 not Andrew Tate's band was a good thing and we are starting right now with playing with fire aka Alex's opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us, Alex. The floor is all yours. Yeah, man. Glad to be here. So, um, I didn't actually prepare anything. So I'm just going to go off top of my head. Um, overall, I think that banning Andrew Tate was a bad idea and I think it sets a very dangerous precedent. So I'm not some Andrew Tate fanboy. I actually disagree with a good amount of things that he says. I think he's wrong about some things. But that's the beauty of free speech. It's that, you know, you want to have, uh, you know, discourse from people that you disagree with, right? And so by taking them off the platform, we're kind of limiting that discourse. Now look, Andrew Tate is not going to go hungry. He's not going to go broke. Uh, it's not so much. This is out of some concern for him. This is concerned for the president of the cess or basically someone who goes against the mainstream narrative, which is what he was doing gets taken down. There's also massive double standard. Uh, you see people on the left or like the feminist would say way worse things than he does. Like literally there's YouTubers saying things like, Oh yeah, men are pigs and I fuck this guy over. I stole this much money from him and blah, blah, blah. You see way worse on the other side. None of that gets taken down. All the death threats that Andrew Tate was getting YouTube and Instagram refused to do anything about it, right? Because it's justified, I guess. But again, so I think also a lot of the narratives that exist against Andrew Tate either are not proven to be true or just plainly false. So I think there's a lot of misinformation going on. And honestly, I think this is just a woke mob getting bought hurt like they always do. And just coming after someone that they don't agree with, right? Which again, it's very scary for anyone who's a YouTube content creator because this could happen to literally any one of us. If we go say something that, you know, the woke mob doesn't like, they could take us down. I personally had my Facebook disabled in 2017 overtold misunderstanding. Vice wrote a hit piece about me. That was literally factually a joke, but that was enough for Facebook to take me down. And if I got taken off YouTube, that would be the end of my career and be devastating and in order my ability to communicate. So I think this is a very dangerous precedent. Even if you don't like Andrew Tate, even if you think he's a piece of shit, the right recourse is to either, you know, make reaction videos about him point out why he's a douche, or just ignore him. But deep platforming people should only be as a last resort if they're directly inciting violence or doxing people. But aside from those two extremes, this is a bad move on YouTube's part Facebook, Instagram and TikTok's part. I'm kind of with a different point of view. When you mentioned Andrew Tate inciting violence, he did. But the thing about it is, is I like my enemies on a platform where I can learn and study them and warn other women about them. There's a difference between English Ivy and poison. And you cannot describe them, you have to show the difference. And I cannot show women, especially traditional women, the difference between a piece of shit, like Andrew Tate and his followers, versus other men who are pretending to care about women, but they just trying to lay her in bed. I was very upset when they de-platformed a lot of the white nationalists, the white supremacists. I know that sounds crazy as a black woman, but I like to hear my enemies argument. I like to see their playbook. And when it comes to Redfield community, they're very natural. I also don't like hypocrisy. Because if you're not going to ban rap music and drill music, and drill music is a Chicago based music where black gang members brag about killing other black gang members and what gang member they're going to kill next. That's still live on YouTube and show their guns. They actually talk about how they killed and who they killed. So you can't sort of care and I know YouTube is hypocritical. But just like those black men in those videos, I don't, I would never deal with them. And I would probably want any of my family members that live in a hood like that to want them against them. I would also want women against these type of men in the Redfield community. And I cannot do that if you're going to do the platform, the most effective one you have had so far. You got it. Thank you very much for those opening statements. Want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. We hope you feel welcome. No matter what walk of life you are from, no matter how far politically left or politically right, you name it, we're glad you're here. Hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates and panels coming up. With that, we're going to kick it over to the yes side, namely, woke or MH as it says on screen, which I'm about to correct, and Brittany are taking the view that it's actually a net good that Tate was banned. Let's hand it over to Woke and Brittany. The floor is all yours for your openings as well. Go ahead. Brittany, you can go ahead. Oh, please first. Thank you. Well, what a wonderful platform this is that we're able to platform everyone's speech. And with that said, I'm happy to be here today. I got lucky. It was very last minute for me, but I got lucky that Hickson. Let me do this because, you know, we have shit to do according to him. But I'm somebody who is pro free speech. I am pro platforming people. But with that said, I don't think that Andrew Tate's ban falls under censorship, nor do I think that he is protected by free speech, because Tate has utilized his platforms, such as YouTube to promote the Romanian mafia and has admitted to doing business with them. And these videos are still up as well. And free speech does not cover certain things. And one of those things is criminal behavior. So I agree with the this is one of the only times I agree with the platforming. I think if it were just his opinions and saying things I don't like, I would support his right to be there. But I think it's very dangerous to allow someone on the platform that is doing business with the Romanian mafia that has been known to be responsible for extreme violence as well as child trafficking and quote as young as they can get them. Right. Yeah, I'm just gonna agree with the first thing you said that his speech isn't being violated at all. Because, you know, these platforms aren't the only place you can go and speak. You could go to public universities and host whatever he wanted to go anywhere else and talk. It's not entitled to their services, right? And they have a TOS after all, and they always will have a TOS. It's not hard to not violate them. Plus, it was interesting, the Romanian mafia, but also he kind of runs a fucking multi-level marketing scheme, right? Yeah, and that would fall under fraud under depending who you ask. But, you know, it's fraudulent. That's also not protected under free speech, just like House Lander or defamation. Even if it even if it doesn't affect that he targets young guys, even those young boys I heard in some cases, basically scams them out of their money. You know, my opinion teaches them stupid things that like are totally useless. And he kind of sells them ideas like of, you know, achieving a physique, achieving a wealth that is not achievable for most people at all. So, you know, giving false hopes overall. Well, actually, I would go as far as to say that he doesn't teach them anything within his MLM program. The main focus of his program, despite what he says on the poorly punctuated miscapitalized page he has for it, he claims that he'll teach them how to trade crypto, how to do all these things. But in reality, the program mainly consists of people selling affiliations to one another. And it becomes multi-level when the whole incentive is to get somebody else and you're selling that affiliation code. And that's how you're actually making the money, not through the skills he's claiming to teach these young men that he's scamming. And with his caming site, he's also openly admitted that he utilizes teen girls, you know, that he's flying into Romania to do this cam work and online prostitution, online brothel, if you will, and lying to these young men in order to manipulate them into giving them money by telling sob stories. He said this himself. And so that goes into sex trafficking too, under the technical definition. And I don't think it's healthy for young men, but also he's, he has criminal behavior and he's utilizing places like YouTube to platform that behavior and suck people into that program. And I don't think that it's covered by freedom of speech. Because in that case, we would have criminals everywhere trafficking and trying to coerce children into becoming prostitutes and things like that. And I feel like we as a society agree that that's not good. And that's why we outlaw it is the floor open was a woke any last thoughts before we go into well, yeah, we're gonna make it bit spicier because I do think he did say things that I personally don't think should be considered protected speech at all. Most of his stuff that he says, I don't know the stuff women can drive in a lot who cares like say whatever you want. But the things about, you know, choke them, rape them, you know, these like kind of very violent things are like, no, like, at some point, you know, things you say, you know, they do have some kind of moral weight to them. I don't care if it's offensive or whatever, but when it gets to the point where it's like kind of like raise a threat level fear level is just too much. And legal consequences, no, but people have to listen to you. No, you got it. With that, we're going to jump into open conversation folks. As mentioned, we have many more juicy debates coming up. You don't want to miss them. For example, at the bottom right of your screen, this is going to be a big one. Apostate Prophet returns this Friday taking on Muslim Apologist on whether or not Islam is harmful to the world. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button for more juicy debates like that one. With that, thank you very much. Woke, Brittany tree and playing with fire. The floor is all yours for that open dialogue. I want I'm sorry. It's just real quick. When you guys mentioned the MLM. Have you ever seen anybody from his community complain or say that they were scam? I saw that, you know, he went viral on TikTok due to his MLM clients, if you will, posting his TikToks. And so there's proof of that. Obviously, there's people in the program. That's really improved of that. But nobody said I got scammed. Nobody came and made a video or said I got scammed by Angie tape. He took my money and and I got robbed. There's no guy who has said that, correct? Coffee Zilla made a video on it and joined his program and proceeded to break down all of the things wrong with the program and why it's an MLM or AKA pyramid scheme. So I agree with the pyramid scheme, but a fool and Turkey Tom as well. Yeah, but a fool in his money was surely part if people want to give just like when people want to give their money to only fans, you know, saying or to the tips to these streamers on Twitch, nobody's making a big fuss about fuss about that. And men don't complain about giving money to those platforms. So I don't see any man getting getting upset or even saying that they got ripped off from tapes MLM scheme. I totally agree with you, Brittany. It's it's a it's a trash scheme, but it has willing participants. Go ahead. Well, here's the let me jump in because there's there's so much with respect. There's so much false information nonsense that has been said. Can I just address what she said really quick? Because I don't want to go on to an explain that I can't address this. So the difference is between what you gave us an example tree is that this is an MLM. This is different than like affiliate marketing or like giving to only fans, although I don't support only fans, but that's a different debate. But she I mean, but he basically is selling something that isn't a product. It's just multi level marketing. So that doesn't qualify as just somebody buying something that becomes a pyramid scheme. It becomes fraudulent. He's encouraging people to sign under a paid affiliate code to recruit more people. And that's the basis of it wouldn't be if it were free affiliate codes, but it's not. Okay, let me let me jump in on this very simple question. Is MLM illegal? Is it illegal to have an MLM? Um, it can be considered fraudulent, but I'm not a lawyer. MLM is not illegal. There's many businesses that we buy from their MLMs. There's nothing illegal about having an MLM. Furthermore, I think you're confused about difference between an MLM and affiliate marketing. Only fans does exactly the same shit as entertain us. So basically, you as a content creator, you have an affiliate code, people buy through your affiliate code, and then they get credit. This is not this is not technically a pyramid scheme. This is affiliate marketing, which is literally the most standard practice ever. Furthermore, even if it wasn't MLM, that wouldn't be illegal. It's I do know about affiliate marketing, because if it were affiliate marketing, it would be the signup codes would be free, but these people have to actually pay for the program 49 99 month to get into the program in order to get those. So I would argue that it is an MLM, especially because you're recruiting people to sell it and also it's legal if they sell a product. He's not really selling a product. He's selling the MLM. He's selling like, Hey, get more people to join and you get what they you get from what they sign up on. Yeah, the first month. You're misunderstanding. And MLM would be okay. This will be an MLM if he has he has his product, right? And he's recruiting people and then those people recruit other people and then they get a piece of what the person below them. Yeah, that's what he does. That's not how