 People of the internet tonight. We are debating our conservatives persecuted more on social media and we are starting right now Good evening everyone tonight. We have chud logic crossing swords with Rob nor for your enjoyment Unfortunately, James couldn't be here tonight. He's currently at an undisclosed Satanic temple location taking the dark baptism Into unholy order and when he returns he will be a slave to the dark prince So going first tonight Rob will be a take it away. Go ahead Rob Thanks so much. Yeah, my name is Rob nor you can find me on twitch at Rob nor at twitch.tv It's spelled like it's looks there ro b n o e r r really glad to be here. Thanks for moderating chud logic Thanks so much for being here should be a fun discussion So the first thing I'll say is the wording of this debate is weird Hopefully we don't get into a semantic argument about what the term persecuted means I'm taking this to mean that conservatives are more unfairly censored and treated harsher on social media than Liberals or Democrats or groups that aren't conservatives So I think that that is undoubtedly true There's three ways in which I'll seek to prove that the first way is we'll look at the treatment of regular people Not people that are professional politicians or media people and we'll see how the number suggests at least in one particular area And we could see anecdotally as well that people are conservatives are far more likely to be censored to be shadow banned to have Followers be taken away. This is true in places like Facebook. It's true in places like Twitter. It's true in places like YouTube It's also true in search algorithms and things like that as we'll get to a little longer But this is different than prominent people that we see censored, which will be a secondary thing This is important because as the internet has become more and more powerful to sharing our voices particularly in a time like COVID Where people are talking less face-to-face and more every day online on these social media platforms We see a near monopoly from these three companies in addition to a few other companies that are controlling massive amounts of the flow of Information and so if these companies are censoring or treating one political party or one political ideology More harshly than another political ideology It becomes a very big issue and it gives people the power to control the narrative which is always a dangerous thing So again, the first way we'll look at this is through the regular people and their treatment of this The second way will look is people in positions of power and by this I mean people you might call them a blue check mark class on Twitter So people that have more of an influence because they're entertainers their politicians They're media people their pundits and things like that and what we'll see is Overwhelmingly people that lean right or conservative are censored far more up to the highest echelons of people in positions of power Such as the former president of the United States and other mainstream politicians governors media professionals, etc We oftentimes see that conservatives in this group are censored for the same things that we see that Democrats or liberals are allowed to say And so that's going to be a massive problem as well Because this will have great ramifications into things like elections into shaping a public narrative of which politicians to follow And this will be able to convince a plurality of people to basically Believe anything that the people pushing the narrative want to occur So that's the second lens through which we'll do this the third lens that will view this has nothing to do with the People but the types of arguments that are censored and in that we'll see that there are certain arguments on many social media Platforms that are verboten that you're not allowed to bring up almost all of these arguments are designed to protect the interest of left-wing or if we're going to quibble about what the left really is Democratic politicians and so there if you try to question certain stories of official stories of covid for example Official stories of elections and things like that and you happen to come from a conservative bet you tend to be censored However, if you tend to criticize those same things against a Trump regime or against Republican politicians That's usually allowed to fly So using these three things we'll see that yes, it is self-evident that conservatives are treated more harshly and it is a big deal I'll use data when I can I'll use the stories and think the stories that we've seen of people that were censored and things like that And we'll also talk about some sort of tangential things such as social media's power to influence elections according to studies that were done and how they're able to Sway millions of votes by the way they position their algorithm and their censorship However, I do want to give an olive branch to chud logic here because actually The formational question of this debate I think is not the question we should be asking Because no doubt there are left-wing people that are censored by these social media companies The problem is this it's not a left versus right issue It is an establishment versus people that criticize the establishment issue And so we see left-wingers that want to be critical for example of the biden administration or critical of the cdc Or critical of sort of the neocon neo lib forever warmongering policy that we see in the united states We see people on the left that make those sort of criticisms that are also censored The reason is because these people are using this narrative control We have government actively working with these social media companies and you can see it You've seen when we see people like dorsey or zuckerberg or others called in front of congress that democratic lawmakers Continually excoriate them for not censoring people enough. We need to censor more fake news We need to censor more We've even had the biden administration make public calls for these social media companies to censor more This is intended to circumvent the first amendment because if government is encouraging So private companies to censor people and these private companies have a near monopoly And they're some of the most powerful entities in the history of the world So much so that the wealth of some of these companies is greater than almost every country in the world If government is working hand in hand to censor people and there's at least two lawsuits out there Alleging just that with proof in those lawsuits. Then this becomes hugely problematic The reason that conservatives are censored more than left-wing given that the real value is people criticizing the establishment versus people that don't criticize the Establishment is because in our current political landscape Conservatives tend to not be in positions of power culturally and therefore they're more likely to criticize the establishment That's why it turns out that by censoring people that are critical of the establishment It ends up being more conservatives. So to the fundamental question of the debate Yes, it is undoubtable that conservatives are censored more and are treated more harshly or persecuted as the language of the debate says It's undoubtable But the real issue is it's because they are being critical of the establishment And if you're on the left you should heavily be concerned about these attempts at censorship Because one day you'll want to criticize people in positions of power And they'll come for you as well. That's all I have for my opening statement Okay, thank you so much. That was only about five minutes. All right It just want to do some quick housekeeping real quick We have a we had 10 minutes openings for each of you guys slotted That was only five minutes, but we do have 10 minutes for chud logic Then we have 50 minutes of open dialogues get slotted and then 30 minutes for audience q&a Want to remind you guys to tag either me as factionalist network or at modern-day debates if you want your Questions to be asked Super chats get top priority. So please sit in your super chats As soon as you can if you want to get your questions asked, they'll go straight to the top of the list Praise iam that iam is producing the the the stream Want to make sure to welcome everyone to modern-day debate We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics And we want you all to feel welcome no matter what walk of life you come from our guests are linked in the description below And whether you are listening via podcast or on youtube So just click those links if you are liking what you are hearing and you want to hear more Hit the subscribe button. Please hit the like button Share the videos if you want to hear more debates. We have lots of juicy debates coming up for you and With that, let's go ahead and kick it over to chud logic for your 10 minute opening when You are ready. You may begin Sure. Hello everyone. My name is chud logic I'm a lefty streamer Talk about a whole bunch of stuff, particularly big tech and the issues that we all face under the All species of their rules So if that's some of the interest you want to hear what else I talk about come by my stream You can find it by searching chud logic on twitch And I sometimes upload to youtube although I unfortunately have been a victim of big tech. My channel is being completely demonetized and I'm still waiting for them to review it So, um, yeah, but you might find the odd video on youtube as well Okay, so in terms of my opening statement 645 billion This is the total number of interactions donald trump had on his facebook page between january 1st and november 3rd 2020 This is just one of numerous examples that point clearly to conservatives having not only a prominent position on social media But an influential one too The questions around free speech and big tech censorship are very important to me Anyone that watches my content knows I speak about these, um, this often and I try hard to hold reasonable and consistent positions on these issues However, one big frustration I have are the ways in which, um, conservatives seem obsessed with turning these issues into a grotesque cultural or spectacle reasonable discourse, um And discussion is often transformed into rightoid whining of victimhood and perceived depression Although studies and data around these specific issues are admittedly limited as it stands What we do have simply does not support the cries of persecution that some conservatives make But chud I hear you cry donald trump was banned from facebook Surely this must be proof of a liberal plot to censor and oppress conservatives on these platforms This is yet another attempt by conservatives to obfuscate the truth of these issues Although these individual examples are supposed to prove the outlandish conspiracy theories of the conservative They simply prove the rather embarrassing fact that conservatives often have great difficulty following the rules of these platforms Indeed if you dig into the often cited examples of brave free speech warriors banned for merely speaking truth to power You will find a route of flagrant disregard for the most basic points of these platforms in terms of service Bear in mind. I agree that there ought to be a robust discussion about to us and even the extension of free speech on these platforms Inconsistency in application of these rules is something that has personally affected me as a leftist That is what makes it so frustrating when conservatives tend to only bring this up as a defense and deflection for repeated and flagrant disregard for the rules by bad actors There are even cases for example, steven crowder of conservatives flagrantly breaking rules complaining about persecution Yet still retaining large prominent and influential accounts on the very platforms they claim are trying to eradicate them The pathetic and self-serving victimhood of such people really knows those bounds To move on to individual conservatives on these platforms In this atmosphere and in this climate. I don't actually blame them for thinking There's a grand liberal plot to specifically censor them To speak briefly to what robber is saying. I actually agree that these platforms do have an impetus in some cases to Sensor or in some way impact criticism of them. I don't think this is a broad conspiracy though This is just capital working as intended All of this serves to hide the truth The challenges and issues of free speech expression and big tech concern us all Regardless of political ideology There are plenty of examples of these issues affecting left-wing accounts or even apolitical accounts as recent controversies on platforms such as twitch have shown us This is truly a bipartisan issue that requires a bipartisan solution We must not let conservative victimhood obscure this fact Rather than continue with the rightoids cries of free speech grievance, which is with its numerous clowns and theatrics Let's work to find the reasonable common ground and figure out practical and effective solutions together And that's it You got it. Those were both a very short Opening statements before we get into the 50 minute dialogue I just want to thank the moderators in the chat for their dedication to the channel And for suppressing the urge to jump in on one side or the other of the conversation And I want to remind everybody in the chat to attack the ideas and not the person So if you have a comment or question for the debaters, uh, please go ahead and send in those super chats and go ahead If you have a comment that's perfectly fine. This is as long as you're attacking the ideas and not the person and again Links are in the description. Please hit the like and subscribe button and with that Let's go ahead and kick it into the open dialogue gentlemen. The floor is all yours Thank you. I appreciate it. So to respond to what you said I assumed that this would have the debate would go the debate would go Of course Conservatives are censored more and prominent conservatives are censored more But that's because they deserve it and that's just fundamentally not true Let me ask you to start with do