

00:36:09.060 Rubin is a liberal. I mean, he's a self-described liberal. He's a centrist guy. Joe Rogan is sort

00:36:13.720 of center-left guy. So, he's moving to the left, and then he lands on left-wing videos by 2018.

00:36:20.720 So, I mean, we say this all the time with the left. The left gets everything exactly backwards.

00:36:25.520 They're saying the guy was radicalized to the right. He actually was radicalized to the left. All of the

00:36:30.840 movement of his searches goes to the left. And, of course, there aren't really any radicals in the

00:36:36.900 whole bunch. Ben Shapiro, Phil DeFranco, Milton Friedman, no radicals at all. Also, he was never

00:36:43.060 radicalized. They say that he rejected Nazism. They admit that in the article. He didn't do anything.

00:36:50.780 He didn't believe anything out of the ordinary. The most extreme thing he believed is that he was a

00:36:54.480 traditional conservative. It is not only a worthless article because, first of all, it conveys

00:37:02.120 nothing newsworthy. It lies about its thesis, and it defames virtually everybody that it mentions.

00:37:10.160 It is wholly without merit except that it will be used to advance the left-wing agenda to censor

00:37:16.180 conservatives. One of the great things about YouTube that accidentally this article sort of shows is that

00:37:21.820 you can see both sides of an argument for now. I mean, as we are speaking right now, YouTube is

00:37:28.260 getting rid of that. They are stopping you from seeing both sides of the argument. But this was

00:37:31.980 one of the advantages of YouTube is you could just see, kind of get all sorts of ideas and then form

00:37:36.580 your own conclusion. And this became pretty apparent over the weekend. There was a video of an abortion

00:37:43.160 supporter, and she was this radical feminist named Sophie Lewis, and she put out a video explaining

00:37:49.040 the logical arguments, the extreme arguments, but the logical arguments for abortion.

00:37:54.060 In the past, the strategies that our side has tended to use have included a kind of seeding of ground

00:38:04.160 to our enemies. We tend to say that abortion is indeed very bad, but, or we say, luckily, 1.00

00:38:14.780 it's not killing. Luckily, it's just a health care right. We have very little to lose at the moment

00:38:21.380 when it comes to abortion, and I'm interested in winning radically. And I wonder if we could think

00:38:27.840 about defending abortion as a right to stop doing gestational work. Abortion is, in my opinion,

00:38:36.040 and I recognize how controversial this is, a form of killing. It is a form of killing that we need to 0.61

00:38:47.980 be able to defend. I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist.

00:38:57.540 I got to give her a lot of credit. This is a totally honest argument. Thank you for making

00:39:03.960 the honest argument, Sophie Lewis, because that's it. It's obviously a form of killing. And the

00:39:08.840 argument for abortion is that you should, you can justify that killing because the comfort of the 0.99

00:39:15.680 mother is more important than the life of the baby. That's, that's the argument. And so it is

00:39:19.440 killing. It is a human life. It is an individual human life, and you're going to do it. And if you

00:39:23.680 want abortion, you have to accept that, and you have to say it's worth killing human life. And 0.97

00:39:28.140 she's so good at this, actually, she takes the argument to its logical conclusion, which is that

00:39:32.420 it's not just about when life begins, but if you accept that argument for killing babies based on

00:39:37.020 your own personal or social preferences, then you should be able to kill people at the end of their

00:39:41.820 lives as well. And she makes that argument in the same breath. I see the forms of making and

00:39:47.160 unmaking each other as sort of continuous processes. The other end of the spectrum is

00:39:55.980 the process of learning how to die well and hold each other and let each other go at the end of

00:40:01.800 our lives as well as at the beginning. Die well, let each other die well, let go, which is obviously

00:40:08.500 referring to as euthanasia, so-called, assisted suicide, death with dignity, they call it, where you

00:40:14.460 kill old people, and you let old people kill themselves. And as a society, you create a lot 1.00

00:40:20.260 of incentives for old people to kill themselves. But sure, if you agree with the argument for 1.00

00:40:24.400 abortion, that human life does not have some intrinsic value, then of course you would agree

00:40:29.960 with the argument for assisted suicide at the end of your life. She makes that honest argument.

00:40:34.100 You could go to YouTube, watch that argument, and then you could watch another argument. There

00:40:38.680 was a girl, an amazing girl, Addison Woosley, 13 years old, went up at the Raleigh City Council and

00:40:46.420 made an impassioned and utterly coherent argument against abortion.

00:40:51.620 I'm here to ask you to make abortion illegal at Raleigh. Abortion should be illegal because it's

00:40:56.360 murder. The definition of murder is the killing of one human being by another without justification

00:41:01.620 and often with intended balance. When mothers choose to slaughter their innocent babies, they 1.00

00:41:06.360 already have fingerprints, noses, they can recognize their mom's voice, they can hiccup, and their heart

00:41:11.660 is beating. On ultrasounds, the baby tries to move away from the disturbing instruments they use to kill

00:41:17.060 the baby. The baby's not open to why it is being killed. These babies are alive. They feel being killed. It hurts them

00:41:24.700 and there's nothing they can do about it. There's no way around it. Abortion is murder. So why is it 0.74

00:41:30.460 if an infant is destroyed before birth, there's no problem? But until after birth, it's considered a

00:41:35.500 brutal murder. These babies aren't its or fetuses. They are human beings and they deserve to get the 0.99

00:41:41.320 same human rights as any other person. Beautiful argument. Brilliant argument. I'm often uncomfortable

00:41:47.540 with very young political activists because they don't really know much of what they're talking about

00:41:52.600 and they sound like when David Hogg opens his mouth, he's always totally incoherent talking about gun

00:41:57.640 control. She's making a coherent argument. Even if you disagree with the argument, by the way, she's

00:42:03.100 making, or you reject the premises or whatever, she's making a very articulate, very impassioned,

00:42:08.560 obviously, very coherent argument. And the people in that room were very disrespectful to her when she

00:42:14.360 takes that argument to its logical conclusion. Some people say that abortion should be the mom's choice.