works. You don't get it. Yes, it is. No, it's not. You don't get a piece. That's what he does. That's on his site. What do you mean? This is what the people do they sell to the next person to join. They make money off of it 50%. They do make money off. They recruit with that affiliate, right? You Okay, let me explain this again, you join hustlers University, you get an affiliate code. Yeah, first of all, the affiliate program was closed and it's only like a small percentage you get an affiliate coach, you recruit someone and then they go, you know, they you get part of that. But if that person under you, recruit someone else, you don't get a piece of that that person you under his you do. Now you don't you only get a piece. Yes, you do. I mean, I can like pull up receipts at some point maybe after debate. But what happens, I love to see those receipts because Spencer Cornelia did a very detailed breakdown with someone who I trust and respect, who doesn't actually like to entertain and he literally said, yeah, this does not technically fall under an MLM. This is literally affiliate marketing. It's really a pyramid scheme. There's the top right and then there's the bottom people and the more you're recruiting people by selling product of pay. Here's the code I paid to get this code. The more you climb up that's literally like a no, it doesn't it doesn't the pyramid the way the pyramid scheme works as a person who's like on the second tier gets a piece of the the person on the fourth here doesn't work that way. There's only two which is what they what he does. There's not there's two tiers. There's him and then there's the people that you know the joint and then they can recruit someone. But there's not like multiple tiers where people just get piece of the pie each way of the way up. Yes, there is. And he it was 50% in particular those specific numbers. That's actually very standard in the internet marketing. But I would love to see the proof that it's actually okay, I would love to see notes now. I have also affiliate program that I use that doesn't make me affiliate marketing is an appearance scheme. This is separate from that. I'm saying this is not affiliate marketing. This is a pyramid. I'll explain this again. Pyramid implies that there's levels levels. There's no levels levels. Okay, show me show me the proof. I want to get a chance to respond. I'll give you a chance to respond Brittany. But I also want to say since woke is back, I want to give won't walk a chance to chime in here. What I think we lost it may be a connection issue, but glad that's under storm. No problem. Woke, if you have any thoughts that you if you were, I'm not sure if you were able to hear while you were out. Otherwise, we'll take it over to Brittany for her response and then we'll give you a chance woke to press against some of the things that were said. I also do want to do want to comment on something woke said when sponsoring. You got no, Brittany can go ahead. I cut out completely. Hold on, I do have a question. So getting back because I don't really want to I don't want to argue about the minutiae about whether it's an MLM or not. I kind of don't care. I don't see a victim. So if there isn't a victim, I don't see a problem with it. And in reference to the product, when you when these men go to switch or only well, no, Brittany doesn't if you're able to use your mic or I should say pull your mic a little bit. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Thank you. So if you if you go to switch, you have these women that give a online girlfriend experience, they talk to you if you donate, they eat with you and you if they're eating you eat with them, the men eat with them and and they give this online experience as if it a girlfriend, especially if you donate, they're not getting anything in return. So I don't and I don't consider them victim. So I wanted to know what was the difference between the two if there aren't any victims, but I still close to a fool and his money will surely part if they want to give up their money for this this program for tape, I see that at the same level as them giving money to Twitch streamers. Yeah, I want to echo what she said, there's absolutely no victim. There hasn't been any people that came out. The worst thing you have is people saying I joined and I didn't really find that value much value in the service, because it was like basic information I already knew that happens with online courses all the time. It is not illegal to have a course that some people don't like, right? That's the first thing. But regardless of that, even though it's not it's not permanent scheme, even if it was an MLM, that still wouldn't make it illegal. There's been zero criminal charges that have been pressed against them for the way he runs his business. And it's actually very standard. Now going back to what I think sorry, woke when you said you said something pretty radical. He said that he says rape them. So if you can show me evidence right now that he says that he directly said rape the girls in unless it's an extreme sarcastic joking matter, then I will right now change my position and go on your side. I can't pull up any links. But I mean, because it doesn't exist. That's that's the reason there isn't like, like plenty of content of his all over the place where he you know, he has never said rape the girls. That would be that would be inciting violence. And then I would totally be on your team and saying he's directly inciting violence and crime. But what's what's the platform that has what's that? What was that? Um, God, what was he talking about? Oh, she's crying. Then you smack her choker on the floor and then rape her. The machete thing. Yeah. Yeah. She accused him of cheating and he's like, you just choke her slapper, walk her and choke her some more. Yeah. That's yeah. That's foul, actually. Girls are into girls are into being choked. I don't know if you guys realize this. I'm sorry. I'm if you are some other fucking would have got them two, two, three your fucking head. You try to choke you. I don't I this whole thing. This is what's so dangerous about these red killers is that they see these women who have daddy issues and that have been room to be choked and throw against the wall and beat the fuck up and they think that's what all women want. That is not all I really would. I'm just I'm just gonna soon. She does not like a man choking her just like I would not want to show. Yeah, there's some there's some people who are into BDSM. Some people who are not BDSM. I don't know if you guys are familiar with decent community, but it is I'm a retired professional Domina. So I know a lot of a lot of our BDSM. Okay, awesome. The video of him and that girl. I'm actually on his side. I can tell that that was a dns relationship. But what he doesn't what take does not do is he does not distinguish the difference between Hey, these are the girls who like it. And if you want to know if this is the kind of girls who like it, you have to ask, don't just go up to a girl and just say, come here, bitch, and then start choking her. That's that's how you catch the case. You have to use the words and he doesn't do that. He doesn't teach these boys the difference between consensual and non consensual. Yeah, so sure. So so yeah. So he could communicate things better. Again, I'm not some andriotate fan boy. I publicly disagreed with multiple things. He said, sure, that could have been worded better. But going back to what woke was saying earlier, there's he has never said rape these girls. That has never happened. And if you can show me if you can show me evidence of that, I'll switch sides right now. But you're not able to that scenario he's describing that is rape he at least. No, there's a big difference between a scenario that you think is rapey and him saying rape the girls. He is absolutely not describing scenario was like, oh, yeah, she absolutely wants this. It's more like, oh, she's disobeying, must treat her like this. Like threatened her with the machete and all this stuff. Like, your exact words or he's saying rape them. Now you're now you're changing your argument. No, because as an actual being behind it, right? You can define it with more words than just the word itself. Right. OK, so then so then you probably want to revise your statement to saying instead of him saying rape them. There was a scenario in one of his videos that I found to be described the situation that it would be considered rape. Yes. OK, OK, so it's OK. So you can't change it. OK, what is the situation specifically verbatim that he described that you think is rapey? The one that treat literally is talked about. That's I don't know how you cannot like. Well, she she talked about two things. There's one that was that like video of him with a girl. She said that this looks like a BDSM type of situation. I have no. Machete, the machete one. OK, what exactly happened with the machete? Like, explain to me verbatim. I can't that's her face off the top of my head. But he says, you know, you grab the machete. If she's I don't remember if she wants to leave or refuse something or something. You got the machete. You threaten her. You slap in the face. You choke her or you throw the ground and then fuck, you know, all that kind of stuff. Like, I don't I don't see how you could possibly think that's all just to not rape. And how do you know that he's not just being he's not kidding? Like is because typically when people are making jokes, there's a context to it. We can tell when somebody is trying to be funny, right? Because we have brains that are capable of recognizing that a dude is not trying to be funny is just being genuine. Well, that's that's how you that's how you interpret it. The way I was as humor. So this is kind of open to. Yeah, that was your humor, right? It's it's it's offensive humor. He's an offensive guy. It's offensive humor, right? But there's a big difference between him saying, hey, guys, listen, it's important that we rape girls. That is completely unacceptable. And him making a joke that's probably in poor taste about, you know, oh, this is what I would do for girls leaving, right? So we took that differently. Now, I think that if Interate was this rapist that there would be at least one girl would accuse them of rape by that. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I didn't say he was himself a rapist. I'll give you a chance to respond. I'm H and then I actually woke and then I want to go over to Brittany. I think she had something to say. Go ahead. Well, who goes first? OK. Oh, no, I don't have anything else to say other than I didn't say he himself was a rapist. I don't see like like based on that. And, you know, as a character judgment, which, you know, that's something that's also permissible in courts, you know, he doesn't seem to be the kind of guy that's actually joking about these things. All I hear is buddy buddies of his people who also sell their Bitcoin and crypto bullshit and whatever. Are like, Oh, well, he's such a nice nice guy in private and all this stuff. Yeah. And then what's that move to Romania? So, you know, because they have lax or rape laws or whatever. He also had dogs. And they should be such a blatant distortion of the facts. OK, what actually happens was when he was living in England, he had a girl that he was doing some kind of only something like a camp content. And she wanted like a large bribe of money. He refused to give it to her. She went to the police. The case was completely dropped because it was asinine when it was investigated. And then he said, and again, this probably he could have word this better. I'm going to move to Romania because I feel like stupid shit like this is not going to happen there because their laws are more fair. That's that's the reason that he moved not to not to so he can get away more fair girls. Yeah. So again, this is like this is the problem when you get your news from secondhand sources, when you're watching people's reaction videos to something else, instead of watching firsthand account of actually what he's saying. And believe me, I watched a shitload of his content. I know I entertain someone well, like I have a personal relationship with him. Again, don't agree with a lot of things he says, but you said you weren't a fanboy. Now you're saying you're friends with him. I'm I'm friendly with him. What? Why do you have to be a fanboy? Do you have any friends that you're not a fanboy? The implication, it's the omission. You're just going to throw that in there. What? What? It's biased. You're like, you're saying it to be like, oh, I'm not biased. I'm not an intertaped fanboy. But then you're like, yeah, I'm friends with him, though. I have a professional relationship of him, where he has always been cool and respectful towards me. And we have mutual friends who have nothing bad to say about him. I don't understand how like me having a personal relationship with someone makes me a fanboy. I know it makes you biased. I don't I don't think it makes me biased. I think it gives me a better perspective because I actually know him personally. Yes, it does. He's your friend. I also have a lot of people who have professional relationships with, like, for example, Myron from Fresh and Fit, who I've publicly called out countless, countless times. If I think the evidence is there, I will happily call someone else. Oh, also, I found the an article about the thing you guys were talking about earlier. So it says it's bang out the machete. That's the quote. It's bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her by the neck. Shut up, bitch. He says in one video, acting out how he'd attack a woman if she accused him of cheating. Oh, sorry. If she accused him of cheating in another, he describes throwing a woman's things out the window in a third. He calls ex-girlfriend accused him of hitting her an allegation. He denies a dumb hoe. I can make the article to. Let's go through them. Who's the article? Is it like Daily Beast or something like that? It's from the Guardian. OK, OK, let's go through these one by one. So the last one was throw her shit out the window. If she what if she if she cheats on him or something like that? It says how he'd attack a woman if she accused him of cheating. He would grip her by the neck and bang out the machete, boomed her face. Shut up, bitch. That's OK. And then what? How do you know that this is not a clearly inappropriate joke? You could say anything. So so here's my answer to that. Would I contextually would I think someone who has associations with the Romanian mafia is saying that in a joking way. The Romanian mafia, the same mafia that's running a sex trafficking ring and is one of the top five countries for human trafficking, including children. Context is a little important there. And the Guardian is a reputable news source, arguably. So I think pretty much most of the coverage that's been about people like Andrew Tate is usually biased. But OK, let's talk about the Romanian mafia thing because that was on my list of things to do. So can you show me your evidence? The fact that he promotes the Romanian mafia or that he works for them? Yes. And also one other thing to address the thing earlier that you were saying about like, no, it's not an MLM. I found this screenshot from Ganks Esports TV. I went ahead. Let's pull it up. Yeah, I went ahead and gave it to modern day debate. If they want to pull it up, it's the Imjerling. Yeah, let's pull it up and look at it together. OK, can you see that? There you go. It says right there and they make 50 percent of the people. OK, OK, OK, OK, OK, let's look at MLM. OK, hang on. As an affiliate, you make 50 percent of anybody else you're for the program. So it takes. Yeah, so this is this actually proves my point. As an affiliate, you make 50 percent of everybody else you're for the program. However, what you do not do is that make another 50 percent of the people at the bottom. There's not multiple levels. There's two levels. So yes, there is. The first one is the one where. Well, there's Tate right at the top. Then there's one where they're paying for. You have to pay to get an affiliate like first off. If you even paid to get the affiliate, like you're having to pay for an affiliate code, that's automatically like MLM, right? You already have the two levels. That's really MLM. And then they refer to someone else like, hey, if you do this, you'll make money. And then the actual thing making money is by referring people. And that's the actual quote unquote product. Is they not right? But if that person at the bottom refers to another person, that person who's on the second tier doesn't get a piece of that. The way pyramid schemes work is that it's just an like, like permanent level of everyone just getting a piece of everything that's below them. So you might get like 10 commissions from the people below you. Right. It's just a never ending cycle like that. If there's if there's a fixed thing where like, hey, I entered entertains at the top, right? And then he basically someone joins his program and then they can refer using an affiliate code and then they get 50 percent. But the levels don't go further. That's not a pyramid scheme. That's just affiliate marketing. That is how affiliate marketing programs work. That is exactly how my business operates. So for example, someone joins my program, right? And they can they can what's it called refer someone else, right? And then that person will get, you know, like some percentage. I think it's 10 percent of the person at the bottom, but it's not a never ending cycle. It's just you can refer someone using an affiliate point. This is very standard affiliate marketing. Now, the one thing that he's doing differently, which I guess is you can say is a questionable business tactic, but it doesn't make it a pyramid scheme is the fact that you have to pay to get an affiliate. Like that is not really standard, but that does not make it a pyramid scheme. Furthermore, the affiliate program was actually closed weeks ago. So that issue has been resolved. It meets the definition of pyramid scheme and it meets the exact definition of what you had initially said. I feel like this is the wrong thing to say it's not in a pyramid. Everyone else acknowledges a pyramid scheme is basically what was already discussed, which is like, I mean, if we look at the Google definition again, the pyramid scheme is where there's just indefinite levels. It's just like one after the bottom, one after the bottom, one after the bottom. So it's just like unlimited levels. If there's just like these like two levels or something like that, that doesn't make it a pyramid scheme. That's that's a difference. That just makes it affiliate marketing program. No, it's a pyramid scheme. And I kept here's the Google definition. I'll share my screen so you guys can see it. A form of investment illegal in the US and elsewhere in which each paying participant recruits to further participants, which returns a given to early participants using money, which qualifies because the people who are sending the paid affiliate link, which again, that premise alone already a pyramid scheme, they're sending that affiliate code to someone else for them to pay for that. So they're making 50% of what they make. So that is a pyramid scheme. And that's typing type in pyramid scheme versus affiliate marketing or MLM versus affiliate marketing. And you can see that can I just explain, I just explained to you what affiliate marketing is. And I don't really want to die on this hill. Yeah. Can we so we can go on? We can go on. But so to answer the second thing you guys were talking about earlier, I think it was Tree who brought it up. So that aside of it being a pyramid scheme and most people's definition, he also is having ties with the mafia, which I do have the receipts for and I will pull it up. OK, let's let's take a look at those. And I would argue that if he is receiving money from this, he's using his platforms to receive money from this and he's doing business, the mafia, he's essentially funding, helping fund the mafia there. He's helping them traffic kids and traffic women. They're a violent organization. And he himself says, oh, yeah, Romania is a very it's very organized crime. And he admitted to doing business with them. Can I see the receipts for this? Yeah. I'm just pulling up something to deal with. OK, so we're going to start off with the first one. There's there's let me count one, three. You have seen a video where he talks about his experience when he came to Romania and he came to the mafia and said, hey, I want to get in. They said, what do we need you for? And then he said, good point. And he left and he got the casinos. And there was something else that he involved in. And he came back and said, hey, if you want to do this, you want to do this, this is what you need me for. And they decided to hire him. So he did, I'm just saying, this is true. He did say that he did have ties to the to the Romanian mafia and did work to get a cut in reference to. Well, I want to see his receipts of him promoting the mafia. Yeah, that's that's what was said in the intro statement. I want to see your seat of him promoting the mafia. Yeah, I have it. I have it up on the sharing the screen. Also share the audio can if you click share and then before selecting which window you want to share, there should be on the bottom right a little box where you can select share audio to or it says something to that effect. OK, I'm going to do that right now. Share audio, share sound. Cool. All right, can you guys see it? Yes, I've just got to minimize it. Give me one set because it's pretty zoomed in from the OK. It's a short. Let me. Yes, sorry. No problem. That works. All set one of his ML and people post it. Ready for you. He has a lot of them. All right, cool. In a poor country, I live in Romania, which is technically poor. So in the poorest countries in Europe, the average wage is like 400 bucks a month, but it's safe in general. Unless you piss off a big guy, the crime is very organized. There's no random crime. Organized crime keeps society functioning. Unorganized crime like London is wrong place, wrong time. Get stabbed, take a watch. I know that a lot of the gangsters in certain towns in Romania keep the drugs out. Towns are drugs free. People try to sell drugs. They're the ones who die. So there's no drugs on the streets or children go to school. So you have drug free cities. American police can't get a city drug free with a mafia will drug free. Because they catch anyone fucking selling that shit. They're fucking disappearing. I live in a poor country. So he's this is this is again, such a miscalculation. That's not him promoting the remaining mafia. That's it. Make him make him. He's saying, look at all the positive things they're doing. And also, let me play the second clip, too, because it before you do that. And can I just comment on this? This is him saying, hey, this is what I've observed living in a country that has strong organized crime and that's their less drug and more safety. And he does have a point. You can go to a city like, I don't know, like somewhere like in the South America that has a lot of disorganized, decentralized crime and it's a lot more risky because they're way more likely to attack a random person over 20 bucks versus when you have, you know, a country that's like heavily dominated by organized crime. They don't fuck with people who don't fuck with them. So from the point of an average person who's living that country, it is probably safer to be in that country. Like I agree with that point, but it doesn't mean he's promoting it. So so I think he basically is saying, look at all these positive things they're doing. And there is a second clip that I'm going to play to kind of give a little more context to that, too. It's not just that one. It's not just in a vacuum. So hold on. I don't know if it shared the audio that time. Share screen, share sound. All right, cool. All right, we good to play it? Yes. OK. So this is him saying that he has done business with the Romanian mafia, which, again, this organized crime that is the same one where they traffic children, they traffic girls, and they're one of the top five countries to do so. I heard them say something like they turn over like 18 million a day or something, something ridiculous money, ridiculous money. These three brothers, right? And I went to them and I said, because they're sponsoring the show. So look, guys, I want to open some casinos. I want to get involved in this money maker. And they kind of looked at me, you know, typical Eastern European mafia. Imagine, you know, fat, bald, cigar, exactly like you'd imagine them to be. And they're like, why do we need you? Like, if I want to open a location, I send a picture in a WhatsApp group of a building and two weeks later, there's a location. What do I need you for? I was like, OK, valid point. Well, I'm going to find a reason for you to need me, right? OK. I overheard them say something like that. OK, so again, another thing. So if you live in a third world country or second world country, you do if certain types of industries like casinos, you do need to have permission from the mafia. If you don't get that, they will kill you. My girlfriend's parents are from Colombia, right? And her dad got murdered for having a lottery business that was not authorized with the Colombian cartel. So you're supporting having to do negotiations with the mafia? I mean, in the video, it says they were sponsoring it. Like that means all the money he's getting from all these people, including people who are underage, including the young men that he's scamming, all of his YouTube money, all these platforms he's using to get that money. He's using it to do business with the Romanian mafia. But there's a difference between there's a difference between doing business with someone and being an associate and actually getting the OK. And yes, in a lot of these countries, the unfortunate truth is that you do have to pay a little bit of a bribe. Otherwise, you know what they will do? They will murder you. So his other option is just getting murdered. There is no way you can start a casino or a lottery business. He could just move. He could literally just move. I don't want to just I'm not going to just fight. So I think I feel like you're justifying it. I think it's because you're biased and that you're his friend. And I think that this is like really doing leaps and bounds to do business from an organization. That's why I just think you have no experience living in third world countries and you haven't traveled to these places. You don't know how the sending to me is not going to change the fact that it's morally wrong. We don't we don't in America. Yes, it doesn't work that way. But it actually did like 60 years ago. If you want to open up a casino in Vegas, you need to have the OK from the mafia. Doesn't mean you have to do business with them. Doesn't have to be part of them. Doesn't mean you have to support them. But you need that OK. If you don't get that OK, they will murder you. Romania is exactly like that. Colombia is exactly like that. My girlfriend stacked up murdered because he did not have no OK from the Colombian. So it's just a coincidence that he runs like a camp site where he could be trafficking girls. By the way, he has no like ID verification. We don't know that they're 18. He's one of these teen girls and from Romania and pimping them and branding them. Look, there you go. Like defending him as if like this is morally OK. Clearly there is a bias because you can keep trying to attack like my personal character and saying there's some kind of bias. But I would prefer to just focus on. But there clearly is evidence. Again, if you were if you were somewhat familiar with my chat can decide you would know that I publicly criticized Tate for different things. I've criticized some other things that he does. So I'm not like some big fanboy at this. The point I'm making is like all the arguments you're making are just either fundamentally false or you're just taking them out of proportion. So what you said about the I'm just being dramatic, man. He's doing or he's doing this. I'd appreciate if I could finish. So he has so OK. So for the because we're going in circles, but so for he's doing basically something that only fans does. There's no law against having cam girls. So if a girl comes in her own free court and says, hey, I want to have a camp show, I want you to manage me and market me, that is not illegal. It doesn't make it pimping. There's no consent being violated. He's never been convicted of that. You would think with the hundreds and thousands of cam girls that he's had and all the screwing that he's under, there will be at least one case against them. There's the problem. Here's the problem. Only fans does have trafficking. It's been recorded by the BBC. They've done documentation on this. There are girls underage on their site, even with the ID verification. Now, we don't even know if Tate even goes that far to have ID verification and cam girls, porn, anything like that is interlinked with trafficking because it fuels the whole industry. They get underage girls. That's why porn have had most of their videos taken down because they were not age verified and their verification system doesn't even have an ID. So I don't think only fans is a good argument because they also have trafficking and I wouldn't be a surprise never the case or Tate. After all, he said in multiple occasions, multiple videos that he moved there because it's more corrupt and it's easier to partake in that corruption. This is coming from his mouth. So yeah, again, I'm quite familiar with adult industry. I've interviewed a lot of porn stars and the vast majority of the porn industry does not involve underage girls or crime. Most vast majority, of course, that does happen under the table. And if there was clear evidence that Andrew Tate was like, you know, hiring underage girls or trafficking them. I don't think what you're saying is true. Then I would what part of what I said is not true. For example, Pornhub took about 80 percent of their content down. How is that not a majority? That means like 80 percent of it potentially could have been child porn. OK, again, let me explain that. Very small percentage of Pornhub's content was actually underage or anything like that. The reason they took it down is because they want to basically take a big position and they took down any content creator, anyone who uploads, who's not a verified porn hub content creator. That's their verification, though, doesn't have ID. Like you could just say you're 18 and they give you the check mark. That's majority of the people who upload to Pornhub were not verified, whatever, content creators, right? They didn't have that special pass. So Pornhub just changed the policy and anything that was not created by a verified content creator was discarded. Does not mean that it was child pornography. Child pornography is highly legal. The FBI does not fuck around with shit like that. And again, like if there was like it's I don't know if you think it's like easy to get with child pornography, but in a first world country like America, it is certainly not. And again, if there is some evidence for annotate being involved in anything underage, like I that would be despicable and I would be fully on your side. But there is no evidence. This is just pure speculation. And even after they took all that content down, they did not change your verification process. It was still you can get verified and post content if you're under 18. Like there was no you don't even need an ID. OK, a lot of it is fueled by that. What percentage of Pornhub's content do you think is underage children? I don't have the statistics for that because you're basically asking me to say what amount of crime that hasn't been caught yet percentage. And it's like there's a lot of crime that happens that hasn't been caught yet. Well, just sounds like you find it very suspicious that he has a campsite which you can't find much on. And we don't even know if the girls are of of age. And again, he's doing business with the mafia. So it wouldn't be surprising if he's doing trafficking as well, because that's trafficking. This is just pure pure conjecture. You just speculated. I just play proof of the Romanian mafia doing business of the fact that he had to get the OK from Romania mafia to start a casino. He said he had a business meeting with them, which is totally normal. OK, what was the alternative? That's not normal. You're just his friend and your bias. This is this is what should he have done? Should he have been like, I would like to get an answer on this. If you want to open casino, what should he have done? Should have he just got murdered by the Romanian mafia? Not go to Romania to begin with. That's where he is. That's why he went there. It's to commit crime. He said it's easier to have corruption. Well, you don't have to move if he wants to get rich. He doesn't have to be in Romania, which, by the way, it's still part of the. It's a great place. It's an awesome place to be. Like what is he now allowed to live there now? No, of course he can live there. But I mean he has to like engage in criminal activity. You know, OK, getting the OK from the mafia to do something that is that's just the way it works. There's not the same as being like an associate of the mafia. Yeah, and you don't have to do it. You literally have a choice to choose to do that. Free speech is not covering is not covering criminal behavior. And that's kind of a debate topic. I just want to remind you guys, has he been convicted of organized crime? Has has he been convicted of breaking the law in a country he said he moved to in order to partake in the corruption? Like, you know, it's it's a it's a funny question. What has he been convicted of? That's like going to a country where they don't have laws by anything, being like, what were they convicted of? It's like, I just told you. Romania has laws just in case you are not you. Do you believe in anything until you go to the court? I believe that he's sponsored by the mafia. I don't know what he's sponsored by the mafia, which is something he pulls straight out of your ass. Based on very, very out of my ass, the video was not out of my ass. The word to your mouth, which is your interpretation of the video, which is just like horribly, horribly distorted. Based on your somehow, like, weird hatred for entertain. I don't really know. Now it's about my hatred. What about attacks on character? Much I thought you didn't like that. Whoa, that's just kind of I got. I guess I thought, hey, we weren't doing the attack. I'm going to say what it is. Yeah, OK, OK. So I want to I want to get I want to go through it to this through a different door. I don't care. I'm not going to argue on the point of free speech. I'm not going to argue on the point of whether he did this or he did that or he moved here, he moved there. I like contrast. I like the evil and I like the good. And I want to be able to see evil. So therefore, I know the difference between a good man and an ancient man. OK, so I. My my position is. When you said and this is go to work, when you said that there's a term to service, well, we understand that they are biased with the terms of service. They are not enforced equally. Because like I said, with my earlier, my early example, if the terms of service which were issued fairly, then all of those rap videos that advocate slapping women, actually raping women, stopping women and killing other black people, those videos would be down in media. I agree with you that it's absolutely unfair and inconsistent. I just want to, you know, I do agree with you. OK, yeah. So so if so, with that being in mind, I I like. Here it is. There's something's going this and we understand that there's a need for this kind of content. I don't agree with the need, but I want to understand why are these men, these young men looking at an ancient man like Andrew Tate and the rest of the red children and going, yep, yep. That's how we're going to do it. That's how we go. So I I I want to get to that problem because here's the deal. One last one last thing and I'm going to stop. You get rid of Andrew Andrew Tate. That's fine. He will be replaced. So it's not not like he's the king of red killers. He there's plenty of them where he came from. It's just that he was the most effective. Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, and for him. Like being banned or whatever, I still think like good riddance, you know, but yeah, of course, he'll be replaced. And there's like dozens of reasons why men feel attracted to these types of guys, right? We don't need this discourse to find out. We have research for that stuff, like things we can look at, like suicides, suicide rates going up, guys dropping out of college. You know, women by now make up like 60 percent of all college. Enrollments, I believe, well, men are men are being left behind in so many levels, like they're being left behind and then combine that with the age old idea of what men are supposed to be, what they're supposed to perform as and they can't do it at all. And and then you have, yeah, people on the left also saying, you know, oh, just do better, men. This is also, you know, it was also pretty shit. Just I have, well, I got to ask you a question. Well, OK, and I just look because I have my list. Since Andrew Tate is the man that you don't want young men to look at. Tell me the type of man you want the young youth to look at. Oh, I actually don't know if that person exists. That's a problem. That's a complete lack of role models for men. Yeah, that's an issue that's that's that's that's going into what Tree was saying is that, yeah, the reason that all that he got to the point where he is and is because there's a complete lack of role model for men, there's not a lot of people who are saying, hey, you want to be as a man, you want to become more masculine, you want to become stronger, you want to go through adversity and experience trauma so that you can become stronger mentally and physically like that is even though it's pretty basic, that's good advice and not allowed as being said. A lot of it is that you hear it on the left is just like, oh, just listen to your emotions, stuff like that, but feel good nonsense. Doesn't really help anyone. But I would ask the question like this to Brittany and will what's like a cause that you're passionate about like trans issues or like what is what is something that you're passionate about? I'm very passionate about learning about sex trafficking and that it required me to an anti porn. And when I started with learning anti porn, that required me to learn a lot about sex trafficking. You can't research one of them without the other. But I just want to say really quickly to what Tree said earlier, I agree with what she said that there should be an example for that contrast, but my point of contention is that he's doing business with an organized crime group that is responsible for a large portion of child trafficking. So if we remove that from the equation, if he wasn't doing that, I would agree. I'd be like, yeah, we need someone to point to say that they're shit. And here's why they're shit. And they set an example. I don't think that Andrew Tate is a good role model. I mean, he even be rates and minimizes mental health issues among men. Well, I agree. He's not a good role model. I'm not a fan of that. That's one thing I publicly disagree with him on. Like when he says depression is not real, I've said like that's pure nonsense. So yeah. OK, so that's Brittany, that seems to be like your main point of contention is the Romanian mafia link. So what do you think about someone like like Michael Franze's or Sammy the Bull? They're both popular YouTubers. They're both involved in the mafia. Sammy the Bull has been convicted of murdering over 20 people. Do you think that they should be de-platformed? I think that if YouTube and Facebook and all these platforms that banned him for the reason of having violent crime associations, which was one of the cited reasons, they would have to also de-platform other criminals. I don't personally know much about what those two people you just said. But I do believe if somebody is committing acts of like severe violent crime, such as trafficking, I'm not talking about like, oh, you know, they like smoked weed once or said like, obviously not. But we're talking about like extreme crime organizations. Like these are morally bad. And I think Andrew Tay is morally bad. He's supporting things that are morally bad. I don't think he's a real model. Do you think someone should be convicted of that crime before being de-platformed? Or do you think just being accused of a crime by a person on YouTube isn't enough? He wasn't accused. He admitted to doing business with them and then said that they're doing a good job of X, Y and Z. So do you think like making an observation about the city you live in, which is controlled by organized crime and saying, hey, there's some things that, you know, organized crime does well, like keeping the streets safe and keeping drugs away from school, which are all things you and I would agree on are good things. But do you think just making that general observation should be allowed? Should be enough reason for you to get the platform? I think him being sponsored by the mafia that allows children to get raped is enough reason to de-platform and it's not free speech and it's not censorship. I'd like for you to directly answer my question. So I did answer the question. This has nothing to do with making like a poorly framed observation. This has to do with the fact that, you know, he number one, he said something possible to remain in mafia. If we remove the second clip, maybe you could say that. But then when you combine it with the second clip of he has business dealings with the people that sell children, beat children so that they make more for begging money on the street in Romania. Like, yeah, they that's not protected. We don't protect criminals. We don't protect violent behavior, especially against children. It's up for me. Let me ask you a series of hypotheticals and I'll be pretty quick. OK, hypothetically speaking, we have to. Yeah, because this is how we're going to get to the bottom. Hypothetically speaking, I've been Shapiro speaking. I moved to Colombia, which has a lot of organized crime. And I make a video where I say, you know what? I've noticed from the Columbia that with the with the cartel, there's actually a lot less violence on the streets. What should I get the platform for that? Should you get the platform for saying when the mafia is around there's less crime streets? Well, here's the thing. YouTube's policy says if you basically promote any sort of like terrorization, criminal, criminal crime, criminal crime, like violent organizations, if you promote any of that, they will basically deploy from you. I know this because I made it like a joke. I made like literally it was a second, a six second clip on YouTube. And it was of me running. And then there was like the Twin Towers. And then they literally gave me a strike for that, even though it was like very blatantly satires, a six second clip. And it was also eight years old. Like at that point, it was like almost a decade year old. And they were like, no, guess what? You get a strike on your channel. You do it again, you're going to get the platform. So if they were consistent with their policies, I guess they would remove that made they consider it like I want to promoting organized crime. I want to get your opinion. I'm not asking about YouTube's opinion. I'm asking about your opinion. So again, in the hypothetical, I moved down to Columbia and I make a video. I said observation. No, I've been living in Columbia for three months. I noticed that it's a bit safer here. And I think that's because organized crime keeps petty crime away. Well, should I get the platform for that statement in your opinion? In my opinion, no. OK, OK. But it depends on what you're saying it, but generally with how you're saying it. OK, so an example. No, what if I, for example, I moved to Columbia and I want to open up a lottery business and in order to do that in Columbia, you do neither. I say, hey, you know, I want to open a lottery business. And I had to get the OK from the mafia in Columbia to do that. And I talk public about that in a video. Should I get should I get the platform for that? I mean, first off, like, don't live in Columbia then. Maybe there's complications and you have to live in Columbia, sure. But like, that's where it comes down to integrity of like, hey, I want to open something up. And in order to open it up, I'm going to be funding something that hurts children, allows them to get beaten and raped and trafficked and girls as well. And sometimes little boys too. At that point, you have to have integrity and be like, no, this is not worth it. That's called being a moral person. OK, that's fine. That's your opinion. You might have different ethics. You might be a moral person, but I'm asking you. You don't have those ethics. You would you would fund that. OK, it doesn't matter what I would do. What? No, you're dodging that. I'm answering your question. You would fund that. You would support the mafia. You would in order to get your business, you would support children being harmed. I yes. OK. I'll answer your question. If I was living in Columbia and I want to open a lottery business for whatever reason, and my choices were one, get murdered and do without the mafia's consent or two, get the OK from them and then open it, I would definitely take the latter option because I am not going to die over some virtual grandstanding. Now, me personally, I probably would not be involved in the lottery business because it's just like not up my alley. But if I want to be involved in that kind of business, especially after my girlfriend's dad got killed for that thing, I would certainly not do it without getting OK from mafia because that is literally suicide. We're going back to the question I asked. So for the first scenario, you said, no, you don't think I should be platform that. So again, let me repost this question. I go to Columbia. I want to open a whatever for whatever reason. It doesn't matter why I'm there. Maybe I'm marrying my girlfriend, whatever. And I want to open a lottery business. And I know that I need to get the OK from the cartel to do that. And I make a video. I said, hey, you guys open this casino in order to do it. I had to get the OK from the cartel. Do you think I should be platform for that statement? You're basically empowering the mafia at that point. You're kind of like encouraging others to do that. Like, hey, this is how I made my business that's making money. I made deals with the mafia. I'm going to empower the mafia. And consent doesn't just mean consent, by the way. It also means like what do you think that means? It means that you're also going to be giving the mafia a cut of that. You're funding that you're empowering them to sell children to beat children, rape children, sell young girls. You have to give a bribe, which in a lot of third world countries, you have to give a bribe to the government. Like there's in a lot of these several countries, the bribing is just part of the system. There's there's no way around. If you don't do it, you either get thrown in jail or you get executed. So again, so do you think it's called having integrity, having principles, you say no and you move or you do something about it. Moving to a different country is not an option. Like people have reasons for living in a country like he has. Like I don't know why, but he might have family there. He might have friends there. There are reasons why people live in countries, right? It's not as easy as oh, just get up and move, because this country is poor and it's not perfect, right? Sometimes you have to make the best out of an imperfect system, which is something that happens in the US. But I do want to get a clear answer from Bernie. Once again, in that situation where I make a statement that I had to get an OK from the Colombian cartel to open up my casino or my sorry, my lottery business, should I get the platform for making that statement? Because you're encouraging it and you're promoting and you're saying, hey, this is how you get a business going. If you're saying in the context of like how Andrew Tate is like, hey, I'm a big G, look how I got all this money. And then you say that. Then yes, because you are basically in the world. And also, like your consent is basically allowing for children to get hurt and killed. Like, are you OK with that in the in the way that I said it in the way that I said, I made a video where I say, hey, guys, open up a lottery business in Colombia. I have to get the OK from the Colombian mafia to do it. But I'm all up and now, should I get the platform for making that statement? Because how you just prophesied it was like, you guys should do this. So yeah, if you're saying like, you guys should do this. And then you're following up with I made a deal with the organized crime group that gets children raped. One of the top five. Then yeah, in the analogy I gave you, I never said you should do it. I just said, this is how I did it. So once again, I say I'm opening up, I had to open up a casino and I had to get the OK from the Colombian mafia. Should I get the platform now? I'm not saying you guys should do it, too. I'm just saying this is what I had to do. Yeah, because you're basically giving them a guide on how to do it. And then other people are going to get the idea of, huh, maybe I should do that too. And they're going to copy. Especially if it's in the context. The context is very important, too, of where you're a guru like Andrew Tate. And he's saying, this is how you become a real man. This is how you make money. And then he says, do this, this and that. And then he says that, yeah, that is encouraging other people to do that. So OK, so it seems like you're like literally the crux of your issue with Andrew Tate is that he had to get the OK from the Romanian mafia in order to open up his casino. My crux of Andrew Tate is business with the Romanian mafia that once again responsible for the death of children for children getting raped for women getting raped and being one of the top five reasons of why trafficking happens in Europe. Have you ever lived in a third world country? Can we stop? Yeah, New York. OK, well, that's not really a third world country. I've lived in a third world country. I was born in Russia. I know about this and it's different than America. I'm not trying to be condescending for me or say like whatever. But it's easiest in America to ignore that. But when you live in these countries, you do have to make use of the system that's there. It doesn't mean that you like it. It doesn't mean that you want to do it. But if you don't, you get murdered. That that's that's the alternative. But Andrew Tate didn't have to do that. He was already a multimillionaire by that point. He was a worldwide kickboxer. Like he had to do it. He had money already. He's just greedy and doesn't give a shit about children or women. He had to do it in order to open up his casino. But he that's he's just greedy. It's not like he was dying. Like I'm a breadcrumbs. I'm starving. Like no, he chose to do business with a criminal violent organization that gets children raped and killed. Brittany, I will concede even though it's not my argument. And I'm not conceding on behalf of Alphys. I just want to move on to something else is that he didn't. He didn't have to. You're right. He didn't have to go to Romania. So I want to move on to what happens to Andrew Tate. 2.0, who comes after that. And he learns, he learns not to be so misogynistic. And he learns all the things they got. Andrew Tate, the original D platform. He dumps it down a little bit and then do it behind the scenes. This is what I don't like is I, for example, let's go back to the white nationalist. You know, I like when they were just bold with it. And I like when they were just straight up with their racism because I could tell who they are. I like to know my enemies. But when you have these guys who have to say, oh, I know not to say this. I know not to say that, even though they want to cause harm to women and children or whoever, now that has put women in a more dangerous position because, and you know this to be true, Brittany, we have to dump down our our our our language or hide our true belief so that we can stay on the platform. That to me makes things worse. Do you not do you agree or disagree on that? Yeah, just to kind of quickly just add one thing to that. Yeah, the big lesson here is don't be so transparent about things in your life. So you don't get the platform. That's that's the lesson here, just don't be transparent. Because people do shit like anyone who lives in the third world country and has a business has to get the OK from the whatever the the person in charge and go. Yeah, please. He wasn't like he wasn't he wasn't banned because of that. Like we can say if that's true, that would be for me. Yeah, good riddance, good reason. If it's true, that is why he's banned. They say they cited that as one of the pretty sure on Facebook and stuff. They said because of his violent, dangerous individual stuff, because of the things he was saying, like the clips that were going around. I'm going to use the restroom real quick. So yeah, I thought at least I may be wrong. So so what would you guys answer to my question on on the on the Andrew Tate 2.0? Well, if he came, yeah, for me, my line is pretty clear. As I said at the beginning, it's simply the violent stuff, everything else. Like he could literally still have his same views on women. I don't care. Just drop the like the things of, oh, they're second class humans. That's that's not a high bar. That's easy to do. So won't he doesn't say they're second class humans, but he believes they're second class humans and he treats them. Yeah, you don't when I say that IRL. Yeah, when I say that, you don't have to literally say they are second class humans. But there are certain things that I would say the quote where he's talking about how you bang out the machete, boom her in the face, rip her by the neck. Yeah, that's dehumanizing. Yeah, it is. They're like, they should just. Yeah, my argument is that's also dehumanizing all that kind of shit. Just drop that, then you're good. My argument is let them say it so you know who you're dealing with. If somebody is, for example, let's take it to the racism thing. If I have somebody who hates me for who I am, my me being a black woman. OK, I rather than call me the n-word and stuff like that and tell me I'm all kind of chimps that I want to see that out in the open so I know, oh, they're racist. There's someone going, oh, black lives matter. Oh, I love my black queen. And then they are platinized for my and other black women's death. And therefore we don't we when we see these people in person, God forbid, have a bit for a bit, then we are assuming that they are an ally or a friend instead of seeing them for the for the enemy that they are. Yeah, the thing is, I don't know that it's even necessary to let them say whatever they want, because you can like, let me take an example. Well, actually mainstream media, something like Fox News, where a Tucker Carlson, for example, right? He doesn't say anything explicit, but he takes some ideas, you know, that kind of cozy up to white nationalists. What was it like once a great replacement, you know, kind of stuff? And what's wrong with the great. I mean, what's wrong with him talking about the great replacement? No, the point. No. Well, it's factually incorrect, but whatever. No, the point is that it is incorrect. OK, I don't want to get in. We can do another thing on that one. But you can't compare Tucker Carlson talking about. Yeah, if I can make my point, which is really happening to white people in reference to make my point, showing almost like a showing a woman the enemy that wished to do her harm. Tucker Carlson is not trying to do anybody harm. Yeah, you say it as I want him on a platform so I can see him for who he is. OK, I would disagree that Tucker Carlson is saying things that wouldn't like cause for the harm he absolutely does. The point is, he doesn't say something that is no, he doesn't. He doesn't say anything. It doesn't. OK, forget it. He does, but just like assume you can't even tell me what he doesn't say anything. Listen, he doesn't say anything explicit. Like who says more stuff explicit? And you say or Tucker Carlson. That's my first. That's my freaking point. However, a lot of stuff that you're trying to come play. And you say when she and that's not true. And you say it's nothing like you're missing my point. I'm not going to get away with that. OK, so here's the deal. Yeah, because you're missing my point. You had said violent things against women. Yeah, you don't did not stay on a consistency here. Yeah, the point is you don't have to literally spell it out to convey the same. I am talking about literally spelling it out. I want to have a white nationalist literally say the N word with the ER. I want them to literally say, yeah, I want to know who they are. That's what I'm telling you. I want them to be able to say what the fuck they want to say. So I can recognize my enemy. Yeah, they don't even have to say that, though. So you can recognize her because they know they don't have to call you the end. Dude, that's crazy. They don't have to actually be explicitly racist. Listen, listen, you're white. I'm black. I don't have any problem with my Santa N word. Don't be my fucking white. I don't care about that. I don't need you to take from me. I cannot believe that the point is like going like, yeah, I know a black woman who has no problem. You sit up here and act like you sit in and don't try to keep on my behalf. I don't need you to be my white savior. That's the fucking wrong what you got them lefties. OK, don't I ain't no leftist, man, my savior. OK. Oh, God. Well, I was a breakdown of communication. If I tell you it's a black woman that I want white racists to be able to say what the fuck they want so that I can recognize them. You and your white ass should not have a problem with that. So as a fellow black woman, I like to say I'm also yeah, go ahead. OK, as a fellow black woman, I definitely agree with Tree's sentiment of they should be allowed to say that word. That's something that's actually protected under free speech, even if it's offensive and I don't particularly care if people say it either. I think there's contexts where people can say it and it's not offensive anyway. But with that said, I think it becomes not free speech. And I think that the guidelines should be is it free speech? So with that said, if it becomes something like you're inciting violence, that's not protected speech. So if he were saying things that were inciting violence against women, we got a point on that one. Well, do you think Tucker Carlson should be de-platformed? No. Oh, you don't? OK, no, because I told you what the bar is, right? I think he conveys crappy messages, but the bar is literally don't go around and I don't know, salute like Adolf Hitler or shit like that. He did not salute Adolf Hitler. Holy crap. That's just an example. I'm not saying he literally did that. I said, just don't do stuff like that. Tucker Carlson actually did. I think he's talking about. Stop putting stuff like that. No, not even take just hypothetical person. No, you wasn't here, Alex. He was he had a problem with Tucker Carlson and I wanted to know what his issue was and he can't give me an example of what Tucker Carlson did. That was really wrong. Yeah, well, as I said, we have a disagreement on the great replacement. Shit, you know, you say whatever the way he speaks about immigrants, for example. Uh, what about immigrants? Um, I think we're getting a little before we go off time. We're getting way off track here. Oh, my God, we can debate about that some other time. But yeah, crap, on all my point. Tucker Carlson should not be in this example at all. OK, I am actually thinking of other examples, but OK. Yeah, but Brittany made a good point that inciting violence is against terms of service. And but even then I have no problem with. Low key in new windows about it because I want to see when when when when when I do take this video where he he he said, you know, if you want your woman to submit, you got to slap her around, tell her to get on her knees and suck your dick. And I don't I want him to keep saying stuff like that so I can show women, especially traditional women, you don't let a man talk to you that way. And you stay away from men who talks this way. And we come up with plans just in case they come their way. That's how I feel. I cannot know how you really think if you are if you can't if you can't express yourself. So in that same token, though, there also are 15 year olds watching Andrew Tate. I clicked his final message video and I was scrolling comms. And one of the first ones was I'm 15 and I find Andrew Tate a role model. I just think that that's really come on. That could be somebody who's really also relevant to the point. But everyone like you're as a content creator, you're not responsible for what some random person supports you. I'm sure his videos are 18 plus just like mine are. So some underage kid decides to watch his videos. It's not his fault. So my point in saying that is so at what point it becomes harmful, right? And it's kind of why we have laws for like, for example, against inciting violence. Why? Because then you're going to make other people commit acts of violence. Therefore, we outlaw it. That's why it's bad. So that's why I point that out. But there's there's a big difference, Brittany, between directly inciting violence and maybe making a joke out of context. That's some crazy motherfucker just misinterprets and uses to create violence. As far as I know, there has been a grand total of zero cases of any of Andrew Tate's fans committing any kind of violence. So I think that yeah, but that's that's an important thing to consider. Second of all, I think Andrew Tate actually from what I've seen does a little better job at preventing strong harassment of violence than a lot of the left-leaning content creators. I see he directly says multiple times. Hey, guys, if you're going to argue with my haters, be respectful, don't harass them, blah, blah, blah. And I see people on the left doing way worse. So flood is DMS. Fuck this guy. Tell him to fuck off. Tell him what your piece of shit is. So I think he's done a little bit of a better job. But to kind of pivot back, OK, Brittany, I understand your argument and seems like your the crux of your argument is the fact that, you know, it's the mafia thing. You feel like that should be instant grounds for disqualification of from YouTube. I guess let me redirect this to woke. What is what do you think are the reasons that justify them being the platform? You mean like just from the TOS or in your opinion, this is purely my opinion. Well, again, like TOS violation for me is already enough because just the way our system is set up with how these businesses operate and work and the rights they have like Section 230 and all that kind of stuff that is just how it's going to be. I know it's enforced unfairly in a better role. It wouldn't be I can agree there. I mean, well, those TOS are very vague. They can literally be platform. And you know, I get it. Yeah, but they still have to have it because for a simple fact that they have this third party immunity protection, right? They don't want to be sued. They put but they have these abilities to edit their stuff. But their platforms of Section 230. Well, I'm asking your opinion like I make you the CEO of YouTube tomorrow, right? You're the CEO of YouTube. What did entity do in your opinion that wants to be the platform? He violated the TOS, which is in place, not not honestly, not even in place to make all people, I don't know, although the woke people or anybody, any of the users or the content creators happy, but because I as CEO of you, CEO of YouTube care about my advertisers who are paying me, making me eight billion dollars a year of revenue and want to advertise their shit on videos and they can't do that when they say, I'm not going to put my shit on that video because it's like, but you agree. Any one of them tomorrow could be found in violation of TOS. If YouTube wants to take us down, you agree with that, right? The TOS services, I don't know if you've ever read them, but they're written so vaguely that you can apply to any single person. I know as they are, they are crappy. I agree. But that they exist at all is a given. They could be performed, made better, you know, more precise. Well, any one of us could be kicked off, could be Alex. Hold on a second. Well, would you be outraged if YouTube took down the drill wrap where black men are advocating killing of other black men on video? Would I be outraged? Well, I wouldn't say I should probably wouldn't give a shit. So why do you not give a shit about that? We're actually black men are actually dying as a result of these videos. But you give a shit about Andrew. I don't know. I honestly don't know, like maybe you can. Educate there, but I don't know if these videos are the cause of that. To there is a there is a level of their gang members who actually tell other gang members that they're going to come to this particular block and shoot them. And they don't do it like, OK, by the way, I'm going to upload my music video in two hours. Once you see what happens in that music video, you know what to do. That's not what really happens in those videos. They just they upload the video. Hold on, they upload the video of them saying what they're doing. They actually show their weapons, the Uzis, the AKs, the ARs. They show that illegal weapons. And then they talk about who they're going to take out and when they're going to tell you to timeframe. And then it's done. This is document. I'm not making this up. This is actually documented. Oh, OK, no, I see what you mean now. OK, I got you. They're they're they're announcing themselves what they're. Yeah, sure. That should be they're going to commit this crime. Again, yeah, I know the gang. OK, yeah, that's absolutely should be taken down for sure. And if it isn't, then that's wrong. But if you if you agree with me that the TOS are in so shitty that any one of us could be taken off tomorrow for some vague TOS violation, don't you find that? How can you not find that problematic? Well, I said it's problematic. It's not perfect. My point is that a TOS will have to exist. No, no, it's not. Huh? But but if the TOS are problematic, then why are you using it as your reason to justify? No, no, no, no, not this particular type of TOS as they have it. Just the general concept of the TOS will exist. And sure, of course, in this case. Well, I mean, some of the statements, I mean, for me personally, now we can move on to like because that's not my only reason. But personally, they are too far. Like, OK, let's let's go through some specifically. Again, while we had the machete stuff, we had the you know, the constant like if you want to call my misogynist. I don't think it's I don't even care about the like stuff like we're even or even says women are weaker. You know, that's true physically, at least I don't care about all that. But I just let me finish real quick. It's just these very particularly violent things like the machete thing. The I do think that here, if they if they don't obey me, then, you know, it can't be within a relationship like, you know, comparing them to dogs type stuff like that. You know, there are just bits and bits here that are just like for me. Yeah, and here, I'll say it, I do think a degree of decency, you know, is a good virtue to have. Well, yeah, there's a lot of people on YouTube who don't have decency. But what if you what if you found out that this was just a joke? He was kidding. Would then that weren't him being removed? Like, do you think inappropriate? Should if it yeah, well, the thing is here, you can't just say he was joking. Like we can actually show it as a comedic context. But yeah, a comedic artistic context. That's what the drift rapping is a bit difficult for me because it is art, after all, and art for me has a way higher bar to cross if you want to say that art. In fact, I don't think art should be banned at all. But like just talking like we're talking here isn't like any kind of art or whatever. So OK, so if you so I just want to clarify your position. So if you knew that all that stuff was set in as in a humor context, then you don't think that should be deplatformed grounds or if it's a clear comedic context now. OK, so OK, that's interesting. So OK, so then how the context matters, right? Context matters. And if I'm lacking the context here, then sure, you know, I can walk back on all my. But since since you're not sure if he was kidding or not, you don't know. Don't you think it's a little harsh to then just be like, well, I don't know if he was kidding or not. So let's just deplat for him. If you agree that if someone is kidding, that stuff is OK. Yeah, sure. I just want to throw out there that the stuff will entertain. I think it was very clearly like not in the context. Not in the context of kidding. I think the things that were shown were pretty in context of being serious and not falling under artistic. Also, for me, I have a different standard than he does, by the way. I just want to point that out. Then whoa, my standard wouldn't be the TOS per se. It would be that I think the TOS should be based off of free speech. I think that the precedent should be free speech. So I think that maybe in the context of the example you guys are talking about, maybe that should be something that's like brought into court or something like that, where it's like a very like nuanced one, where it's hard to tell. I think it should be set on free speech. Yeah, it's not illegal. Like I can say, well, I'm not going to say that I can say similar statements that I'm not I'm not I'm not risking getting the platform. But I can make that same exact statement and that wouldn't be I wouldn't be found of any like criminal crime. That's not illegal. Is it important to us? Yeah, of course. But like, that's not illegal to like make real threats are though. Real threats are are not protected by free speech. You're right. You're right. But real threat is to someone specific. So if he said that Brittany, blah, blah, blah, machete, blah, blah, blah. And yes, that would be that would be that would be illegal. But it was but it could be considered inciting violence. Now, if it were to a group of people. Insight, inciting violence is not covered. Typically, the way it works is if like you're directly inciting violence. So if you're like, yo, guys, if your girlfriend ever breaks up with you, then what you want to do is you want to get a machete and you want to blah, blah, blah, then that would be an inciting violence. But if you're talking like in firsthand, yeah, if my girlfriend breaks up with me on blah, blah, blah, blah, and it's like, in my opinion, very obviously a joking context that would not be inciting violence. There's a difference between telling other people to do directly and just sharing like an anecdote. And you see comedians do this all the time with saying shit like blah, blah, and they're like, whoa, like really? No, it's a fake story. He's fucking around. Yeah, but is it really in joking context when we know he is in with the Romanian mafia? That's a child sex trafficking ring. It's like, is it a really a joke though? Like that's the kind of the context we're talking about here. I think that's very relevant. Well, again, we have your interpretation is that it's no. My interpretation is that, yes. At the end of the day, we don't really know because neither one of us can read his mind, but I think my interpretation out of a lot of people was that it was a poor attempt to humor. But going back to going back to the Romanian mafia thing one more time, those things are totally unrelated. Someone could get well, so we don't bring it back to that. We don't have to bring it back to the Romanian mafia thing. I see trees like suffering this, but but there is more context than just the mafia thing. There's also the fact that, you know, he was citing the DMs of that 19 year old gymnast and trying to fly her out. You know, so I feel like there it's like what's wrong with that? It gives the vibes of sex trafficking because of all the other context and also again, he runs a campsite. We don't even know if he has girls that if she's over 18, how is it? How is it like in any way legal? She's 19. You said he's sliding her. Yeah. Yeah. So what I'm trying to point out is trafficking isn't only limited to under 18, it can also be above 18, you know, as long as you are manipulating or coercing the person into doing sex work. And a lot of the girls he has, he's written this on one of his bios that they're all like first timers. So he like told them to do that in order. And then he takes the money away from them and he literally brands them like cattle, like like literally. So I would say that's pretty trafficking with all the other context and the mafia ties. Well, like let's just try to go through these one by one. So with this example, he is saying to a girl that, hey, I want to fly you out to Romania. I don't see how that's coercion or pressure of any kind. That's him making an offer. Is it kind of cringe? Yeah, probably, but like being a little cringy over Twitter, Instagram DMs is not like illegal or shouldn't be the platform. Going back to the other stuff you were saying where he was takes 50% of a cut. Yeah, that's pretty standard. Like when we have a manager, they take a percentage of your thing. Now, the argument he made in favor of that is that, well, these girls became millionaires because of that. So their choice was either making 100% of nothing or making 50% of a large sum of money. Right. Again, we can't verify that. We don't know if no one that's true, but that kind of makes sense to me. It's like, yeah, like if they're entering the contract willingly, right, they're saying, OK, I agree to this, maybe could they do better on their own? I don't know, maybe, but that's that's not coercion. That's not pressure. You need to show me proof. And ideally, the kind of proof I would want to see is him being convicted of a crime of like sex trafficking. Then we can say, OK, yeah, he's doing some sex trafficking. But just because like this is all very circumstantial, just because he has a he manages camp girls and he takes a percentage of their money doesn't mean there was coercion, oppression, while that's purely your speculation. Well, you're saying him being convicted. But the thing is, we just saw, sorry, I've got to wrench it again. The Romanian mafia thing, like he's in ties. He he says that you can pay off people very easily in Romania. That's one of the reasons he moved there. So how are you expecting him to get convicted of of crimes that doesn't really make sense? Like that's kind of why he moved there because he could pay people off because there's more than just the Romanian government. There's also there's also an interpoll and there's also all kinds of things. So if he's importing girls from other countries for sex trafficking, it's not going to be just the Romanian government is going to be coming after him, it's going to be interpoll and all that stuff. And that's a lot, which they did. OK, again, again, different things. So what happened with your investigation? OK, he was arrested and released from jail literally two hours later. There was no formal charges filed. He has like zero. It was literally one chick. The story is that one chick was at his house, her boyfriend called her. She didn't know what to say because she was basically with another guy. She was supposed to be in exclusive relationship. And she said, oh, yeah, I'm this guy forced me to be here. Right. The police came. They found that all the girls were sitting there laughing, having a good time. There was no like no kind of sex. According to who? And then and then they literally released them from jail one like one hour later. Do you think that if there was this from like, where are you getting that information from? Where am I getting the information from? That's who's at it. That's what was reported. I don't remember exactly who said it. So so I don't think that's what was reported on because when I looked at the report, they basically made a very like one sentence statement said we can't say anything further because of like the safety of the girl. So I feel like you're getting that from Tate. But don't you don't you kind of bias? Don't you think if there was a serious crime that if he was actually guilty of the crime, they would have not released them one hour later? With him doing dealings with the Ruanian mafia, who has access to the government, as he said. And that's the reason he moved there is to have better access to corruption. No, I wouldn't think that actually. He wasn't under investigation. You can read the Romanian police report, which I did because I had someone translate it to me. And I don't have the same as you as judicially. The problem I have with your line of logic is that you're just inferring a whole bunch of things on very weak circumstantial evidence. And then you're using that to build your case for why you should be the platform. Any one of us can be accused of something tomorrow. Some random person, some girl that I spurned for someone who doesn't like me could accuse me of something and police would come and visit my house. Like, I don't think I should be the platform just for that. Of course, not for just random accusations. Obviously not. And it happened to any of us, I agree. But I don't I don't think that, again, the mafia ties are just miscellaneous and random and whoopsie. Like, definitely not. It's definitely deeper than what we're even seeing for him to even mention it. And he's funding them. Well, don't you think there's like some serious mafia tie that he probably would just not mention it at all? I thought I thought he was smart. I thought he wouldn't mention anything about the mafia, but apparently not. And he just seems like he was sharing an anecdote about what he had to do to get his casino open. He said that he had to have a meeting with them. And that doesn't just mean, oh, yeah, you work with it. Like that has implications. If the mafia doesn't want you to do something, the reason they'll let you do it usually is because you're giving them a cut of some sort. So the point is, even if you said that's not true, which usually is does tend to be the case. He did have a meeting with them. He is having ties with them. And he did say nice things about them. So the nice things, quote unquote, that he said was literally it's safer in Romania where the organized crowd. Right. But with the context of everything else. It's like it's kind of like how in context of you being his friend, it kind of does change the context of some of the things. OK, first of all, I think you're misunderstanding our relationship where like work, we have like a working relationship. I am fond of the guy personally, but we're not like best friends or something like that. I've never even met the guy. But he's always been very sweet and respectful to me and all our mutual friends. But yeah, we're not like BF and I've also I've also I've also criticized him on my channel multiple times. So. So I think if we lived in like a hypothetical world where he wasn't having all these things that we're talking about already, we wouldn't have the problem. We would probably like agree that he shouldn't be banned, but that's not the world we live in. And he has connections to organizations that hurt children. So OK, so earlier, also one more thing. Earlier, you were saying managing that is not managing that is pimping. Pimps are sex traffickers, typically. So and he doesn't provide any sort of age verification for his girls. We have no nothing about that. Just putting that out there. OK. Just because we don't know something doesn't mean that you're guilty of crime. I don't know. But we know he's involved with criminals. I don't know. I don't know if he used that feather to murder someone earlier today. But does it mean you have a history of murdering people? But just because I don't know something doesn't mean you did it. Right. So that's the problem with that logic. We don't know if he's very age verifying those girls. But just because we don't know that doesn't mean he's not. Doesn't mean that he's he's feeling underage girls. That's a problem with that kind of logic. It's just like what we don't know that. So they're guilty. Yeah, a lot of this does sound like conjecture. You know, no, if I know if I had the context of being a murderer or doing violent things, then yeah, like maybe you could say that. But there actually is context of which I said a hundred times already with a violent crime organization, association and context is really is literally two videos, one where he said he fled from the UK to literally have access to better corruption. He said this on video, like that's the context. Well, what was said in that video was that he had a false accusation which was dropped by a British government and he had multiple videos where he where he moved to Romania because he felt safer there because he thinks the laws are more fair. And honestly, living in the Me Too era, like where, you know, basically all takes an accusation to completely fuck over your life. I can see his logic, like why he would want to live in a country that doesn't have like such crazy laws. So I have a clip I can play because you're saying it's one video, but it's not. Well, what I was saying is two videos where he were talking about the organized crime and literally one of the videos he says he just feels safer and make him observation feel safer in a country like Romania, where there's organized crime instead of disorganized crime, which we play the clip is OK. OK, I just want to I just want to be clear in which one I'm talking about because I think you're talking about different than I'm talking about because I know there's multiple. Don't forget to hit that little box in the bottom right where it'll give you the audio choice. OK, and I want to remind you, folks, in the meantime, our guests are linked in the description. If you'd like to hear more, you certainly can by clicking on their links below. Go ahead, Brittany. All right. To me, it's like being able to do whatever you want. Do you think you can do whatever you want in America? No. I live in Romania, right? Romania is not a free country, technically. Do you think I could get away with doing more here than I could do in America? I've already got my share on and driving 200 miles an hour down the high street in the middle of the sea. You think I get in more trouble here or more trouble in America? Probably in America, but it does depend who you are. There's plenty of people have gone away with things in America. It's like, how the fuck do they get away with that? Correct. So this is the exact point. Every single system, all of them are corrupt. The judicial systems corrupt. The medical system is corrupt. The financial systems corrupt. It's all corrupt. It's all a matter of who you are. Now, in America, the game is limited to ultra-billionaires who control the government, as you said. In other countries, anyone with money and some basic social skills and some nice friends can play the game. If we're going to accept that every single system on the planet is corrupt, why would you live in a place where you cannot access to corruption? Does that make sense logically? Or would you rather live in a system where you can say, you know what? I am important enough within said society that the police stopped me. I can give them $10, no fuck off. So he literally talks about- Everything he said is like really true. That's like all facts right there. But he says he wants to move somewhere where he can pay off the police. So I really don't want him to pay off people, especially since he's associated them off here. So I don't think he'd be convicted. Yeah, but we're talking about context. When he's speeding in his Bugatti, like going 200 miles per hour, he's basically saying in the US, I would get fucked for something like that in Bugatti. I can just give the cop a bribe and then I don't get like whatever arrested for speeding. That's the context there. Yes, but he also says that he likes to be able to bribe them and there's all the other contexts that we've already discussed too. Well, the context here was in speeding. Do you think people should be in the platform for speeding? For speeding? Yeah. No, it wouldn't be for speeding. It would be for saying instead of, he should have said instead of I moved to Romania because it's safer. He should have said I moved to Romania because that can be more lawless there because I apparently have no morals. Well, no, he said he's making an observation and the observation is true. Governments are corrupt. The American government is corrupt. But the way corruption, he's right. The way corruption works in America, you have to be a top tier politician or like an Elon Musk to play the game. You and I don't have any access to that corruption. So for example, if the government- I wouldn't want access to it. I wouldn't want it to go away. Well, you're right because I'm not trying to make this try to like make this a personal thing. Well, that's because you're not playing at the top tier game. You're not a multimillionaire, right? So you don't really need that. You're not a target. You're not, I'm not trying to be a dick, but you're not important enough to be a target for the government, right? And either or not. I'm not putting into character about it, right? What he's saying- Well, he's talking about corruption, but then he goes and does business as a mafia. And then he also has girls that are of unknown ages, possibly underage that he's pimping out and branding like cattle. So like the whole thing, like it's not just, oh, he wants to speed. Like there's all of the other details too. And also to answer your question about the speeding thing, I think if you were endangering people's lives and you were using a platform to like put that out there, yeah, you should be the platform because that could be endangering people's lives. If you're speeding like, I don't know, like 200 miles an hour in a place you're not supposed to be and there's people around something like that. Bernie, your kind of respect for free speech seems to be very tender but best. It just seems that like free speech is cool unless you say something that's like a little offensive in which case- Wrong, absolutely. I literally said earlier, I don't care if people say the N word. I don't care if they say things that are offensive. I care if it's speech that's not protected by free speech. And some of those things are inciting violence, endangering people, threats, violent organizations, kind of crimes like that. How trafficking rings. You're literally saying that if someone is speeding and they talk about it on a YouTube video, that that's grounds enough for them to be deployed. I didn't say if they talk about in YouTube video. I said if they were like actively doing it and endangering people on it and they're like live streaming it or something. Oh, well, he wasn't live streaming himself speeding. He was just talking about it. So then that doesn't apply. This may be- Well, I don't know where you got that from. Is there a video of him like live streaming his feeding or is it him just talking? I don't know where you're getting all this from. Like, I don't know where you started with that whole thing in the first place. Can we not go down another rabbit hole? I'm just going off the statements. Also- For real, this one won't. This may be a good time to go into the Q and A. Any last thoughts, everybody? Uh... Are we doing- Yeah, I have a couple of last- Short and pithy, Wolk. Like, actually, just what Shree was saying about basically the, you know, where she wants to hear people say whatever is on their mind, you know, exposing to the sunlight stuff, like marketplace of ideas and type shit. It's all, you know, all those analogies are fun and nice, but they're horseshit because like, that's the best ideas is don't rise to the top just because people talk about them. That's just not how the world works. The ideas that rise to the top are the ones that convince the most people and the most people can be convinced by the dumbest shit and make the worst decisions they possibly could and run everything into the ground. How it exactly works, I don't know, but like, I think simply we can draw a line somewhere, especially when it's like things that people say that, hey, themselves do make other people not want to participate at all. Limits their speech as well. And we agree, I don't know if you, do people even agree that Alex Jones, for example, should be like being a suit, be able to be sued, right? For defamation, I think it's fine, but you would say it's a violation of... Anyone can sue anybody, sure, I have no problem with that. Yeah, but then you have, well, but then you agree that there are consequences for speech sometimes, right? There should be no consequence if you have... Alex Jones shouldn't have been de-plat. Yeah, he shouldn't have been de-plat. You just don't want another country. Yeah, we don't live in a country... Yeah, I agree with that. And I really don't like Alex Jones, I think he's... I think being sued for millions of dollars is kind of worst in losing your YouTube account, to be honest, for my first time. I think Alex Jones would rather have his YouTube, his Facebook, his Twitter, all his social media platforms and still be able to get sued. The problem is, you want to do life-ruination by de-platforming him and then taking all the credit card companies to stop doing exchange, or what? No, no, again, the point is de-platforming is like a consequence that some people say is a good consequence for a bad speech, in their opinion, right? Well, defamation lawsuits are also a consequence of speech. If you are a free speech absolutist, like I think you guys are, you are against defamation, no, you're not. No one here is a free speech absolutist. I'm not sitting here arguing from free speech and I told you that you can get sued. I don't want him de-platformed. That's my argument is I don't want people to de-platform because it makes you, it hurts your feelings, whatever Alex Jones said. Oh, I don't care about the feelings either. It's okay. No, you must understand my position. If I was a free speech absolutist, I would say that you can doc someone and that's part of your free speech. You can say, go kill those people, go shoot up that school and that's okay. I don't believe that. The difference is I don't think that he has met the criteria in the word to be de-platformed. I don't think he's any worse. I do. I think it falls under that. That's kind of my point. That's what I, I'm kind of in that similar thing where it's like, okay, so in my opinion, free speech absolutist doesn't mean like literally allow everything. I think it would mean to abide by what free speech is legally to the most that you could as accurately as you could. And there are certain things that are not covered by free speech and criminal organizations are not one of them. So, I don't know if you guys are ready to make closing statements. Let me say something in reference to. I was trying to, yeah. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. Well, did you finish? Did you finish saying what you have to say? No, it doesn't matter anyways. Go ahead. So when you say you want these people to be platform for their ideas, I like competition. I like when two people with opposing ideas go against each other as long as it doesn't go against the law, all right? And I, people who have rhetoric that would positively cause me some problems, I want to know their existence. And I want, and if they're on YouTube, it's easy for me to find such individuals. Once upon a time, YouTube used to be the Wild Wild West. And I don't understand how, if we were able to survive it back then, what's the problem now? It's just the advertisement. If you really want to, it's not about, well, this is problematic or whatever. It's just that advertisement. But like I said, the selective bias here, the bias is here where you can allow black men to challenge and to threaten to kill other black men. That's just wrong. And also, what Andrew said, the reason why I would like him to stay on the platform is because a lot of people were making videos challenging his dog shit tape. Now that he's off, we're not gonna, I'm not saying, and please don't think whoever's watching this, don't think I'm saying this because I want people to make content so they can get monetization, absolutely not. I just like when people have their ideas challenged and not stay in this comfy place where you don't say something because it just triggers you. Yeah, real quick. Well, just because I was hoping for closing thoughts earlier, anybody else? We do have a lot of questions. I have closing thoughts. Yeah. I have closing thoughts, I have a closing statement. So I definitely think that we should support free speech and we should platform people on the basis of free speech. However, I don't believe people who do business with the mafia, such as Andrew Tate, should be platformed because free speech does not protect certain illegal speeches and that being one of them, such as defamation fraud, child porn, things like that. And if you have the means to start a business or pay a bribe, you have the means to move and I believe Andrew Tate completely had the means to do so, he did not need to meet with the mafia. It wasn't life or death. And my issue really is not his free speech, but the criminal activities. And I believe that blood is in fact on his hands. And he's shaping a lot of the minds of the current generation. And I really don't think that that's good to tell them, yeah, do business with the mafia. And he's a professional bullshitter. He's been caught lined for, like how he said he has 20 guards on his property. And then there's video of you going to the property and there's literally like one guard and provide the source for that. But yeah, I think he's a terrible influence. I think that he does criminal behavior and that's not protected by free speech. I 100% support free speech, but it does have legal limitations, which we already have. Okay, well, can I make my closing statement, please? Sure. Andrew Tate has been convicted of a grand toll of zero crimes, zero crimes. Everything you said is conjecture based on your opinion, based on clips that you saw. And it's a very slippery slope. And we start deep laughing on people for crimes that have not been proven. That's a very, very slippery slope. He admitted to one. That I don't want to go down. And as a content creator, you should be against this because it can literally happen to any one of us. Any one of us could be accused tomorrow of some shit that's not proven. And then we just get the platform from that. In 2017, I was deep platform from Facebook because of a slander article from Vice that was based on zero facts. And that sucked. And if it happens to you as well, I think you will understand how much it sucks to be deep platform for things that you know are blatantly not true when there's zero evidence and you haven't been convicted of everything. If he gets convicted of over crime, I'm gonna be on your side if it's a serious crime and deep platform. He's been convicted of zero crimes. And in this country, we have a tradition of innocent or proven guilty. And that standard has not been applied to entertain. I have been deep platform. I've been deep platform from Twitch. And I've been deep platform from Twitter as well. And also it's not based on my opinion. He literally admitted it on video. It's not my opinion. He admitted that he literally, he had to get the okay from Mafia to start his casino. He'd not admit that he's like joining the Mafia or something like that. I think that's a boohoo scenario of like, oh boohoo, he had to contribute money to the people who literally traffic and rape children and beat them so that they can beg for money. So do you think like anyone who like gives a broad should be deep platform? I think we got all of the closing thoughts in, right? Just to jump into the questions. Want to say, Tree, did you have any last ones? No. Okay, this one coming in from, do want to remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description, not only here at YouTube, but on the podcast, you can find all of our modern day debate debates on the podcast as well, available at, for example, Spotify, Apple podcast, you name it. We put our guests there as well. So in other words, wokes, Britney's, trees, and playing with fire's links are in the description box of the podcast too. You've already heard a good hour and a half at least. Now you have got basically a taste of them. You can try out their channels to hear more. This one coming in from Matasuki says, they can't imagine having friends they disagree with. That speaks volumes about cancel culture types. Woke, is this true? Nonsense, cause it's not about disagreement to me. As I said, there are certain things that I think are immoral to say. That's that easy. I can give you context. I also have a German citizenship. I grew up there and like straight up Nazi shit is just, that I couldn't be a friend with a Nazi now. I'll admit that. And not with the communists either. Well, I think lying is immoral, but I don't think so much we do platform if they get caught on the lie. There's a lot of things that you and I think are immoral. We have our own values. A lot of that probably overlap. The severity depends. You're right. Lying, no, but like the point of like, I don't know, imagine something like some extremists, like it not even a Nazi, but some anarchists or whatever would say, go do this to these people or. Directly inciting violence. Yeah, that's different. To me, it doesn't have to necessarily be absolutely direct, though, like you can just go into that general direction where it's like these people is OK to target these.