you think that everyone that's censored from social media has done something to warrant it Uh, not necessarily. No, um, I think that you know There's cases where social media companies will apply to us incorrectly or inconsistently And that can have a negative impact on people regardless of their political ideology quick example of this Recently you had right wing watch banned from youtube and andi no banned from soundcloud. Um, so both of those, um channels Um, I think were transpired were wrongly taken down Although this did happen after like large media campaigns in both cases to bring attention to it And they both had their accounts reinstated. So I don't I don't think that it's you know Yes, sure. It's inconsistent and can be applied incorrectly. People can be bad unfairly, but I don't think it's Significantly different in one particular political direction though It's so we'll talk about but the concession is that of course they could do things unfairly So do you have any no, no, no, no, I'm not conceding that, you know, I listen Defend big tech big tech I don't mean concession in that sense. I just mean we're in agreement. Is that a better way to put it? Yeah, we're in agreement Okay, sure not just setting a baseline here So if do you dispute the fact that more conservatives are banned or a shadow banned or are censored on these platforms Then liberals do you think that that's true? And that's just that they deserve it Are you disputing whether or not more are banned? Well, I think we're getting to the point where we're conflating terms, you know Because my understanding of your use of liberal is anyone on the left You know correct me if I'm wrong, but that tends to be how americans refer to it now I would say that, you know mainstream liberals that say support biden Sure, they're probably not going to be as censored as much as you know, a far-right conservative But I would argue that like a sort of main mainline liberal or like a mainline conservative, you know A centrist conservative type. They're probably going to see censorship at equal measures It's only when you get to the extremes of the political sides That's where you tend to see a ramping up a political ideology, but that isn't because of ideology. I think it's more to do primarily with profit motive and these platforms being concerned about certain messages being You know problematic for advertisers and so I don't think it's an ideological driven decision It's a decision driven out of wanting to make money and Yeah, that's my perspective on it. So Ideology aside like we could get into that debate, but the question is is it existing or not? So just so i'm steelmaning your position your position is when it comes to moderate right wingers or moderate conservatives and moderate left wingers They're censored at equal clips, but at the extremes. Yes extreme right wingers might be censored more than extreme left wingers um I mean, I think okay, so what I'd say is I think that you can probably find more examples of extreme Right wingers being censored like stefan mononu nick franters um, alex jones so people like that who have got what are perceived to be fairly extremist views But I don't think that it's because they're conservative that they're targeted It's because their views are so morally egregious to broader society That it is like such an affront to advertisers. That's the reason that these people tend to be dropped from these platforms Okay, so so let's talk one like so I outlined three way we could obviously I want to give you time to talk as well So I think maybe the beginning focus is regular people and whether or not regular people get censored now There were a lot of people from 2016 to 2020 on one particular issue that said that they had no confidence in the outcome Of the 2016 election. There are a lot of people since the 2020 election that said that they have no confidence in the outcome of that Twitter itself has banned or severely limited over 200,000 accounts of people that have mentioned the election post 2020 I have no evidence them of ever banning anyone that said that the election was fraudulent in 2016 Despite the fact that pulling from u.gov shows that two-thirds of democrats not only believe that the election was stolen from hillary clinton But literally believe that russia hacked voting machines to switch tallies to fraudulently elect donald trump Why is it if conservatives and liberals are censored at the exact same Amount if they have these same positions Do we see the mass censorship of conservatives on this issue? But the no censorship whatsoever of liberals or a democrats on that issue in 2016 through 2020 Sure. I mean, that's that's a perfectly valid and reasonable thing to bring up. My response to that is My understanding of the different dynamics that are at play is that the manifestation of this rhetoric was quite different in each case For example, if you look at the 2016 election Hillary Clinton conceded defeat fairly quickly I've got no doubt that you can probably find some fucking liberal type person making, you know Maybe extreme points about the election. Maybe there's a case of inconsistency. We could look at on that specific basis But broadly speaking, I think the narrative was that russia influenced the us election Um You know and also I don't think that was lined up with specific calls of actions to take to subvert American democracy I use that term quite loosely. I've got my criticism of American oxy, but that's besides the point Okay, whereas if you look at the 2020 election, um, the the flavor if you like of the rhetoric was very different it was quite pointed and it seemed directed at invoking people to engage in specific action, which um, you know Transpired in the events of january 6th Just to be clear. I'm not, you know, one of these pearl clutches about january the 6th I've got my criticism of some of the narratives around it Um, but I think you know to deny the fact that they were there in some way to subvert a democratic process is wrong And I think that was absolutely geed up and fueled by commentary from right wing commentators online, particularly donald trump Um, so yeah, I think there's a different flavor between the two things Okay, but again, so already we see so the concession is well, yes Right-wing people with these beliefs that shared similar opinions of the left-wing people are censored far greater than the left-wing people I just think it was warranted because right-wing people took what was being said and went out and used violence But we don't see this sort of logic applied in other ways. For example, we saw riots that occurred all Sorry, sorry. After we're moving on a bit quick back. Let's just go back to what we were talking about Do you disagree that the the flavor or the narratives that were pushed were different between 2016 and 2020? Or do you think they were exactly the same? Of course, nothing's exactly the same, but they are very similar in the ways that's important In fact, the narrative that was pushed by the democrats from 2016 to 2020 was worse Because it actually used state power to push conspiracy theories to violate US citizens' rights in the form of basically engaging in a coup to use unverified Opposition research paid for by hillary clinton sourced by russian spies to be able to spy on the trump campaign And they used leaks unmasked people and used leaks to the media to smear people surrounding the trump campaign To make the public think that he was literally a stooge of russia so much So that official u.gov polls suggested that two-thirds of democrat voters thought that russia literally hacked machines We saw riots as the result of donald trump being elected. We saw attacks against russian people Xenophobia against russians in this country increased which i can provide evidence if you want and the mistreatment of russians increased We saw trump supporters being attacked for some of the lies that were being told So this sort of stuff did lead to violence But no one said oh we have to censor these dangerous conspiracy theories that say that the election was stolen This this is nonsense, right? And it's similarly if we're going to censor rhetoric Because it could lead to violence again We saw these riots that occurred in the name of george floyd and you know the idea of systemic racism There was never any evidence that the death of george floyd had anything to do with real quick I'll leave you all finished There was many any and never evidence that that was directly result of the officer that killed george floyd being racist Yet we saw riot after riot. There was no talks to censor misinformation online What about hands up don't shoot that was a lie that led to riots We're with censor free now. Let's let's just take a step back and go somewhere To bring it back a bit. We're talking about the election. So you mentioned a coup. Okay now I'll be honest with you. I don't necessarily think that using the word coup is the best way to describe january 6th That being said though, I'm interested to understand what event happened around the 2016 election That was the equivalent of a riot in the capitol building To subvert democracy or tempting. Well, I mean for example We saw massive riots that occurred in cities around the country during trump's inauguration and in addition to that But wait wait that was protest that way. I said that's protest though. What did they try and subvert? Well, I protest aren't using violence people were being when I protestors were being looted fires were being set That's not protest. But like I say, what was the purpose of that? Was it was it to like change the process of american democracy? Like I just don't think there was an event that you can point to as significant as what happened on january 6 Where he was stormed the government building to try and subvert or change the democratic process that was going through at the time Sure, I could list two off the top of my head may 31st 2020 Where we saw people that claimed that they wanted to remove or kill donald trump and lit fires at a church in other places Around dc stormed the white house the only reason that they were unable to get in the white house despite the fact that they Were armed more than anyone on january 6. They were armed with molotov cocktails lasers designed to blind police Clubs other sorts of weapons. The only reason they were unsuccessful at getting into there was because the what the security understood that with those sort of people coming to town That there was likely to be violence because of the rhetoric that was being announced online Unlike with trump supporters. We hadn't seen any rallies of his really where we saw violence So they were taken aback we could get into this but trump himself was the only politician on record that actually requested the national guard Be there mario bowser the democratic mayor and we saw democrat sergeant of our the sergeant of arms That's under nancy polosi both said that they didn't want increased security there So again, we could see that we saw the only difference between may 31st And january 6th is the police were able to stop one group that sought to go in and remove a legitimate elected member of government and in the other instance They were unable to stop them from getting into the building and yet once they got in the building They were almost all entirely peaceful and it was only a trump supporter that was shot We also see the incident of just really true Other people Well, there was a police officer that died now. I admit that there were In immediate reports, which said the head was smashed in by fire extinguisher by trump supporters, which turned out to not be true Um, I think it's an officer sickness. I believe the person's name was correct. That's correct Um, but basically they had a well. I don't know exactly what happened precisely medically But my understanding is they something something was aggravated by tear gas I believe and they had a heart attack which led to their death. So that's not true That's not true. The coroner said that they were unable to find any video evidence whatsoever that he ingested tear gas Nor were they able to find that tear gas resulted in the stroke that he received. It's totally okay So, but nonetheless, do you think do you think that would have happened though? If that the event of those days, do you think he'd have just had a had a heart attack anyway? He could he had a stroke and yes, he could have there were other officers that Right like stuff like that happens Remember, there were also four people that died that had nothing to do with that Are i'm three people that died aside from sychnic and uh ashley babbitt And they died of medical conditions as well and they had nothing to do whatsoever with riding So yeah, I mean even in a like robust protest that nothing illegal is happening Sure, people's blood pressure could rise people could suffer strokes and things like that like sure that could happen Yeah, yeah, I mean just to be clear as well like, you know, I you know I think that the way that some people acted around the murder of ashley babbitt was disgraceful She's an unrighteous, uh, you know, right? Yeah, you want to call a shot by police? So that was really bad, right? um But but yeah, I just what I'm a bit perplexed by you know Without getting too much into the weeds is well what event happened that matched that in terms of its Ferocity, I guess or or you know because you're talking about you're calling riot So I call them protests. Maybe it's tomato tomato situation But I just don't think there was anything as significant as that that happened around the 2016 election And I'll be happy if you've got any links or anything that I could look at this Sure So we saw again, we saw the riots that occurred as trump was being inaugurated We saw riots again and again there were other so we had the may 31st situation, which I told you about We also had with the cabinet the conspiracy theories that were unsourced about brett cavanaugh We saw people storm the heart building of the capital Storm past police that was trying to keep them out and then chase senators into elevators We saw that occur Now so the what this is is and all of this is a red herring anyways from the issue to say Well, we're conceding that far more conservatives were censored We're just saying because the rhetoric they were using was used by a very small amount of people to do a bad thing And let me be as clear as possible those that engaged with fighting with the police on january 6th That were trump supporters absolutely should be prosecuted and it was despicable I called that out on the day of january 6th And I'll continue to say that having said that the events of that day have been massively blown out of proportion And the majority of people that were there were only exercising their free rights And by majority I mean over 99% And even those that went into the capital although it's a crime It should be a crime in the same vein that it was a crime when people entered the capital under cavanaugh They should be given a small fine instead. They're held in solitary confinement But i'm not here to talk about the treatment of them when i'm here to talk about is this is all a red herring from You've already conceded far more conservatives were censored. You're just saying well That's because a small number of them a minuscule number of them That that said this thing in acted violence Is that the same standard that social media has when other movements enact violence based on rhetoric we see online The problem you've got though, right is you're using these grand figures So for example, you say oh this many people were censored, right? You know if you told me you won't believe it 100,000 people were censored last year on social media And then it transpired that well the reason they were censored is because they were uploading in decent images of children For example, I would go well. Yeah, that's you know understandable They were breaking the rules in a significant severe way So it's just to contextualize it a little bit, you know And listen, I will I will happily admit and discuss around to s in its unfair enforcement But if fundamentally, you know conservatives have issues following the rules that are in place You know that a different conversation could be had about whether the to s is fair whether it's enforced fairly But a fundamental basis you've got to follow the rules of the platform that you're on to the best of your ability um, you know, I don't know it's it's one of those things where it's like Follow the rules five head like I don't know how it's been here But this is this is always the excuse of authoritarian and censorship and you would let me let me try to bring this to an argument That maybe you would agree with right like we understand that people sometimes when law enforcement at a local or smaller level Behaves improperly what they do is they selectively enforce the law So for example, if you lived in a town where 100 people were arrested for jaywalking and 98 percent of them were black And the officer said well, that's because they broke the law They did they broke the law And you would say but why is there such a huge discrepancy? Well black people must jaywalk more than white people You would say that's an incredible claim that demands incredible evidence And we don't see evidence of that that conservatives do that and i'll get to specifics if you like Well the thing is I think that um you've got to look at in a context right so the jaywalking thing's fine But if we're looking at the rules of social media like i'm sure you would agree that stuff around in decent children That's fine. We shouldn't have like isis beheading videos on the main page of twitter and so on and so on Um, you know, there's going to be certain rules, which maybe you don't like or disagree with But you still have got to follow them to some degree right like you know Um inciting violence that's that's a legal thing You know platforms have an obligation to not have illegal illicit content on their platform So if someone's inciting violence, you know, it even goes beyond just being in my opinion about a profit motive There's a legal requirement there for that service to remove that content. So they don't break the law so you know Okay, so let's let's take it. It's inciting violence specifically So there were conservatives that were considered to be violent violating inciting violence and they were censored Let's take the example of carlos maza who worked for vox news Vox with a v. Uh, he's a left winger. He publicly He publicly Oh, i'm getting some feedback here feedback From james's account praise moot yourself praise meet yourself Um anyways, so carlos maza he said and it was reported thousands of times and was big on twitter and other places He suggested that we should make conservatives uncomfortable together in public and should do things like throw objects Like milkshakes on them now. This is assault by any definition He said this it was reported twitter allowed this statement to stay up They did not punish carlos maza two days after that journalist andy. No had milkshakes thrown at him And there was a possibility that there were chemicals put in the milkshakes as the milkshakes were being thrown at him He was physically attacked that was the purpose of their chemicals in the milkshake. That was not okay That the original allegation that was doesn't matter He was clearly assaulted not just with the milkshakes but with this and this resulted in no suspension Or determination or determination of any sort of censorship whatsoever and carlos maza And if you go back and you look at the debate that tim poll had with uh jack dorsey and i forget I can't pronounce her name vita or one of the people that uh is in charge of twitter along with jack dorsey incident after incident Tim poll would be able to say here is a conservative that got censored and yet here is a left winger doing arguably the same thing Or worse. Why didn't you censor them and every time they're like, well, it's a judgment call Sure, okay. I'm just trying to bring up the tweet in question. Um So you said milkshake them all humiliate them at every turn make them dread organizing Um, yeah, I mean, you know, I look at a tweet like that and I think that's probably unnecessary and excessive Um, but I think that there's a difference between Something like that And the president of the united states directly calling on his followers to take specific action You know around the capital building which then led to that happening, you know I think okay. Listen. I listen. I'll be honest with you, you know, people laugh about the andy no thing You know, yeah, I don't think andy knows should have milkshake stone at him. Okay, but I think there's a big difference in impact or beaton Sure. Yeah, you know, um Yeah, I'll happily admit that but I think there's a big difference between that happening and the like the events of january 6th You know, so even if we say maybe this could have incited that it's inciting a much lower instance of uh, you know The the manifestation of this this violence, you know, well, that's not true So again, so there's a lot of things that are being conflated. So once we say, okay Well, it's different. So the reasons conservatives are censored more is because more violence came from the things they were saying That's just definitively not true. We could see in the past four years It's not even close the amounts of political violence that we've seen People committing political violence in the name of a lot of rhetoric that's being spread on social media Much of it lies like hands up don't shoot and other things like that That violence has been far more prolific than the violence that occurred january 6th Similarly, donald trump never directly called for people to engage in violence or anything like that But compared donald trump statements to maxine waters statements So the eve of the chauvin verdict as there were riots occurring in minneapolis Maxine waters actually showed up to minneapolis and said that if they didn't get the verdict They wanted they needed to increase the intensity of the actions they were taking Now maxine waters or nor none of the people that were pushing and retweeting this on social media were censored How is that a more direct call to incitement? Maxine waters made a public statement in a speech Okay, that isn't her using twitter in the same way that trump did right? So if someone is retweeting it or commenting on writing a story about it You're just writing a story of the news of what a politician said, right? It's like if I said I hope that I'm going to go and kill x person, right? I would rightly get removed from social media for a comment like that probably But if a news reporter came along and said Chud logic said he's going to go and kill x person I wouldn't expect them to get banned because they're just reporting on a fact that happened Maxine waters is a distraction because she's not on social media saying these things, you know It's at the same level of troubles. So go. Okay. Do you think there were people Retweeting or commenting on what maxine waters saying saying yes, exactly and if so should they have been censored? Well, I mean what was her exact phrasing. What did you say? I don't remember the exact word but she basically said we needed to increase the intensity now again What we can see I mean increase the intensity that that's that's a different as riots as riots are occurring What did trump say that was a call to violence? I mean all she said was go be peaceful exercise your rights peacefully. What did he say that was a call to violence? Sorry one sec. I mean basically the sorry go on Yeah, so we could we actually have studies that have been done on this So if you don't mind, I'll read part of a study on this Yeah, please go on sure so Let's see professor Richard Henea did a study on prominent people that have been censored leading into the 2016 election Right, and he found that there were 22 prominent people that reference politics quite often that were censored of the 22 that were censored 21 of them publicly supported Donald Trump The only one that was censored that did not support Donald Trump was Rose McGown And she was censored for doxing people but other than that 21 out of 22 people were politically censored Now he talks about how you could make this argument. You could say well, maybe it's more likely that conservatives violate to us than liberals But Mathematically it seems beyond the pale. You wouldn't have to think that Based on this data that there were 22 prominent people that were censored and almost all of them were conservatives You would have to say that it's something like Conservatives are 21 more times likely to violate to us than Democrats and this is nonsense And this is nonsense, especially given a world where you already admitted that twitter and social media places do sometimes censor people And they get it wrong So, you know, you're not willing to concede that giving these stark numbers that there's a significant chance that bias influenced the type of people that they were censoring So I just want to go back to trump's tweets because you mentioned there that um trump said about going in peace, right? That's what he said at the here rally. Sure Um, well my understanding based on what I'm looking at here. He said this after the events of january 6th Um, he said he talked about going home in love and peace after what had happened So this wasn't a case of him, you know making an impassioned pleader people to not engage in violence The rhetoric and his language leading up to january the 6th all pointed in a very specific direction Uh, you know of showing the tweet where he called for violence. I'll condemn it Yeah, sure. Okay. Um, but the point I'm trying to make here is that it's you know, it's all very well You know to after the fact say oh, well, you know Um, you should go in peace and you should go in love But if if all of your rhetoric leading up to it leads to a certain point then then surely, you know, that's irrelevant then at that point Um, you know two things two things one He did not say it after the fact He literally said it at his rally that go there be peaceful before the rioting started happening So that's one it wasn't after the fact But second the question of the tweets leading into that day. I didn't see one tweet whatsoever that called for violence Not one and that what what's being done here is We see that people that are on the left and that want to downplay the amount of conservatives that are being censored They make all of these logical leaps. They say well what trump was saying was lies and that's incitement But will we actually why doesn't let me ask you just point blank. Does something have to be alive for it to be incitement Well, wait, wait. No, of course not. It doesn't have to be a lie to be incitement. Does it? Great. Okay. So that's so sorry I just just to be clear as well because obviously, you know, you're very concerned with these these trump tweets um, so basically, um The reason the the because you talk as well about how are we sick going in peace and love and this happened after the event Um, the specific tweet um that ended up getting inbanned Um was the 75 million great american patriots Hovered for me america first and make america great again Um We'll have a giant voice long into the future. There will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way shape or form Um, and then he went on to tweet to all of those who have asked I will not be going to the inauguration on january 20th. Um, and this is, you know, following a long period in which he's tweeted A variety of things that whipped his followers up into a frenzy which led to the results of january 6 So this is the thing that ended up getting him banned from twitter. Basically, he showed no remorse He didn't um show any any willingness to back down from his position that had led to these events And that's what led to his inevitable ban from these social media platforms It's it's not let me read again like what you just said He got banned for the following statement the 75 million great american patriots who voted for me america first and make america great again We'll have a giant few voice long into the future They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way shape or form to all those who have asked I will not be going to the inauguration. That's it. That's why they banned the president of the united states Now leaders of china that have talked about downplaying uh, their enslavement of Uyghur muslims Louis fair con and racist like that that have called for violence called Jews insects after the pittsburgh synagogue shooter that have called for uh, a black nation that have called for black nationalism And the demonization of white people Leaders of ryan and other places like that Leaders of antifa that blatantly called for violence all of their platforms are allowed to stay But donald trump tweeting the nail in the coffin was when he tweeted i won't go to biden's inauguration This is nonsense and we could see that what happens is again If we let's go back to my question. You said no, it doesn't have to be a lie in order to be incitement Okay, but with their marketing image, okay What what you're missing though, and this is why this is why it's difficult and this is why it's so difficult These conversations, right? Basically trump's pattern of tweeting and his speeches, um, you know led certain conclusions It's very difficult to pinpoint a tweet and say this is it This is the one tweet where he's done the thing because his rhetoric and his words and his tweets and his communications built built a um, you know slowly built this Kind of kind of movement of people who who went and perpetrated these acts It's quite tricky to point to an individual tweeting saying there it is. That's the incitement of violence It was done in you know insidiously over a period of time And that's why his ban you've got to look at in the broader context It's nonsense And if we give these people it's clearly biased than influencing that because we've seen again It is undisputable that the violence politically that we saw from the left in the past year far surpassed any of the violence We saw from the right and you might say but the people that were tweeting things that led to that incitement Were treating things that were true for example Kamala Harris publicly tweeted a bail fund for the people that were burning down the police barracks in Minyanapolis and the people that were arrested for riding in minyanapolis the future vice president tweeted a bail fund for that She wasn't removed for promotion Before you go off on a million points, how is tweeting out a bail fund? What's that got to do with promoting violence? Did she say because what does saying that i'm not going to attend joe biden's Inauguration have to do with promotion. Okay. So the re okay the reason that could take you to sorry go on if I could just interject real quick because uh, we're about halfway through the debate here the open discussion format And uh, we're going to have 30 minutes of q&a following that So I just want to remind everybody in the chat to send in their super chats so that they can get their questions read And get them on top priority and tag me at modern day debate or at practitioner's network If you have another question, uh, they won't be read first But if they if we don't have enough super chats, they'll be read anyways And don't forget to like and subscribe and uh smash that like button And uh, the guests are linked in the description below and sorry for the interruption guys continue on please. No, that's okay So, let me just explain So the context of this is a lengthy period of time over months in which the um Viability or the election was called into question repeatedly by trump. Okay So the reason for this is this was considered something violent. It's basically more or less twofold The first is trump not intending the inauguration was considered a sign of his Seeing a lack of legitimacy in it and the second aspect is it's kind of a wink and a nod to his followers of I'm not going to be at the inauguration. So if you go and tear shit up, you know, I'm not going to be there Obviously the difficulty is you know trump didn't come out and say explicitly, uh, you know Oh, yes, go and do this action because obviously he knows that you can't do that. So he's got to work in hints and stuff Okay, so you've got to let me just ask you a question to see if this is equally applied Would you hold the same logic to aoc? Has it her record of all the things? She said and tweeted and talked about on instagram and twitch and other place like that Hasn't it talked about how horribly systemic races? This was this country is in an environment where people are riding because of systemic racism So does that mean she's winking and nodding to cause the violence? I mean, you know, I I guess we could look at the tweets, but I don't I don't see Anything of the same level or the same significance as what trump was doing. No, not that I've seen anyway I mean, so so we'll get off the trump thing like it's not just trump Like we see a real quick another prominent person I want to talk about we see right wingers that are censored for claims of things that they claim are racial things Even if oftentimes they're ambiguous and they're not blatant calls to racism Meanwhile, we see former new york times or maybe current new york times reporter sarah jung Have tweet after tweet about how all white people are evil and we need to go against white people and violent things She'd like to do against white people This was brought the attention to twitter, which it's blatantly against their terms of service of racism And yet she was allowed to remain. Can you explain why that's the case? Okay, what's what's this tweet? I mean, I can look at it Right. I've not I mean, you know, I mean, I'm not on board with the you know All white people are this or white people are that I'm against essentialist takes. Um, but yeah, I mean Sure, I mean the only thing I would say is that you know, my understanding is is This because there was always this thing of oh if you if you put in about black people You get banned if you've been a white people you get banned My understanding currently is if you treats out anything regarding a race you want to harm a certain race or something like that You can regardless of whether it's against white people or whatever You can receive consequences for that. You can be suspended. Your account can be banned. So I mean, okay So again these mishaps and I think I mean we'll leave it to the audience That's all we could do is people that are debating But the idea that we're okay brought we're okay banning donald trump for saying i'm not going to attend a rally Because even though he never had a call for violence, it wasn't just for that though But right, so it was for him questioning the election, right? Now when the democrats questioned the election or they talked about racism Or they said that trump was a spy and we saw violence as a result of that no problem None of them got censored Even when they push things that were blatant lies like hands up don't shoot That was a lie that's still being pushed that literally led to riots that even Eric Holder's justice department said was a lie and that's been tweeted over Let me just ask off the back of this stuff you're talking about was there like, you know A future arm protest being planned or proliferating. Was this a thing that was happening? Yes, there were massive riots in fergusson around the country and michael brown was shot Even after those riots occurred i mean for god's sakes We saw someone murder five police officers at a black lives matter rally in dallas in 2018 And this was all based on a lie that the eric holder justice department proved was a lie I mean no one got censored people to this day tweet hands up don't shoot That is a lie that led to violence and they don't get censored for saying it They don't think the thing is okay I'm aware that the hands that don't shoot thing was not was not accurate, you know From my understanding of looking at the case However, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say just tweeting that out even erroneously is somehow a call to violence If anything to me that is a call to say okay, well, you know Like it's a call for the reduction of violence by the police if you like rather than being a call to act violently This is nonsense people engaged in violence incited by that motto that motto has been discredited And people know that the motto is a lie and that it led to violence and yet they still talk about it And we say oh that should be allowed to say that's not a call to violence But trump's saying that he wouldn't attend an inauguration. That's a dog whistle to call to violence This is the double standard that i'm talking and real quick. I just want to make this point to everyone You're not debating whether or not more conservatives are being censored or not You're just saying well, they must have broke the rules more and this is the type of thing we're saying Sure, but you've got to contextualize it right because um, you know, if if let's say a bunch of conservatives got got Sent got taken off twitter and it transpired that a lot of them were Sharing in decent images of children or sharing ISIS beheading videos Well, you go well, they broke the rules explicitly so that makes sense So that's why it's important to contextualize this because you know, it makes it It's irrelevant that the the pure numbers are the rule numbers It's about you know, are these people engaging in behavior which is in in breach of the rules And um, yeah, like I think it's important to contextualize that you know, I mean it's just I mean again, but you're conflating You're talking about a hypothetical. We're talking about the literal situation of what happened Yeah, people are placing to be heading videos Sure, then I guess they've clearly violated terms of service what we're talking about is one We are in agreement that conservatives were censored more The question now is did they deserve to be censored more? And so we're talking about you're saying well, it wasn't a direct call for violence But trump should have been censored because it was clearly a dog whistle So when we're talking about things that were factually incorrect that led to violence that are still promoted By left-wingers on twitter and them not being punished for it What is the standard of which twitter is using to say? Oh, well, you can't say things that we think are untrue that people might go out and engage in violence But it seems like when left-wingers do it, it's no problem Yeah, sure I I guess the issue I've got here is is you're trying to claim that these kind of esoteric principles or concepts or You know, even a phrase Hands up don't shoot which is in itself, you know, I've got my hands up. Don't shoot me That is a rejection of violence that's saying don't engage in violence because I'm not a threat But you're trying to paint that as You know in some way the same as this context that I've mentioned of You know trump's social media presence from the outcome of the 2020 election Through to january and I just think that those are two very different things I mean again, all's I could say is it's absurd Like it seems if I'm trying to be as objective as possible that you were stretching as far as you can to say Well, clearly trump's dog whistling to violence and then you're stretching as far as you can to say Yes, even though people were spreading a motto that was largely used to encourage riots around this country Or it was largely used. I don't want to say to encourage it It was largely used by people rioting and it was definitively debunked and people were still using it Well, I'm not considering that a call to violence And we see this all the time twitter claims that they censor fake news or social media claims They censor fake news and yet the president of the united states joe biden and Thousands upon thousands probably hundreds of thousands of democrats have routinely said that donald trump said nazis were good people He never did now. What do you think happens? Do you think that there could potentially be violence if someone is spreading a lie that the president of the united states said Nazis are good people Don't you think that people could interpret that live saying holy shit I have to fight back against the president that's defending nazis Um, I mean that sure there's a possibility of anything inciting anyone. I mean, uh, you know the guy that Um, kill tried to kill bjork was influenced by a music or someone. I can't remember the details So anything can influence anyone But I guess what I would look at is like well, what are the outcomes of what's happening? And um, I mean, I think there may be were a couple of attempts on the president's life I'm not sure if that's an excess to other presidents or not But I don't think that that actually formulated in real life violence against the president or attempts of violence against the president You know conservators made a big deal was a kathy young who had at the beheaded head of trump Which I think was a kind of cringy gesture. Okay, so I agree. I have no problem with it. Yeah I think yeah, sure But I think you know you you might support it from a free space. I probably do too But it's a cringy kind of kind of thing But but I think that like I don't think that led to people trying to then go and behead trump Whereas if you look at the rhetoric of trump and what he was talking about That led to actual outcomes of he consistently called into question the outcome of the election And then trump supporters went and tried to interfere with the electoral process of the back of all of that propaganda Again, we're back to a hands up. Don't shoot. It wasn't a call for peace What it was was an implication that a black man was shot by a rhesus police officer Who is trying to give himself up and he was executed? That was a lie It didn't happen like that and it was a lie that led to people rioting and that lie was still pushed So again, you're saying oh, well trump was saying things that led to a bad outcome Therefore trump and conservatives need to be censored again We already articulated that it was only was far less than one percent of the people at the capital that engaged in this violence Right far less than that So hundreds of thousands of people had questions about the election to censor all of them is ridiculous When we could see commiserate things on the left that led to violence Again, it's not debatable that there was more left wing violence in the past year than right wing violence And yet we don't censor anyone for inciting that left wing violence. Why is that? I mean just to be clear on one point you keep saying, you know, I think trump should have been censored just to make my position clear Um, I don't think personally trump should have been banned only because he was a world leader at the time Um, you know, and I think that his position many should have remained on twitter. Um Yeah, I mean, I don't know like I think you're looking at this like from the perspective of What what caused for example the last year the protests around the george floyd murder Were people witnessing Derek chauvin murdering george floyd on video and seeing it and getting frustrated and anger and then going out and taking action Off the back of it. There wasn't like, you know a certain group of people that were saying Yes, you must go out and do these protests and you know, uh, you must go and You must yeah, but not okay, but the thing is that there wasn't a sort of a significant pointed um Action there to like go and target democracy or go and target a certain government building It was it was more broad organizing to engage in protests You know, which were designed to and also there were statistics that showed that were high percentage I think 93 percent of the protests around black lives matter were actually peaceful last year But how many how many what cool? How many percent of the protests around the election were violent? I mean Name me the incidents that were violent of people Yeah, but the thing is is like how many protests were there around the election compared to how many protests that were during black lives matter So we look at the percentage of them. There were thousands of protests about the election. There was one in my little town There was a black lives matter rally in my little town as well And there was one incidence of violence There were 233 incidents locations of violence surrounding black lives matter But a location means that if multiple acts of violence occurred in one location it only counts as one For example, we saw 90 straight days of riding in portland Many of the times the people that were riding in portland actually used social media To communicate with each other to talk about specific tactics that they were going to use that night to riot those social media accounts remain Sure, but I don't think that's the same as the president inciting violence in the people that follow it He didn't he didn't incite so So we'll move away from trump. What do you say about like another example of a person like So for example, we had a governor in the form of ron de sanis who was talking to medical professionals that was justifying his ending of the lockdown That conversation was removed from youtube and other social media places. Why is that? um, I mean, I presumed that that was probably because of youtube's policy on medical misinformation um, I think the but he was right I mean if he was right and it was a mistake then yeah, youtube have messed up, you know, I think that um Can you name me a left-wing person? Just to be clear, you know Um, I I don't know the ins and outs of this event. So I don't know what they were saying Um, I I don't know the the details of it. All I can go off is by by what you're talking about here So, I mean without seeing the conversation or knowing that the context and the medical stuff around it You know, but again, but that might be a reason that maybe you're wrong in this debate Again, you're already conceding that more conservatives are censored. You're just saying they probably deserve it You're not providing any evidence to show that Now the problem you've got as you're jumping around all these different examples, you know, and and like some of it I mean, we spent an awful lot of time on trump. I mean, you don't want to just focus on that, right? No, sure, but you know, you're expecting me to know about the intricacies of a conversation some fucking governor had You know, this is the problem with arguing with fucking right or conservatives is and it's fine If you only know about american stuff, that's cool But you know, it's always focused so much on america and what's happening in america Maybe we don't give a fuck about roger the sanchez. Okay, I don't know. I don't know why you're so fucking focused on Whatever this guy's name is like, I don't know because the focus is there's three ways that we look at this So the first way we could look at it is were there more average people that are right wing that were conservative that were censored Yes, we've agreed. You just said they probably observed it Then we're talking about prominent people that were censored So I read a study that showed that going into the 2016 election in this country That 21 out of 22 people that were censored were donald trump supporters This is media professionals pundits journalists things like that There were 22 that were censored on twitter and 21 of them were trump supporters, right? You don't really have an answer for that. You just say well, they must have violated terms of service Well, I mean, you know, I don't know the details of the reasons that they were banned You know, like i'm not i'm not beholden to this position to say like if someone was unfairly banned I'm going to be like well, they were conservative. So they probably deserved it like, you know To look at the totality of what someone said, you know, uh, like like, you know, like I say If I can't just real quick like the way the debate works, you're taking the position Like you're literally saying I understand more conservatives were banned. You're not disputing. You're not providing counter evidence You're not saying uh, no, actually that study was incorrect. You're just saying well, I don't know But I still guess that they probably deserve to be censored. That's not really an argument Well, well, no, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that in cases that I'm familiar with like say prominent conservative figures Um, what you tend to find is is there are specific named reasons that these people are banned from social media platforms Um, you know The fact that you can bring up examples of people I maybe I'm not as familiar with Like, you know, I don't know the totality of everyone that's ever been banned from social media All I can go by is, you know, what I know and from what I understand when people are banned permanently You know, it tends to be quite a significant reason for that and the other thing as well Is you're conflating a lot of things here. You're talking about a single conversation getting removed from youtube I don't know. Maybe that was the right decision. Maybe it was the wrong decision But that's different to being banned permanently. I've had videos removed from youtube, you know I I just you know, I think the pointing to one case where a conversation of videos been removed Um, you know, yeah, sure. I've had videos removed like I know other lefties that have videos removed I know lefties that have been demonetized You know, I know lefties that have been banned from my twitter. Like I you know, it's it's all just anecdotes of like this person's ban That person's banned whereas I don't think the broad I don't think the broad totality of the evidence that we've got, you know Point points to the thing that you said and by the way everything that I'm saying I put much of this in chat if you ask for any of the studies that I'm citing or anything of that No problem. I could provide them for you chud. Um, but we're not just talking about anecdotal evidence We're talking about specific evidences of hypocrisy. We're talking about the data that shows how many people have been censored Like and just brushing this off as well. It's just right wingers complaining Clearly the data shows that right wingers are censored more and you don't you're just you're just on a wing in a prayer saying I have a gut feeling we also have a lawsuit Go ahead So I was just I was just going to say um, it's interesting that you mentioned all this data that you've got because um There was a study that was conducted by new york university into the specific question of whether right wingers are being you know censored Unduly or whatever on on social media and it made the claim and I agree with it that there's the data is quite lacking You know in terms of like understanding because twitter or facebook etc Obviously they keep their cards cards quite close to their chest So there's not actually a huge amount of data that demonstrates this person was banned for this reason You know and as a data thing it tends to be more anecdotal where someone says Oh, I got banned from twitter for this reason. Oh, I got banned from twitter for that reason So I'm just interested what where's this data that you speak of because just so university study didn't seem to find it Right. So two things one I put the collet study which it's in the chat and I could I think I put it in the chat with you Which talked about the 22 people that were censored. You can see the methodology and things like that that they used in the study Let me find it again. Uh, I just posted it in the chat though Uh, secondly the new york the new york university study first it was compiled by craig newark Who's a billionaire tech titan that actually donated to biden second? Here's the most important line that we see within this study and i'm quoting the question of whether social media companies harbor an Anti-conservative bias can't be answered conclusively because the data available in academic and civil society research aren't sufficiently detailed Existing periodic enforcement disclosures by facebook twitter and youtube are helpful But not granular enough to allow thorough analysts by outliers However, this study was touted and was titled to say false accusation The unfounded claim that social media companies censor conservatives within that document that was founded by a prolific You know multi a multi-billionaire democrat and donated to joe biden. They admit actually we don't have the data to prove That's unfounded now I could provide you links to people that were whistleblowers in places like facebook that were told that they had a culture of Censoring conservative we can see that the data clearly shows that the people that are working at these companies Clearly have a bias in the forms that they donate so again and what we're saying is Sorry just just to be fair I will fully admit that these big tech platforms have got a liberal bias and I would not be surprised to see them donating to democratic causes You know more so than conservative ones, but you know pointing to something like facebook Where there's information that tells us that a lot of the New stories that are popular on facebook on a day-to-day basis tend to be from right-wing sources like benchipiro You know dan bonjino. Is that the guy's name? I think sure Yeah, so so you know I think that you know Pointing to something like facebook isn't necessarily going to be the best way to do it because you know There's evidence that demonstrates that conservative news sources are fairly popular on there But that's different that saying that that Conservatives so again one of the reasons that conservatives tended to migrate towards social media was because there's such a bias against conservatives In traditional forms of media so saying there's a lot of conservatives on facebook Therefore they can't be uh when whistleblowers come out and say actually we're being instructed to censor certain conservative posts That doesn't prove that that censorship is not being directed again There's still a lot of conservatives that use twitter But that doesn't dispute the fact that we saw over 200 000 censored about the election But if you okay, so if you've got a um a lot of conservatives um on a platform consuming news um You know this news to push these news stories to the top It just kind of goes against this narrative that there's you know all these significant amounts of conservatives being banned Um, also you mentioned uh, you mentioned you mentioned this um this figure I've actually got a figure here so in the first half of 2020 The most recent period for which twitter is released enforcement statistics the company suspended approximately 926 000 700 accounts Um much of this growth was driven by a 68 increase in suspensions related to child sexual exploitation So i'm just wondering if you think that you know Is it that conservatives it's conservatives that just happen to be doing child sexual exploitation Is that link somehow maybe I don't know it's so it's a red herring This has nothing to do just because even if 90 percent of the people that were censored for child sex That's not the percentage we're talking about we're talking about the other 10 percent that were censored for other things Whether there is a bias to go against conservatives and you're not making any arguments as to why that's not the case In addition to this so I linked to you a study from a lawsuit that has official documentation that talks about in california And I believe there's a lawsuit out of michigan both of which suggests that the office of election councils have worked hand in hand with twitter And creating twitter's policies to censor information that they think is critical of the election To the point where there's actual direct communications from people that run twitter to people that work in state agencies When the state agencies say we think that this person is questioning the election and they should be censored Oftentimes this censorship occurs within 24 hours when democrats in the office of election council Actually points out to twitter itself There are official back channels that go from twitter and the office of election councils at council So this is litter and I pro provided that link to you Okay No, that's okay. Because you're you're throwing a lot of us. We're just fair enough with second guys one second guys I'm sorry. I was uh, I had a technical issue. I had to restart my whole computer and everything So I've been offline for a second So if anybody had sent any questions that were not super chats in the last couple minutes That while I was off screen, please resend them because I did not see them If you had any super chats, they will be uh sent to me before the stream is over So I will be able to see those but if you had any other questions, please resend them now I'm back in the chat now. We have about five more minutes left in the uh debate. So please continue Go ahead. There's okay. So the list of 22 people, obviously I'm having a quick look at now includes people like richard spencer and mike enox So you claiming those on your side? Those are, you know, they're considered right wing They're fresh. What about three-speech legends? Are they trying to? No, they considered right wing. There's left wing equivalents like lewis ferrican. Was he censored? He was allowed to push his rich hatred, which someone parroting his logic murdered how many jews at a pitchfork synagogue I mean one week one week real quick one week real quick one week before that murder occurred at a pitchfork synagogue Lewis ferrican was out there talking about how jews are like termites and his channel's a lot of stuff Well, the problem the problem I've got and you know, I I know what public response is going to come from this I wouldn't consider consider that fella to be left wing myself They believe he's nation of islam, right, which is an essentialist. Anyway, that's besides the point I mean, I don't know. Maybe I'd look at it and go. Yeah, he should have been banned But I don't know the material of these these treats like You know, I don't know Just as well, you know, because you're talking about like richard spencer like he's still on fucking twitter Like what's the problem with richard spencer? What happened to him? Did a few treats deleted or something like what do you mean? Many of them got censored is particularly around the times of the election the most important issue that we ever talked about real quick Because we only have five minutes and I want to say this is Censorship and the name of eliminating fake news around the time of the election That was directed towards helping joe biden and the democrats For example, the most the oldest newspaper in this country The new york post was censored for accurately reporting a story about hunter and joe biden Getting money from the communist government of china and a laptop that was found that was considered a conspiracy Two weeks before the election that the new york post was censored from social media People trying to push that story were censored from social media Arras music poll said that one third of democrats said had they been aware of that story At the time that they voted that they would not have voted for joe biden So that was directly That these places operating to and real and real quick robert epstein the professor Talked about how these sort of things and algorithms and things like that Had the ability to sway 16 million votes in the 2020 election alone And he anticipates that this sort of stuff swayed 2.6 million votes in the 2016 election for hillary clinton Okay, so glad you mentioned that I actually at the time criticized twitter heavily for censoring the article Um, we it's good really though because after I think a believe a day or two Twitter realized they'd made a mistake and they rescinded it and they allowed the yes It is they they did so after the election. It wasn't after the election. I guess they did No, no, I don't think it was after the election. It was a couple of days after it happened Um, I can't remember the exact dates off the top of my head, but yeah, I don't think it was after the election It was within it. I think the new york post My understanding is I believe they had some issues with their twitter account going but the article itself Twitter released a press release and said jet. We made a mistake on this one We shouldn't have blocked this and then you could you could share it on on social media That's not true Twitter's this is from the new york post twitter ceo jack dorsi wednesday falsely told senator that his company lifted a band on users tweeting articles from the post Hunter by Despite uh, anyone could tweet these articles He said but twitter users noted quickly that the social media network still banned the distribution of the post article describing a business proposal in china Jack dorsi of twitter just told senator cruz that anyone could share the new york post bombshell tweet dorsi is lying tweeted abego maron He lied that's a different story though. I mean, I don't know that he has a second story That's the same story the hunter by that's what it says Yeah, about his laptop that was about his laptop and the contents of his laptop Correct again. That's exactly what this is talking about About hunter biden and a document indicating a 10 percent set aside for the big guy. That was the article, right? This was clearly done again The 31st of um october That he literally Sound off with a hunter biden. I don't know they try to go ahead and wrap it up guys Okay, 30th of october a new york post was back on twitter You know they they never kicked off twitter this article was kicked off twitter and people that were pushing No, no, no, no, no, you got it wrong their account was um, you know, they couldn't post on their account But on the 30th of october there's a tweet here saying yeah, that was when it was released. It was before the election Again, they intentionally tried to at a time when this was important censor this information The election occurred in early november So the fact that they censored this for over two weeks and then lied to congress saying no No, no, no people could tweet this and that was a lie and then maybe a day or two before the election allowed the story to circulate Again rasmussen showed a poll of rasmussen showed that one third of democrats said they would not have voted for joe biden If they saw this you can't show me them censoring quote stories And again the reasoning that they gave that them and facebook gave was well We couldn't verify the story and yet any conspiracy theory about trump or about republicans was allowed to continue without any censorship whatsoever Okay, quick rejoinder then let's go to the queering. Yeah, it was the article was blocked on october 14th that was rescinded around i believe october 16th and then um, the New york post had its account reinstated on october 30th, which is before the election so Yeah, i mean, i mean if you think this one story would have broken the back of biden's campaign fair enough I just you know, and i'm not a big fan of biden, but i don't think this one story would have had that much It's not just one story. It was The last word because you did go first. Okay, sure Okay, so let's go ahead and hit the q&a Let me get the 30 minutes on the clock And that's gonna start now And um, thank you both for uh being you guys are very good at uh letting each other speak and and i'm sorry for my It was a lot of fun. It really was yeah, you guys did very good I'm very proud of you guys for uh letting each other speak and it kind of moderated itself for most of it Uh, I didn't have to interject at all. So let's go ahead and get to this q&a We don't have we don't have a lot of questions, especially uh super chats if you guys have any super chats now Uh, it would be a great time to send them in because they'll go straight to the top of the list Our first super chat comes in from bubblegum gun for five dollars Conservatives cry oppression because they aren't allowed to have power to oppress others Conservatives are just right-wing liberals and want monarchy I think that's for you rob. How would you respond to that? I mean, it's absolutely nonsense first It's broad generalizations. Uh, that certainly that's not the case. I argue against authoritarianism all the time I think one of the things that shud and I would agree on is that we're both against any of this censorship We just disagree of whether or not it's being more directed But I think he would join me in saying that any of this censorship is garbage Unless it's a direct call to violence or something like that. So yeah, the idea that conservatives Well, they're being fairly censored because they want to put their thumb on the boot of other people That's nonsense And we didn't get to talk about it But a lot of the other issues that are again, some left-wingers are saying but predominantly It's right-wingers are issues that end up being correct that we should be allowed to talk about like this Hunter biden story questions with the cdc and things that they were wrong about problems with like not allowing Discussing like the lab leak theory and things like that that were censored And we actually had scientists admit that the reason they were pushing against the lab leak theory was because they thought it would help Donald trump We have emails from dr. Fauci that was working directly with zuckerberg to control the narrative of what we discussed about the origins of Covid So these are all examples of right-wing positions that we weren't allowed to talk about that ended up being true You don't see any examples of that occurring on the left Okay, let me just copy and paste this last question. It just came in real quick. I'm not sure if it's already been asked before because You know I was gone for a while Anyways, uh another super chat came in from cori ab for 199 question for rob. Can you define the word quote-unquote help? That's one of my I can't define the word help. I choose not to it's an inside joke. It's Oh, and he just ended his super chat again for 4.99. So There you go. You're getting you choose not to jokes on him You sure okay last chance No, okay all right, um we had another super chat from I don't know how to say this name reefer sheafers for 299 the 2020 election was stolen with fake ballots I Guess that's for you rob. Um, I don't see definitive proof of it I think there are significant questions particularly given what we see in new york That the idea like oftentimes what we see I'm not going to try to go too long on this but oftentimes what you see is people's reactions to something Let's you know that there's something fishy going on It would have been a totally reasonable position for democrats to say look these claims of voter fraud and stuff There's some things that look shady and we understand we changed the voting systems But there's no evidence that the election was stolen. That's a reasonable claim I'm willing to listen to that but when you come out and you say the most secure elections ever Super secure nothing could go wrong and then the first major election we have afterwards whoopsie daisy We accidentally put 130,000 test ballots through the voting machine Which amounts to 16 of the total ballots counted and then when the person that was getting screwed over by it Spoke up and said um real quick. I see a discrepancy in the total number of ballots What happened a bunch of people said oh, they're spreading the big lie like donald trump only it wasn't the big lie And so this is the danger of censoring these things Even if you think right like look this election wasn't stolen or anything like that If we set the precedent that you can't challenge elections It's let's say you're on the left. Can't you see an authoritarian right wing figure trying to cheat the system? And then saying we will not allow any conversation of people that disagree with this election I think that that's tyranny and I think we should struggle against that Just I think actually yeah, I'm gonna let shud finished asking that question because I was thinking about it I really do think that actually was for him So go ahead shud the first point I make is to agree. Yeah, we should be very concerned with um platforms that are you know setting Hardline rules in place as youtube did saying you cannot question the outcome of an election Even if you think you know that the the merits of the claim of ludicrous this time It does set a bad precedent in the future if leftists want to contest the results of election It could be used against us. So I do I do agree with that To be honest with you listen if there was fucking evidence I'm no fan of the democrats. Okay. I'm a fucking lovely. I'm not into that shit If someone could present evidence that the democrats acted completely inappropriately and stole an election Sign me up. Let's let's show me the fucking evidence. I'd laugh my ass off However, the right was so incompetent at dealing with it I mean, I don't think it was any merit in the claim anyway But the fact that right was so incompetent at dealing with it endless court case an embarrassment after embarrassment after embarrassment It was a complete shambles. So I think even if there was which I don't think there was even if there was a Evidence of this. I think the right would have fucked it up. Anyway. Anyway, that's my point in it Okay, gotcha. Thank you for that I remember guys if you have a super chat, they go straight to the top of the list I do have a list of questions now Um, but they are not paid So if you want to kick any of those off of the list go ahead and set a super chat Thank you all for your super chats anybody who has set them in so far Here's one from p Barnes for ten dollars Rob Do you think that twitter viewed trump's tweet about not attending the inauguration in a vacuum or Do did they look at the overall theme of his rhetoric when deciding to ban him? I think they probably looked at the overall I mean the reality is twitter has every incentive and has a working relationship with the democrats You can see the uncapital hill. There's constant calls from the democrats saying we're going to punish you dorsey We're going to punish you zuckerberg if you don't censor more fake news Now we've seen unprecedented amount of fake news and conspiracies about donald trump and trump supporters that were pushed We could talk. I mean just off the top of my head, uh, the cavanaugh claims trump being a russian plant the russian bounty story You have you know the covington catholic kids all of this stuff This was all stuff going against conservatives that were conspiracy theories without evidence and that shit was all allowed to fly Right, but when they say with trump, it's like, oh, we have to censor fake news So they have every incentive to do what the democrats are telling them if you don't do this We're going to punish you they understand the democrats have the power and the culture will to do so And so they're listening to what the democrats say on this and the problem i have isn't just well They should look at this tweet in a vacuum. It's clear that that is such a benign tweet. They had no reason to Remove him for that But the problem i have is the selective nature of that So when we see people spreading conspiracy theories or calls that predictably lead to violence that come from the democrats Or from the left never are they censored for benign tweets like this in the way that donald trump was Again, we have despicable world leaders that have engaged in genocide slavery of Uyghur muslims Throwing policies that flog women for being out without men leaders like this are never censored never censored by twitter because they're world leaders But conservative world leaders like donald trump or ron disannas are actually censored for positions where it was just benign tweets because they say Well, there's this nebulous totality of the things they said that we think is bad Um, just to sort of respond to that a little bit. Um, I think that that um, you know, trump The idea that he was widely censored Um, you know, obviously we can say he was taken off to it Which is a pretty big measure of censorship. No disagreement there, but in the lead up to that, um, you know Much of his tweets were labeled. I think there was maybe one which was um, had had a link we had to click to see it I don't know Maybe there was one or two tweets that were removed completely From memory, but I think your pains is narrative of a high level of censorship You know to me just putting a notification saying You know, I can't remember the exact notification was but I think putting a notification on something is censorship The other thing I point out as well is all government accounts have a little notification on that says Chinese government account american government account So there is some information at least even with some of these foreign governments to demonstrate that there could be biased information coming out of them Rob, do you want to have the last word on that since I think that was for you And then I mean, no, I would just say that like in the context of everything was said Even chud logic admitted in the previous statement where he was like and it goes along with this was the idea of like Yeah, I don't want to see people censored for questioning the election I mean, that's basically conceding the argument he admits that conservatives were censored for that He doesn't have any examples of left-wingers doing it and he says yeah, I'm not for it Right. So I mean again I it's a clear cut case that conservative that we had democrats question elections for four years In specific elections and in the general national election and not one person was censored that I know And yet he's admitting. Yes. It's a bad thing that conservatives are being censored in this case He's admitting that more conservatives are being censored than left-wingers, but somehow he says they probably deserved it Well, I didn't that's all I didn't know We have to let Rob finish the last word. Sorry. I would like to I would like to leave chud I don't want to misrepresent. So I'll proceed the rest of my time to allow him to explain Okay, it was just just a quick all I want to say is like I think you're over using the word censorship Censorship to me is the removal of content. I don't think putting a notification under a tweet counts a censorship So, you know, the idea that Trump was widely censored, you know, when he was on twitter, I just don't We agree with that personally Rob That's fine. We can move on the next one. Okay, great. We did get another super chat in from 1 888. I'm telling thank you When I I'm telling for $10 What do you guys think about Obama and Farrakhan hanging out in the halls of congress also? What about his choice of racist? Choice of a racist artist to paint his smith smith sony and pro Wow smith sony and portrait was that helpful I guess that's for both. I mean, I I could if it's for both I can answer the smith sony and I'm unaware of I didn't know of the racist tendencies of personal opinion. I can't speak to Farrakhan It wasn't just Obama. You saw a lot of members of the congressional black causes I mean Farrakhan is the despicable human being who's quite the racist He's literally a black nationalist and the fact that we again He's allowed on social media one and second Beyond the conversation of social media the fact that he had so many connections to prominent democrats And no one was ever really made to punish that But if there was any person if richard spencer mentioned a good word about donald trump Oh my god, donald trump's connected to white supremacist So it just goes to show the garbage double standard both on social media and in general and as always once they were caught They were like, oh our bad. Uh, my mistake. I should have been hanging out with that black nationalist bigot that thinks jewser termites That's my mistake says barack obama. This is nonsense and he should have been held account for that Um, I don't know why we're focusing so much on uh on louis farrakhan. Um, but fair enough I mean, I'm you know, obviously, I'm not an expert on on all of these fucking weird, you know fringe people I don't know. Anyway, I've got a reading article here that says that louis farrakhan was actually required to delete a tweet 2018 tweet in 2019. I believe because uh twitters rules changed and um, his tweet fell outside the bounds of those rules So he had to end up deleting the tree. So um I mean sure, but you know, there's there's lots of examples of people having you know I think there's a conflation here of deleting a tweet and having your whole account removed like obviously these two things Are not as bad as each other, um, you know, but but yeah I mean, I don't know the the totality of what fucking louis farrakhan said as I say I'm not an expert on his work. I don't really pay much attention to him He's not a particularly significant political figure in the broad spectrum of things. Um, but yeah, I mean I don't know. That's all I gotta say I think Okay, we got another super chat from hexproof anarchist. Just look at what happened to parlor case closed. Thank you, hexproof Uh, yeah, it's something that I didn't get to I mean, I could have I would have enjoyed talking to jud for two hours on this Stuff like I really would have but yeah, that's another instance So what happened was parlor was a social media platform that was alleged to people were communicating About the january 6 protest and so they were basically removed and when they tried to start up on their own And people said well just do you know create your own platforms and things like that That's exactly what parlor was and their operating service was denied So they were effectively told create your own internet then the problem is we could see from actual fbi indictment documents That the vast majority of people that were discussing what was going to go on in january 6 did so through facebook And yet facebook wasn't punished whatsoever The reason that parlor was targeted is because they're considered a social media platform that is Ran by more conservative people And so it's another example of the double standard on social media and how we see That it's directed against conservatives and conservative owned companies Um, okay, so yeah, I mean parlor's an interesting one because I do share, you know rob's concern with the fact you've got this new platform that was set up Um, and yeah, it seems like they were targeted by these different companies The only thing I would say is it's disappointing that parlor had such a frivolous approach to their moderation Because basically there's more to this story Um, I think, you know, certainly there's some controversy and maybe I can see some merit in the idea that all of these companies seemingly attacked it once However, if you read the reporting on it, um amazon web services That was the killer bullet for parlor really because that meant they couldn't run the website They actually communicated with parlor and made them aware of certain posts Which were not just in breach of their to s but were in breach of their legal obligation to not host Illegal content which was incitement of violence parlor decided to not remove some of these posts Um, so amazon web services were in communication with parlor to try and sort this out They didn't manage to so whilst I do agree with some of what rob's saying Um, I think that you know, if you're someone like parlor, you would want to make sure you keep on your nose clean You're following the rules to the closest that you can it's disappointed to see that incompetence Which you know, certainly added to them getting removed from these platforms Okay, let's go ahead and ask another question. Uh, this one comes in from tizzy a question for chud logic Who is your favorite celebrity chef and why is it lord of patriarchy? Okay, it's not lord of patriarchy um But okay, I've got a good answer. I've got a good answer to this It is actually gordon ramsey gordon ramsey is someone that I look up to Um, you know, he is a filthy capitalist and he treats his staff terribly But there's something about him and the way that he engages in the way that he Um engages with people. I just you know love watching gordon ramsey. So that's definitely my favorite celebrity chef I'm involved but I'd love to hear what he's your he uses to be honest I'll say the same thing. I was just there's a new show that I just saw in hulu. It was called 24 hours of hell or something There is nothing cheers me up like watching gordon ramsey go through a disgusting kitchen and just yell at people I think it's one of the greatest pleasures in life You know, I don't know the wrong food. He's like, what's this is brilliant I'm gonna share an opinion. I don't know if I should do this as a moderator But I'm of the opinion that I don't think gordon ramsey's food is really that good Oh, okay. That's interesting hot take. Okay. Um, I like him more for his attitude than his food anyway. So yeah, yeah From mr. Blah 25 asks Do you all ever get tired of promoting your grievances? Perhaps if conservatives stopped buying into stupid conspiracies promoted by cons like trump you might be less angry Okay, so I assume that's directed to me It's funny to listen to people on the left decry conservative conspiracy theories where they spent four years saying that There was a pee tape about trump and trump was a russian plant And he did all this stuff to the point where we actually had the fbi investigating These obvious lies that were sourced by russian spy that were paid for by hillary clinton We had conspiracy theories about everything being racist We had conspiracy theories about coveted kids being bad We had conspiracy theories about brett cavanoff being a gang rapist all of these things And then as soon as conservatives want to speak up and say that they're questioning something They're told all this is just grievance the same group of people in general that say oh my god We're perpetual victims. There's systemic bigotry against me or my group want to decry when conservatives say things like mass censorship occurring Remember this right right now. Let me let me be clear The majority of my friends when I was in college were left wingers when I started college in 2002 I got my political start decrying the iraq war and how I saw neocons and the intelligence agencies That were disgustingly leading us into these wars to bomb all these other countries and have regime changes Now we see that the shoe is completely flipped now It turns out that the democrats in this country are the party that's like. Yay. Congratulations biden for bombing syria again Yes, we have to stop donald trump from pulling out of afghanistan You're decrying of people for quote talking about grievances and talking about conspiracy theories is literally allowing our military industrial complex to Bound brawn brown people all over the world. You ought to be ashamed of yourself For decrying people that are talking about censorship and the ability to speak up against these horrible people that run our country In both the left and the right they treat they treat average left wingers and right wingers like garbage They lie us into these wars They steal the wealth of left wing and right wing people in this country to give it to their powerful elites And you saying well, that's all crying and that's all grievance just shows what a shallow and unthinking person that you are Yes, we're a little bit more than halfway through the question answer question Section. So let's go ahead and switch into short and pithy mode guys We have another super chat in from 180. I'm telling thank you. I'm telling $5 says So just google search obama painting heads cut off and you will see what I've meant About the racist artist That could be true, but I think for the context of me It's irrelevant to chud me in this conversation And I think chud would agree with me if there's someone blatantly being racist we're both against it So I don't know what more I have to add to that I'm gonna skip this next question I'm not sure if uh, james would read it And I'm gonna ask this one from forward tribe. Do you think conservative lives matter? Whatever would would even be allowed on social media. I think that's for chud logic Um, yeah, I mean, I think if you want it, I don't think that would be a breach of to s Um, I think, you know But all means Um, oh, is it is if I tweet out all those matters that I know maybe maybe all lives you could do white lives matter You can't do on many platforms. I know that Okay, um, I mean, I I don't know either way on that one. I'll just accept what you're saying is true You can't tell about what I could let me let me redirect. I don't know which platforms that's true of I I could tell you that I've seen people banned for saying that But maybe it's allowed in certain context. So I can't be definitive and I can't point it out in the to s or anything like that but Yeah, I mean, you know, I think this the problem is um, and I don't mean anything bad towards a person asking this question No disrespect meant by this. I think the problem is there's such a few Furore around this stuff that people think that innocuous phrases Can't be typed onto social media even there's a joke. We have about it in the uk You can't even be british anymore without getting arrested. You know, it's this play on this idea that like, you know You can't do these fairly innocuous things without having some consequence put upon you So it is difficult to see what is true and what isn't what can be done what can't be done So I understand the position but that's what it's important to have clarity I think can understand, you know, the rules firstly and secondly are they being forced fairly etc. So, yeah, yeah Okay, uh, another super check in from hexproof anarchist. Thank you again hexproof $2 says Steven Crowder is another example of censorship I think that's Yeah, I would agree with that. I think Crowder did get censored now I let me throw an olive branch to ched logic here The if again, if you go back and I encourage everyone don't take my word for it Like we're talking about the leaders of social media See what they say go back and watch the joe rogan podcast where jack dorsi's on with the person from twitter Vija I think her name and tim pulls on the other side and listen to what happens when these examples are talked about Yes, oftentimes conservatives and I think Crowder could be an example that Arguably did break terms of service. The problem is the selective application of those terms And we can see left-wing people that have made racially insensitive jokes or calls Arguable calls for violence, etc. They aren't punished in the way that Steven Crowder was So it's the unequal application of the terms of service. That's the problem Okay, um, I will actually throw an olive branch of my own There's one particular occasion where I feel that actions taken against Steven Crowder was unfair Um, I think youtube instead of implemented haphazardly this rule about calling into question the election Steven Crowder was caught by that and was penalized for that. I thought that one particular instance I actually disagreed with however, I think more broadly if you look at someone like Steven Crowder You've got a history of flagrantly disregarding and abusing the rules, you know It's like if someone goes into a club and they consistently break the rules and they piss in the fucking mech turn And they go and call the dj wanker, etc You would expect them to get kicked out now. The funny thing with Steven Crowder is, you know Not only is he not being fucking kicked off of youtube He's still monetized on youtube to this day to my understanding. It was demonetized for a while Sure, but they've remuneratized him. Um, and from what I understand, you know He's I mean, he's still on youtube still making content with a massive audience So the idea that he's been censored, um in any large significant degree I just find ludicrous and I reject that haphazardly and is an example of someone who has flagrantly broken the rules And remains on the platform. So I don't think it's a good example of that that point, honestly Okay, um, just to let everybody know, uh, we're we have less than 10 minutes left of Q&A So super chats, of course, we'll still go to the top of the list We don't have any more of those left. So if you have one of those go ahead and send them in But I don't know if we have enough time to read any more, uh, unpaid questions So, uh, I wouldn't bother sending those in at this time. Uh, next question comes in from big thang bruce wane Uh, as a black man, I'm not going to Not root as a black man I'm going To not root for the side that wants to call american slavery the great african migration As taught in mississippi and other southern states for 100 years. I think that's for you rob Uh, are you going to root for the side that said due to their policies that i'll have these n words voting democrat for the next 100 years Is that the side that you're choosing instead? The truth is that there are bad people on both sides of the matter There's also a bigotry of low expectations that you see oftentimes that comes from the left that says Oh black people need to be treated differently. They can't scholastically achieve as much as this They need to get a leg up that sort of oppression. I find a sense of They're the the democratic party in this country treats black people like they're monoliths Like they must all think the same way. I had people talking about this last night in my channel, for example That's not true. I can't speak to what every republican does. I have significant problems with the republican party I'm my own person. I could say this. I fully believe in the tenet of treating everyone as individuals and the content of their character I think that treating people as their skin color first is absurd And what I would say the direction that I would like to see both political parties Is saying we're going to have the dignity to treat people that are people of color and minorities as individuals instead of monolithic groups And we're going to understand that those individuals have dynamic and individual thoughts on their own So, yeah, I mean, I'm sure you could point out examples. I don't know the specific example you're talking about in mississippi though Gotcha Sure. I mean if if we're going by quotes You start out in 1954 by saying m word m word m word by 1968 You can't say m word that hurts you that backfires. So you say stuff like forced passing states rights, etc I'm sure everyone knows the quote, um, you know, so I think getting into a quote off is silly I think you know one thing I've noticed with you you rob if you know Is that you do tend to focus on this dichotomy between the republicans and democrats my response to that is, you know, um Look look outside of the party politics If if you know, maybe you feel you're not represented by the democrats are not doing what you need Necessarily to be a republican you can maybe look at options completely outside of the sort of political paradigm that america exists under Um, so yeah, I don't know I don't look one of the things I do quite frequently as I talk about at the establishment level the republican and democratic party are Basically the same party like they're more interested in obtaining power. They lie look Where I live in rural pennsylvania, they constantly say vote republican will help your lives They don't where inner city people live live. They're constantly told vote democrat will help your lives They don't right like it's a sham at the top level So I agree with you there chedd logic in this particular case the reason that i'm reading quotes and talking about republicans versus democrat That was the question Let's let him have a final word on that because we do have to move on We do have a few more questions. Uh, and we only have about six more minutes left. Um The next question is uh from forward tribe. Uh, he asked chudd anyone who wanted to clarify the elections results Were censored on social media and elections were fair and transparent Were promoted. I should be a quote quoting these, uh, okay, let me just restart this chudd anyone who wanted to clarify The elections results were censored on social media and elections were fair and transparent were promoted That makes it more no um I was just trying to understand the format of the question. I'm doing my best to understand this here Okay, so I think I think I'm sorry sense. So you basically said that anyone that that like tried to clarify or in any way questioned It was censored. Um I'm not sure if that's strictly true. My understanding of the terms of service. Um, is that just questioning or having Uh, you know, very questioning of it. What wasn't the issue? It was the specific claims That were made about the election and look, you know, I have some disagreements with the way some of these policies were implemented I said earlier. I didn't agree with the youtube's way of doing it Um, I think that there was unprecedented circumstances and there were people that were very worried about You know having this sort of rhetoric unfettered on social media, but Yeah, I mean, I think social media companies made a mistake I don't like the idea of cracking down on people who are Fairly questioning the results of elections or being inquisitive if there's specific cases that someone could bring to me I could look at it and say, yeah, I think that's, you know, unfair or they shouldn't have done that. Yeah, I don't know Okay, let's go ahead and move on. Um, this next question comes in from, uh, Mr. Blah 25 He asks why this is a borderline here very borderline. I don't know I'm gonna do it. If it's insulting me Yeah, I'll take insults. I don't give a shit. It's not it's not specific to a It's borderline Why do conservatives like rob believe that grievances and conspiracies are the only valid way of engaging the world? No, that's not the only way. That's not I don't mind. I'm not offended by the question whatsoever. It's just It's nonsense. That's not the only valid way of engaging in the world Again, we're talking about a political party in the democrats that seeks to make identity politics and divisive issues Right and talking about we need specific, you know to focus on these specific immutable characteristics like sexual preference Gender race and things like that. That's constantly grievous industries We we see this and I have people that endorse those sort of parties telling me why are conservatives in grace and grievance culture Do you think it's grievance culture if people in a blood in a community such as I believe furgus in Missouri There was actually a study that showed that there was a possibility That police officers there were overpolicing and were prosecuting black people for crimes that were committed by white people at the same level But they were prosecuting black people more is that grievance for them to want to an investigation of that Is that a grievance? So it's just interesting to see how bias and partisan some people are where they say Oh, no, no, no when it's issues against conservatives, they just have to shut up and take it and they can't complain about it I mean, we've literally proven in this debate that conservatives are censored more It's just a question of do they deserve it or not and by merely having that discussion I'm told oh you're embracing grievances if this was occurring on the left They would be screaming all this is unfair corporations and these massive platforms are going against the left They're going against democrats and it's stealing elections They would be marching they would do all this stuff, but conservatives just saying hey This isn't right. We need to do something about this censorship and we're told that we're engaged in grievances. It's absolutely pathetic Okay, let's move on. Um I have Mr. Blah again Mr. Blah 25 asks it wasn't the democrats Who said it was the most secure it was the trump administration that's It was people within the trump administration. I agree look again Like if you understood my worldview, this wouldn't matter because I will say the people that trump We have two minutes the the worst thing that trump did was surround himself with people that were part of the establishment that wanted to see him fail Okay, uh, here's a question from uh, fox papuli Uh question for both. Do you think social media platforms should be the arbiters of quote unquote truth with regards to fake news Do they have an obligation to be neutral should all speech be allowed? Uh, short and piffy, please both Go ahead chat a few more Yeah, sure. Um, I think yeah to be honest you do set a dangerous precedent Um, like, you know, sometimes this is about maybe laid out how things are I don't necessarily think that's how it should be and I think you do start to set a dangerous precedent when you give these platforms The power to decide what is and isn't Fake news and I think I don't have a problem with with some degree of moderation in that respect But it's got to be backed up with impartial unbiased sourcing and I think that's quite difficult to achieve Should free speech be absolute? I mean probably not. I think there's some things we ought to Consider, you know censoring and for the sake of everyone. Um, but yeah, it's a very fine line These new forms of communication. It's a complicated nuanced issue And I think the more we can have open discussions about it and policy based solutions that the better honestly I'll answer this real quick Anyone who has a problem with corporate influence in our election and our speech should be concerned that these companies that control About 90 of our speech or would be the arbiters of what's evolved to be spoken This is a nightmare a fascist nightmare of corporate takeover Okay, and that is our time I do want to respect our speaker's time and I don't know if brace has a hard time out So let's just go ahead and wrap this up. Uh, I want to thank both of you for a respectful and productive discussion I want to thank our moderators in the chat for keeping everything I want to thank everybody in the chat for attacking the ideas and not the people I want to thank james for putting on this glorious A platform that we can all share ideas with I want to thank everybody again for tuning in and promoting this Platform if you enjoyed what you saw today, please like this video Please check out our speakers in the description whether you're watching on youtube or on podcast. They are linked in the description below and with that Yeah, that's it Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Thank you so much. Have a great night Thanks