00:42:20.140 It's her body. But what about the baby's choice? The baby's body is the mom's body.

00:42:25.180 Abortion reminds me of slavery. I always said that abortion is going to talk to me and they can do

00:42:31.220 whatever they want. That's how long to say about their babies. My hope is that in a few years,

00:42:36.260 we'll look back at abortion and think, that was so cruel. I can't believe he did that. Just tell

00:42:40.780 we all look back at slavery. The question is, who will you be? The slave owner? The man down in the

00:42:46.100 white's only side on the water fountain? Rosa Parks or Abraham Lincoln? Who are you going to be? Make a

00:42:51.740 choice. My choice is made. I'm here today standing up for what's right. I'm here today speaking for

00:42:57.100 those who can't speak for themselves. Are you choosing to be like the plantation worker

00:43:01.080 flogging a little black child? Or are you going to be protesting? No! Don! Don! Don! Don! Hold me a 0.63

00:43:09.600 dog! No! She can't talk about plantation workers! Don! Don! Don! Don! Don! Don! Don! That is a powerful 1.00

00:43:19.460 video. That's a powerful segment. She makes the argument. It's like slavery. And we will be judged 0.55

00:43:26.120 by our future generations. And who will you be? Will you be the plantation owner? The guy whipping

00:43:31.660 the slave? Or will you be on the side of justice? And the, you know, ironically, or I guess maybe not

00:43:38.140 ironically, maybe we should expect this. The 13-year-old girl who's standing up for moral

00:43:42.180 clarity is behaving like an adult. And all those so-called adults in the room screaming like 1.00

00:43:46.680 children, you're a baby. No, screaming. We can't hear this. We can't. No, trying to drown her out. This is

00:43:52.180 what YouTube is doing. This is what the left is doing. This is what the mainstream media

00:43:56.080 are doing. What they're trying to do is stop you from seeing both sides. That was what YouTube

00:44:03.420 did. All YouTube ever did, the great achievement of YouTube, was present both sides. Because there

00:44:08.740 weren't gatekeepers in the early days. And so you couldn't shut up the conservatives. And people

00:44:13.840 were presented with both sides. And guess what? They found the conservative arguments pretty

00:44:18.260 compelling. If you saw those two arguments, the pro-abortion woman and that 13-year-old little

00:44:22.800 girl, a fairly famous radical feminist, and a 13-year-old little girl, totally obscure.

00:44:29.700 They both presented their arguments for abortion. Which are you going to find more compelling? 0.92

00:44:33.280 Obviously, it's that little girls. And it's why YouTube and the New York Times and Vox.com

00:44:38.020 and the whole mainstream media have to be like those shouting idiots in the rally city council hall, 0.58

00:44:44.140 trying to scream them down, trying to censor them, trying to shut them up. They can't let you hear

00:44:48.280 both sides. Because if you do, you will side with the right. Uppercase R and lowercase R.

00:44:54.280 Wish we could get to the Trump-Mexico deal because it was absolutely fabulous. I'll give

00:44:59.200 you a little preview so that we can get to it tomorrow and how the mainstream media are totally

00:45:03.820 lying about this. But the little preview is this was an unmitigated win for Donald Trump after

00:45:10.180 negotiating, after threatening tariffs, after we heard the trade war was going to destroy the

00:45:15.180 global economy. President Trump reached a deal. Mexico made major concessions to fight illegal

00:45:21.520 immigration on their own southern border. It is a total win. It totally vindicates the use of tariff 1.00

00:45:26.900 threats in negotiations. It vindicates the use of tariff threats as the U.S. deals with China,

00:45:32.220 which is a much more important negotiation. And the mainstream media are furious about it. We'll try

00:45:36.760 to get to that tomorrow to explain how the mainstream media are trying to spin it and why it just

00:45:40.980 ain't so. So tune in for that. In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles. This is The Michael Knowles

00:45:44.620 Show. I'll see you then.

00:45:45.260 The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Rebecca Dobkowitz and directed by Mike Joyner. Executive

00:45:55.760 producer, Jeremy Boring. Senior producer, Jonathan Hay. Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover. And

00:46:01.760 our technical producer is Austin Stevens. Edited by Danny D'Amico. Audio is mixed by Dylan Case.

00:46:07.420 Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera. And our production assistant is Nick Sheehan.

00:46:11.520 The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production. Copyright Daily Wire 2019.

00:46:16.360 Today on The Matt Wall Show, we're going to talk about the left's increasingly disturbing and grotesque

00:46:21.200 efforts to normalize pedophilia. We are headed to a very dark place in this culture, and I think we

00:46:28.100 need to discuss it. Also, a Democratic presidential candidate reaches the most extreme levels of pandering

00:46:34.240 imaginable. And a feminist presents what I think is the only honest argument for abortion that you 1.00

00:46:41.180 will ever hear. So we'll talk about that today as well on The Matt Wall Show.

The Michael Knowles Show - June 10, 2019

Ep. 362 - “Queer” Is Not A Bad Word

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript