 The first topic is the filibuster. Should it be kept? Should it not? Throw it up to the room and press the people, and you may stay until next round. Absolutely not. Absolutely not. The filibuster should not. The filibuster. The filibuster should not. The filibuster. OK. OK. I'm going until you. No. I'm the filibuster. Wonderful. OK. OK. Brian, I cannot filibuster you anyway. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm just still. I'm always out filibuster. OK. I'm feeling ruling. OK. So even though it's about the filibuster, let's try to hear each other again. One person at a time, please. So I think the filibuster should absolutely end. It's been held back our democracy before it was only used only occasionally for certain moments, oftentimes against anti-lynching laws. But now it's being used all the time, just any time that a one party wants to stop another party from making any progress in this country. They use the filibuster, right? To this point where people think, they think that to pass laws within this country, it meets 60 votes in a cent. That is not the case as not the case in 51, right? But it's been used so often. Now the news media doesn't even bother correcting themselves here, right? So no, it's been an anchor on our democracy. Get rid of it. It is much easier. If you really can't get 60 votes, and maybe the bill you're putting forward just ain't that important to people. No, no, that's not the way the Senate works. That's not the way the Senate works. I'm going to put some filibuster here. So I must say, this is the last mechanism that we have. You put the busted in frame rate, too. Jesus Christ, my guy. I know this ain't cover from the guy wearing a corn hat, right? That took like two seconds, Wolfie, that guy. Holy shit, hop gun hat. Bill only needs 10 frames per second to kick your ass, but it's all right. Oh, yeah, thank you, sir. And Prime would finally meet you in open battle, sir. It's marvelous. But I will say, the filibuster, there is no other mechanism that forces compromise between both sides of the aisle. Once that's gone, the public is having a good argument. There is nothing left. Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. That's what I was talking about. Let's talk about this. You have to let one person talk at a time, OK? Yes, I will. Bill, please, sir. Once you get there, folks, all you will have is the slimmest margin political sacred cows get pushed through and pushed through those sacred cows. They shall, folks. We're talking about things like, well, it could affect the right on gun control now, but what happens when the shoe's on the other foot? What are you going to do when you make that trap for yourself? Thank you. This is a problem of our democracy. It keeps us from actually having these discussions that we need, right? One person takes up all the time, right? Puts a roll block in the way of an actual legislation that they're going to do when the shoe's on the other foot. That's what we're trying to do. Why are we trying to put it in the shoe? That's what we're trying to do. Why are we trying to put it in the shoe? This is a topic that I do care about and know about. So here's the case. We don't have to have an either or with no filibuster or a full filibuster. We can go back to the talking filibuster, which is when people talked until they couldn't anymore and then we had the votes. I don't mind people having a chance to air their oppositions to a bill. That's fine. And there should be some power within the minority in terms of having their voice. But 40 senators should not be able to stop what the country wants to do. That is completely ridiculous. However, it is easier procedurally to go back to talking filibuster than it would be to end it. So tactically and politically, talking filibuster is our first step. You do that, and then we can have a conversation about the rest of it. You're making an excellent point, because then filibuster would have to be elected as senator. Because I can talk now. It makes a lot of sense. So talking filibuster makes a lot of sense. If you see from Phil K.O.E.'s work right here, it's actually effective tactic. I can see that. But we have to have rules in place, even within that. Yeah, but the reality is that this, like, for instance, one senator could do a talking filibuster and not like being replaced by another and doing a whole train. That would be my opinion on that. But we'd have to limit the impact of the filibuster. Yeah, I mean, talking filibuster, what do you have to get up there and do the speaking? We've seen, we saw in Texas where a woman who was trying to stop abortion, attacks and abortion going through, did it, right? That's fine. I think that those actually, in some ways, it gets people interested in what the political event is. But to stop a bill that 75% of the people want or 80% of the people want, because 40 senators say no, that's not democracy. That's not democracy. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I said, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Stop, stop. Okay, I said, next was Sean. Sean, you're next. Sweet. The case against the filibuster that you're making is that it delays democracy, but the purpose of the Senate is so that the United States federal government is not restricted to the confines of a democracy. The entire point of it is so that small states have equal representation in one body. So if you're saying we need to get rid of the filibuster for democratic reasons, that doesn't make any sense. Also, on top of that, there are plenty of procedural things in our constitution that require a greater than majority vote. You need a two-thirds majority to ratify treaties, two-thirds majority to declare war. All of this is because our government is specifically designed not to be a democracy. It's specifically designed not to be subject to the winds of the majority. So the filibuster, the legislative filibuster, you're like, oh, well, this amount of percentage of people want a certain bill, well, that's not what the Senate is designed for. It's specifically designed to address that. That's why there's no- But on the other side of that, growing up in the Senate- I'm just saying rule. What's that? There's many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many. I'll say it again. Come on. I want to ask the point. I have one sentence left. Your reasons for getting rid of the Senate filibuster are more of a justification of getting rid of the Senate than the procedural thing that makes the Senate function. Let's get rid of the Senate. I would agree. But no, the problem is like, no, you're absolutely correct, Juan. You're absolutely correct when you say that we have things within our government that are designed for a larger than a simple majority. You're absolutely correct, right? But filibuster wasn't one of those things, right? That was added in later. And then beyond that, of course- Yeah, right. And I'm glad that you brought that up because the reality is the reason why there was a break-out is because that that was right inherent- We got it. We got it. We got it. We got it. We got it. The tyranny of the minority, that's exactly what's happening here. Right, no interest for a point. The tyranny of the minority. So I understand that. The problem is it's taken over to the point where, to do simple business, it's the simple business of the country, so we cannot get done, right? It happened under Obama, Trump, and now it's going to happen under Biden. I actually like to get something done in this country. Go ahead, CTV. Well, then start understanding civics and start there, right? You're right. To begin with, the filibuster wasn't supposed to be what it has become today, but the reason why is because a lot of this federalization is centralization of fucking power and our system was never designed to do that from the fucking start. So then when you start passing legislation at the federal level, and Christy, your numbers are wrong to begin with. You say 75 to 80 percent, but that would already- I'm talking about any hypothetical- Yeah, you say 75 to 80 percent, but the reality is that 60 percent- Like gun control. 60 votes is defeated. That's 60 fucking percent, right? So 60 percent is all it's needed. Not 75 or 80, right? So then- But we're talking about very popular bills that are being held up by a really small minority. Exactly. Say, what if about the 80, he would have more than 60? What do you not understand about the motion? Well, you don't understand what happens when people are stronger. Is that an anti-government? Well, yes. Okay. That's fine work. It's inherent to the same as it was before. It's because of the inherent- Referee interference. ... more rural and war areas are overrepresented. Denim says, but we're in the lead. Now we're going to go over to Jake and then Denims. I was- I had my hand up before her. I'm way faster at handing. So it's interesting to me that you'd be like, ah, the tyranny of the majority, ah, considering how you guys like to repress minority votes in general, which is the reason that filibustering is even a problem because we have an entire system. Look at Georgia recently. Georgia flips blue. You guys freak out. And instead of just like, get this, maybe just being appealing to a bunch of people, a bunch of people, maybe being more popular, having good opinions. Instead, you just try to like weasel your fucking way like little tiny, snakey slugs and try to get more or not more votes. Fewer, fewer black votes, let's be real. Fewer minority votes in general. If you were, hey, don't fucking wolf pack your head at me, boy. If you were for, if you were for, if you were for, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not saying, if you were for, if you were for, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you, if you were interested in having any sort of actual reasonable system in general, you would allow everybody, because of course you are the party of freedom, to let everybody vote in the easiest possible way with, with, with shade, with water. No, you fucking don't, you don't want everybody to vote. You get a fucking idea. You can't let them have water in line. You gotta make sure that they, integrity and elections is important. Stop, okay. We're doing it over the denims. We have one minute left in the round, go denims. Okay, first of all, I got a couple of points. First of all, we're failing to recognize that a majority in the Senate is not equivalent to a majority of the American population. The majority of the American population is for example, in favor of legalizing weed. We can barely get a couple of senators who are like, yeah, I agree. So the majority in the general population has nothing to do with the majority in the Senate. Second of all, it's so funny that conservatives are always complaining about how the government can never get anything done, but they're always in favor of shit that helps the government not get anything done, like filibustering. I yielded my time. And that's where a lot of these issues should have been kept at state levels, because there's been a push ever since the introduction of the 14th Amendment into the Congress. You think we should have kept slavery at the state level? Is why the question is turned to the way that it is, right? Just a comment. I mean, I understand in history. I think we have a good time. We have a good time. We have a great time. That's the framework change of the Congress. They have a good time. That's why the 14th Amendment not only introduced the people in the federalization, but it also introduced the terrible handling of the people in the federalization. And then we put the man in the middle of the day. One, even though it's done. Round over. Stop, OK. I mean, that's it. You can't conclude. Give me a second. So that round was fast, wasn't it? That was the 10-second round. The rest will be 20 from now on. This one was the weed out the week, OK? The week among you who can't deal with this, OK? So there is a poll in chat. Everybody can go take this, post it in their own communities, post it wherever, and see who can win this, OK? Well, honestly, I got to say, my neighbor is already paying back on the floors because I'm shouting so loud. So y'all can vote for me. It's like going on 2.30 in the morning here. Can you post that again? Yeah, it's in the chat. Yeah, I'll post it again. I accidentally closed your chat. So you're throwing yourself over the top rope in a little. Wow. You know what, Christy, I respect it. I respect it, Christy. I respect it. I can't be real. It was a pleasure meeting you. So it's voting who to keep, correct? Right? Yes, who to keep. Which is obviously Phil K.O.E. Come on. Yeah, Phil's amazing. I like Phil a lot. So I'm going to say you. Oh, thank you. Thank you. You're a good guy. And in the interim, if I may, there was something I couldn't get in at the beginning. But folks, I think I need to say it here. Since we are at a Royal Rumble, are you ready, folks? We are here at the Dylan Burns Hippy Dippy Podcast. This is the spacing of the show. If we're already. Is that even an intro? It looks like the poles broken, by the way. Yeah. Let's get ready to rumble. The poles broken? Yeah, it looks like the poles broken. OK, OK, OK. OK, don't worry. OK, I'll have all my mods fixed that. Doesn't matter, because Christy has thrown herself over the top rope. My neighbor, Christy. Hey, I'm happy to have you on Christy. Veteran, I'm at the visible hour. Yeah, it'd be great. But yeah, Christy, you have a nice safe, Christy. Thanks, coming on. Good to see you. Oh, didn't even get to do the don't didn't even get to do the ending. Hunter Avalon has entered. I'm going to ask them to turn their camera on. But the next round, which is going to be 20 minutes, is on the idea of big tech censorship. The idea that big tech is either censoring conservatives, liberals, et cetera. This topic will be going on for 40 minutes. So don't worry if you didn't get to speak on the last topic. That won't be the same going forward. Just need to weed out the week at the beginning. OK, Hunter, if you can get your camera on. I'm looking on it. I apologize. No problem. But you all may begin. You have about 20 minutes. What's the subject again? Big tech censorship. OK, yeah. Big tech at first was very well loved within the general society, general our general community, especially among liberals. We used to love the possibility that big tech could provide us. And still, technology can do so many things that connected us in so many different ways. But the problem is the consolidation. That's a real problem. Because there are so many companies, there's a plethora of companies that you can choose from. Then the fact that you were censored on any individual platform would have an impact. But YouTube is the big king when it comes to video. Twitch is the big king when it comes to streaming, specifically. And if you're censored on these individual platforms on Facebook and whatever, just by a few, a handful of individuals can decide they want you gone and you're gone. That's it. You're done. And from the left, like me, you realize these companies aren't really actually progressive. I mean, they'll make the signals, right? They'll do like the black squares for Black Lives Matter or something like that. But beyond that, when you actually see the practices, they fail every single time. So I say that to handle big tech censorship, one of the best ways we could actually do is maybe either break them up or encourage more entrants into the market. Wonderful. Next, we're going to go to actual Jay. Yeah. I like how usually the right likes to whine about this. And they're like, ah, we're getting banned because I can't say insensitive things about Asian people or I can't make gay jokes about Carlos Mazza or something. They're like, ah, we can't do it. But really, you're bitching about capitalism and you don't even realize it. You've allowed these people to run rampant and have control over all these things. And then when it happens to you, do you know what I hear from right wing people? We should start a public square, a public government funded Twitter. You guys are such fucking hypocrites all the time. Are you absolutely serious right now? Well, this one already is publicly funded with the bandwidth that it consumes that's all taxpayers subsidized. We basically do like... Oh, OK. Then I guess we're going to make Bitcoin public, bro. It's a completely free market. We're going by bandwidth. We're going by bandwidth. And even go through a single day's worth of business without massive amounts of taxpayer-funded taxpayer subsidized bandwidth. Those weren't worth of any sense. Those were just things that you said aloud. OK, no, that's actually true. Go look it up, folks. The bandwidth that these tech companies use, it's all taxpayers subsidized. So for them to call themselves free market is more than a little bit. OK, so then are you for or against? Wait, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no. Are you for or against free food for everybody? That is your tax dollars that came in at the beginning. Are you, do you agree that we should... Do you agree, Phil? Hey, just yelling like Alex Jones isn't going to do anything. I'm going to give you. OK, OK, you are clear. Let's not yell to get a point over. Yeah, that's just the way we want to have fun here. Right, well, you know, somebody would do that. It's a personality, though. Hey, the best way to deal with the truth will be... What was I going to say? Come back. Say that we end up with a line here. So Phil, what are you trying to say, right? And you can correct me if I'm wrong. But what I think you're trying to say is that these platforms are going to be treated like utilities, right? Or maybe they're going to become public forms, not simply private platforms. And then... It's going to be like MCI dropping the call, because they don't want to come in. MCI... OK, come on. That's really old. I didn't date myself a little bit there. Yeah, it's a little bit there. But yeah, so is that what you're trying to say? Is that a set of trainees as a public, sorry, a private platforms that can decide their own role and how they treat censorship? And said the public platforms in the First Amendment should count and that we should not be silenced. Is that what you're trying to say? That's where I'm starting to get at, because it was people who had these awful opinions that are being damned off the internet. Their tax dollars helped build the internet, too. Now, strangely enough, Poland actually introduced a very good law. I want you to hear this out. But I actually like it just because it's so clean. I know actual Jake. When you see yourself on the photo, they're like, God, I'm wearing corn. I'm so silly. I would laugh, too. You want my bank account? When? Please. This is a this is a this is a lucrative corn for some reason. They fucking love it. It was a great choice. OK, can we do the conversation? And then more. Yeah, guys, why don't. OK, OK, OK. He's talking about Poland. OK, let's stop. Let's stop. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm not sure if he can. Anymore, there's a guy in this conversation. OK, give me a second. Let's just be clear. Going forward, when I'm speaking, everybody else is supposed to shut down because my job is to moderate. Now Hunter just entered. So I'm going to throw it over to Hunter for a second so he can give his take on the view. Can you see my camera on everybody? I don't see it. It's not on. No, it is not. Are you using? Yes, I'm so confused. How are people? You cannot see your camera is probably being used by another. Yeah, censorship, obviously. That there you go. So actual Jake, you were talking about your. Yeah, I did. Hand raised. I'll throw it back over to you once you get your camera fixed. Actual Jake. Oh, OK. Well, he talked about subsidies. And if you pay a lot of lots of taxes or something, you it's now public or something, which is weird because I know right wingers don't want felons to be able to vote because they do pay taxes as well. I think they should. But beyond that, the specific thing you said was that was very interesting and also kind of dumb if you want to maintain, you know, your right wing status. We're in a corn hat. Got it. Yes, it is dumb. And I can go ahead. It's weird. How don't you know what this was all? I realize I'm sexy, but don't be distracted. It was raining there. Anyway, so I'm going to you have to you have to calm down. We'll see. So come on, four guy. OK, so as you. You're the running. OK, so as you as you as you said, subsidies, it's very interesting you say that. So do you also believe that because like food, for instance, is incredibly subsidized by the US markets so that we make sure that that food prices stay low for the general populate populace? Do you believe that food should be freely given to anyone that needs it and hunger should be eradicated in the United States just because we we heavily subsidize the food market? I would agree. I'm right. I would love for that to be the case. I've actually had like it is a tragedy that there's so many hungry people. I've actually volunteered at a soup kitchen before just because it is tragic that we have a state that, you know, when you can make so much food, there should not be people that are hungry. And so, yes, I do. I do donate to those types of goods. I feel I've ceased a charitable giving for the time being for different reasons and I'll get into that later. But yes, I do agree that if you can at all help people that are hungry, you absolutely should. I'm a farmer by profession, actually. And yes, I was my grandpappy. God bless him. God bless him. All to the earth, folks. Finally, I don't know what the hell is wrong with that. Welcome to the show, Hunter Avalon. Welcome. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you. Whoever I'm sorry, I was looking at my recording software, so I didn't actually see who said that. That was that was still OK. So Sean was raising their hand before. So I want to get to the Sean and then Hunter Hunter just got in the air. Yeah, I mean, it's pretty weird for us to start a debate on tech censorship without defining our terms. It's like if you're talking about whether or not the issue with big tech is that they're suppressing certain ideological viewpoints. I think that's not arguable. If you look at their justifications for banning certain people and you can compare those justifications to how they treat other people in similar situations, and they're not equivalent. But whether or not this is a First Amendment violation is completely like that's that's one category of argument. The issue that I have with big tech is right now they are operating under unlimited liability protection based on the concept that they cannot regulate the content on their platform, which is why they asked for that carbote in Section 230. However, they are regulating content on their platform. They're saying that they do have the ability to do this now. So should we be providing them with an unfair advantage over, let's say, the New York Times, who's responsible for the content that they publish compared to big tech? Like the Huffington Post draws in a lot of people, bloggers, this is how their old model used to work. And they all used to contribute to their platform. But the Huffington Post, since it was a media outlet, was responsible for anything libelist or slanderless that they published. But big tech is not responsible in the same way, even though they clearly curate, they clearly play favorites, they clearly hire fact checkers to label certain content, except they're like, oh, we do all this, but we shouldn't be held responsible for any of the things like any other company who acts in similar manners. That's the issue I have with big tech censorship. So are you asking for more censorship than the? No, no, I'm asking for what like there's delineations in the conversation. Like actual Jake goes off on like, oh, you don't believe in freedom and blah, blah, blah. It's not that I don't believe private companies should be able to do whatever they want. It's that I believe in equal application of the law and certain companies acting in similar ways to big tech do not have the liability protections that they have. I didn't say you weren't for free. I said you claim to be the party of freedom. And then when it comes to it, you fail. So effectively the same thing. So am I able to cut in here now? Because basically, no. Yes. Because basically everything without a difference. Yeah. Just everything here that Slippery Sean just said is just completely wrong and also based on like huge presuppositions. It's really, really embarrassing. Basically, I mean, where do we want to start? First of all, you say there's clear evidence that this is happening, blah, blah, blah. No, there's not actually if you look at the data and you look at the studies that there's the countless different research that has been done on this subject, you will see that it's there's actually an overwhelming consensus that conservative content thrives on virtually every social media platform. Now, am I saying conservatives are never banned on social media? Absolutely not. Conservatives. Donald Trump was censored on election night, dude. Like, I'm sorry. Like it's one way. He was inciting violence. That's why he was censored. Election night? No. He said he didn't think he lost. I would like to hear him just go on up. Yeah, well, chill, buddy. I know you got the alcohol there. Maybe it should take a little break on that. Um, listen, 21, sir, it must be sift. Listen, you don't knock it back. OK, that's right. Gotcha. But yeah, also with Section 230, there's a big misunderstanding here with the platform versus publisher talk. Publishers verify every single thing that they publish. The New York Times verifies. They check everything that goes out. And then they say, yes, I verify that. Or I approve of that. It can now be published. That constitutes a publisher. Platforms are allowed to platform just that. They're allowed to platform speech. And I'm actually, I know, obviously, it sounds a little naïve there. I'm sorry. But I'm reading here from Kato Institute, which kind of gives a much better, like, under explanation on Section 230. Section 230 does not state that the act of moderating content makes an interactive computer service. A publisher, Section 230 merely states that an interactive computer service is not the publisher of most third party content and is free to moderate content. So no, them using Section 230 protections to moderate their platform is completely within their legal rights. And time and time again, this has been voted on. Even Kavanaugh in 2018 said that the act of platforming speech does not make that platform an agent of the state. It is not then held to freedom of speech standards, necessarily. So is there a conversation we had about big tech having way too much power right now? 100%. Absolutely. Is there something we need to talk about about corporate power and everything else? Absolutely. But this idea that conservatives are being censored is just not borne out in any data at all. But they really want to slur. Are you not aware of actually, I was just going to say, hold on, hold on. Are you not aware of that? How are you going to say something like that when it's Stephen Crowder or the man? Hold on. Wait. Wait. Wait. Hold on. Wait. Wait. What? I can't I say it. They don't talk. We want to die tonight. Wait. Wait. Hold on. For the reality. OK. I was very clear that when I talk, nobody else talks. So, OK, who wants to talk? Me. What? What answer did you say? I'm going to throw it over to Dennis because it doesn't have a time to talk yet. Then it'll be CTV. Stephen Crowder was banned or temporarily suspended or whatever because he's been spreading COVID misinformation. He has a video on global warming where he points out this one area where the ice sheets are actually expanding. Meanwhile, we're losing fucking tons everywhere else. His entire channel is concerned, trolling about things that don't matter, making racist jokes, dressing up to pretend to be trans and work out at a gym or something. Where no one gives a shit. Where literally everyone at the gym is like. OK. OK. Whatever you want, buddy. Whatever. Sure. Just can you stop dropping the weights so loudly? That's all we're asking. You can lift whatever you want. I don't care. Like literally like peak fucking garbage. But he was banned because of his pure misinformation. That's why he was banned. Maybe if conservatives could stop lying or getting things wrong all the time, they wouldn't be banned off of platform. I would simply be correct. Exactly. I would simply be easy. That's right. Here's a little bit of a hyperbolic thing that nobody's getting fucking banned, right? And then we had this clear example. We had this clear example. Nobody. We had this clear example. That's a CTV saying. Stephen Crowder. You know what? Can I just say really quickly? Yeah. You know what? CTV say, then you can go straight to Hunter. Okay. We still have a good amount of time left. CTV than Hunter. Yeah. So like, geez, Hunter, put down the fucking energy. You want to fucking say something to feel, right? Take a pill or your own fucking medicine. So we'll start from there. Right. Now. Stephen Crowder was banned. There you go. Shut your fucking mouth when an adult is speaking, young man. Right. Let's start there because you already told by the fucking model. Apparently now I have to fucking tell you. The reason why Stephen Crowder was fucking banned had everything to do with what he said specifically in his video, right? Which was that he went to addresses that were listed on voter rolls and showed him that these addresses didn't fucking line up with the fucking voter rolls. That's why he was banned off the platform because he's been doing that same content that Dennis has been talking about for his whole fucking career. Right. So that's the case. Why wasn't it done back in the fucking day when he was doing change my mind shows how much you fucking know about his content anyway. Right. Let me ask the audience. Hunter. Yes. Wait, wait, wait. I said it was. I just I just want to point out. I know this is kind of an ad-hom attack and I will address what you said. But as soon as I saw that there was a guy in here named critically thinking veteran, I thought to myself, I guarantee you this guy is not going to have any critical thinking at all. Three red. Literally. It's just instantly. I'm right. Okay. Maybe. Let me know when you plan on starting. Wait, let me respond here. Okay. Wait, what? I'm sorry. Oh. Oh, soldier. You're. You're. That's okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I do see a lot of things. Other than an example, I don't know that. I do see people saying, you know, well, it's all right. If you want to look at an overwhelmed, like at statistical analysis, you'll see that there is no systemic conservative bias. There's no big tech bias. That's out to get conservatives. That's what we're arguing about here. I'm not. Again, I'm not saying no conservative has ever been banned or been mistreated by big tech. You know what I mean, wait, hold on. Sean has yet had to be able to speak. That is true. Okay. Back to about the hunter. You can finish. Okay. All I was going to say is I understand that some conservatives haven't always been treated fairly by Big Tech. We can dispute the details of what happened with Steven Crowder if he violated TOS by spreading election misinformation and whatnot. But the truth of the matter is overwhelming statistics and multiple different analyses have shown that there is no ideological bias with Google search results, with YouTube, and that conservatives dominate Facebook and Twitter. So that's kind of my argument there that there's no systemic bias here. It's the exact opposite. And we've seen the YouTube algorithm, for instance, assisting with the alt-right pipeline. Conservatives have done a good job working these algorithms, so there are multiple connections between them so that it will naturally funnel you if you leave autoplay on to one video after another video after another video within their network. It pulls you in. I've heard people talk about this. They're on some random video and then they leave autoplay on and then hours later, they're watching fucking Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro. It's YouTube and other companies have shown that they're free. Because conservatives cry so much, they cry and be whine endlessly, right? And so anytime one of them does get... So who's the person that best is to decide where you're at, who's that person? That's a totally different conversation, Phil. That's what we're talking about here. Okay, okay, okay. All right, I'm done. Okay, okay, okay. Actual Jake Venshan. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, who's to decide the companies that determine the TOS? Pretty easy not to slur. Oh, that's great. So you want them to decide for you what's fit for you to read? On their platform? I heard it. You heard it here first. You heard it here. Actual Jake wants people to decide for you what's fit for you to read. Okay, we have a minute and 30 seconds. Hey, buddy. Hey, buddy. Let's brain force calm down. There needs to be a situation where you shut the fuck up and let me talk. Wait, okay. Let's get... Let's let... This is what you feel about, right? Actual Jake Venshan. Dumb shit right now. So, yes. And you start up in a corn suit, you're talking about dumb shit. I believe I make you so insecure. Okay. Imagine not being able to be glorious like this, you fucking child. Okay. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? I can't believe it. There's no reason I should be less cringe than you on screen. There's no reason. I'm a corn cob. But yet you persist. It's incredible. I respect it. Moving onto the point. Moving onto the point. Actual point. Yeah. Well, I got interrupted four times. So, the actual point is five times. The actual point is if you want it public, that's fine. You can do that. Then the terms of service would be the Constitution. Fine with that. But then it's a big government thing. You guys can quibble about that. That's totally fine. But as far as like worrying about what Stephen Crowder does and who's getting bandaged, don't break terms of service on these places that already exist. It's very easy not to say the N-word and not to be wrong about global warming. If not an opinion, you're not making opinions. You're just lying because it makes you money on the internet. You fool. Okay. Okay. Quickly. We're going to have Sean go and then I have the results. Sean, go quickly. Okay. Well, talking about how conservatives grow faster online isn't refuting censorship of conservatives on social media. That's the reason for the censorship. That's why mainstream outlets are calling for greater crackdowns on what they call conspiracy theories on all these platforms. A perfect example of a policy that has a left-leaning bias would be Twitter's misgendering policy that is fully in line with one side of the political spectrum's view on gender and against the conservative view on gender. Can you say the same thing? Wait, you're just wrong. Okay, okay, okay. Is anybody else here named Sean? Am I unaware of that? Sean, continue. Sorry. Yeah. So there are policies built in. A perfect example of this again is something I saw yesterday. You can get banned for COVID misinformation. There is a story that broke yesterday that is complete and utter misinformation about Ron DeSantis undercounting COVID deaths. It was picked up by all these online lefties as Deaf Santas, another case of that. But if you read the actual article, the CDC person who covers these statistics related to excess deaths says clearly and unambiguously there is nothing at odds with Florida's death statistics. Yet you can push that, but if you question deaths related to COVID, which is a real thing that certain areas measure COVID deaths by, you can get banned off of these platforms. So it seems like all the new terms of service changes that are enforced retroactively seem to cut, in general, not in all cases, the same exact way. Okay. So I'm going to say quickly, we have the results. And the person who got the least amount of votes to keep was Phil Cahoui. He has been knocked out of the ring, thrown out of the ring. Dacidly faction, he broke his neck. He has permanently been destroyed from competition. He's going to need some long-term recovery. Yeah, he got the edge treatment. See you later, everybody. I'm sorry, Phil. Hey, folks, I'm Phil Cahoui at Cahoui Nation on YouTube and Twitch. It was a pleasure seeing all of you and debating with every last one of you people. Be sure to like, share, subscribe. And chair shot. Okay. Next, we just got Tyler Buttman in here. We're going to start the clock again. We're going to continue the conversation on Big Tech censorship. You may respond to what Sean said, continue and welcome Tyler. Thank you. So, so was Tyler next? I'm sorry. No, okay. I'll keep going. The guy was next. So, oh, I'm sorry. There's someone else. I didn't mean to talk over them, but I'll go anyway. So Sean. Like, I'm not really sorry, but I find it interesting that you would bring up the fact that companies don't let you like misgender people. Like, I mean, like, like, don't let you harass because that's what it is. It's harassment of transgender individuals, right? They simply call them by, well, you don't want to use their pronouns, right? You could call them by their name, right? That's a option that conservatives have, right? But you count this, you count this as what censorship. I don't understand why you would bring this up. Go ahead. I'm saying this is something clear in policy. Conservatives believe that you are the gender that you are born into, right? I think it's rude. I would call somebody by their name if they had like a goofy pronoun that I'm not interested in. But this is a policy that favors one side of the political spectrum and is weaponized against people who have a genuine You could literally say the same thing about not saying the N word. You could literally say the same thing. Like you could say, like it's biased towards the alt-right that you can't say the N word on Twitter. I mean, But you can't say the N word on Twitter in certain contexts. Well, what you're complaining and you can probably misgender someone. So why can't I do it? No, I mean, honestly, Jake, I think that's a bit of a of a like reduction, reductionist point. But that's his response. But you know, what do you expect from him? Take the Denims. No, no, I didn't bring it up. But you're like, I just want to say it. You're trying to know, but this is the, this is the thing, right? Like, like, well, no, but you can use the N word in some circumstances. Let's be real here. This idea that conservatives are all just getting banned because they say the N word or whatever is really reductionist and not. Absolutely. Of course. What Sean said is really clarifies it a little bit better is that conservatives are much more bigoted. We got that one with the misgendering thing. And conservatives are more likely to spread COVID misinformation. We got that one also. There's actually enough. There was a different study done. I think it was done by either Stanford or Yale. It was one of those ones. And they found that Donald Trump was one of the biggest, like, spreaders of COVID misinformation on Twitter. So people point to Donald Trump, for example, getting fact checked is like conservative bias. But then it's like Donald Trump at the same time is spreading more COVID misinformation. And really quick, one more thing if I could just add, I find this really ironic every time we talk about these conservative censorship topics because conservatives are so quick to believe this systemic bias towards conservatives exists because they're so desperate to be the little like bitch baby snowflakes. But then you turn around and talk about systemic racism, which is like a real documented thing with scores of data. And they're like, I don't know. I saw one black guy that succeeded one time. It's like, it's all based on anecdotes. And it's really critical. Actually, yes. Yes, you can say the N word, but you can't say it in all the fun ways. They want to say it, right? It's beyond the N word discussion. It's beyond the N word discussion. Really, the idea is that you that I mean, the N word is like, obviously, like that has assorted past. And we've all had this communal discussion forever. Don't fucking say it. That's easy. Done. As far as the other shit, right? Like the entire like the COVID misinformation, like all of your bullshit that you get banned for is literally just anti-science, num, num skull shit. Like, oh, I'm anti trans sciences against you. Oh, I'm anti COVID sciences against you. Global warming sciences against you. It's all this shit all the time. I thought facts didn't give a shit about your feelings, guys. What the fuck is all this feels shit? I feel like I should be able to misgender it. Shut up. Be not be a kind person. Have actual political beliefs. Like anti woke counterculture bullshit where you just fucking virtue signal to your tiny little conservative base and go, hey, Wolfpack, if you give me 10 subs, I'm going to say the N word. And I don't know if you actually do that. I don't mean to cast that on you. Hold on. Now I got to take a line. Hold on. Now I got to take a line. Yeah, CTV has to defend himself. Defend yourself. Yeah. Yeah. So the reality, of course you have it, right? You don't know what quality when you see it. I mean, that's obvious from the start looking at what you're wearing, right? Because that's clearly like a Walmart thing. Is that it? Is that it? So going on from there. You want me to put another one on? Right. So going on from there, I had to take a line from my man, Chase Mitchell, right? Because clearly all the fuck anybody else is doing here is like this straw man symposium, right? We got straw men over here and we got straw men over here, right? So let's attack straw men that are not even in the fucking room. So that other people, right? They might be aligned with some type of like similar ideology just goes, well, hell, that don't fucking talk about me. So what the fuck are you wanting anybody else in the room to engage with? So what do you want to say? What the fuck are you all doing right now? I was going to make the exact point Jake make right before you made it. I'm sorry. Conservatives are just anti-science. You just want to complain about how climate change isn't real and the science doesn't agree with you. You want to complain about how COVID isn't real and the science doesn't agree with you. You want to complain about how mass don't work. The science doesn't agree. It's got that about Lil Nas two seconds ago. It's fucking insane. It's free speeches. Fuck. Okay. And then the biggest, the biggest problem though is I'm sorry. Your ideas about gender that you learned from fifth grade are not comprehensive. I don't know how to explain this. If you just look at anything about intersex people and realize how many of these people exist, like you, you have no leg to stand on. Like I don't understand. I can, I can sort of, sort of understand how you can get a little bit pissy when you see neo pronouns and you're like, no, this is a step too far. But like when it comes to people who are trans and they're just asking for she, her, they, them, I just don't understand. I just don't get it. So what don't you get transgender people? I don't get why it bothers you. Wait, I want to get there. Tyler. What don't you get? Why does it bother you? Yeah. What does what bother me? Why does any of that shit bother you in terms of pronouns? What we just talked about. You were here. I'm not sure. Does that bother you, Tyler? I'm not sure. Somebody uses what does somebody wants me to use the pronouns that they want me to use. Yeah. If I don't believe that it, that it identifies. Okay. I don't believe your name is Tyler. Okay. Your name. Your name is Jared for no reason. Cause I feel away. What? I didn't have pronouns. Hold on. These are some bad arguments, guys. I'm sorry. So, so yeah. So if somebody wants me to use a pronoun. So say that someone is born. Or somebody identifies as a transgender female. That means you're born as a male, right? So somebody identifies as a transgender female. I don't, they're not a female to me. So I'm not going to identify them as such. Wait, why not? Now hold on. Now that does not mean that I am going to quote unquote misgender them. I will go by whatever the fuck their name is. If you, if you change your name from Tom to Tracy, then go ahead. I will go ahead and identify as you as Tracy. And I'll talk about that. And I'll try to stay away from gender specific pronouns. But I'm not going to sacrifice what I believe to be true just because you want me to do it. If you told me, if you told me, hold on, hold on. If you told me that your feelings will get fucking hurt. If I don't tell you that the sky is fucking red. I'm not going to tell you that the sky is fucking red. Your feelings just get hurt. You can't distinguish between sex and gender. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. So Denim's right now is again assuming that I don't believe that there's a difference between sex and gender. And I do see that's the problem that you have. That's a problem that actual Jcast since I've been on here seeing all you people on this show, all you have done is raise my hand. Sorry. Sorry. We're not generalizing. Instead of attacking your argument and asking me, you're just over generalizing. Okay. We need some law and order in here. Okay. I'm now a law and order moderator. Okay. Okay, I'm going to stand on the moderators line. We're going to throw it over to Denims first. Then since you're all raised in your hand, Denims actual Jake crime, but try to not do it super long since all of you are going to get the talk. And you can always respond so much. Okay, Jared, I want to tell you something. This is not an overgeneralization, okay? You literally said verbatim, that's not your gender. Why is that, Jared? Who are you talking to, Karen? No, I'm talking to you, that's what I feel your name is. You, I'm not, there are no generalizations being made. You literally- All you've done is overgeneralize. Okay, if you let me finish, I can explain it to you so you can understand it. You literally said, I am not, that's not that person's gender. So clearly, if you can't- I've never said that. Let me finish, let's, okay, okay, okay. You can go back and check. You said that that was that person's gender and you can't respect that person's gender. Or that like, I will use her if they want it, but that's not what their gender is. These aren't generalizations. You said it, it goes against- Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on, hold on. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I'll give her a little first. Hold on, I'm gonna respond to what she said. Yeah, I understand. Give me a second here. So it's gonna, since it is three people on one right now, what is gonna be is Denim's, then back to, I'm about to call you Jared, Tyler, then over to actual, then back to Tyler, then the Prime, then the Tyler. It only makes sense he gets to respond to each time. Tyler, you can go. Yeah, okay, okay. So for one, I never said that I don't respond, or I'm not gonna refer to them as their gender, right? I said that if they believe that their gender is not the same as their, or I'm sorry, if they say that they want me to respond to what they say that their gender is, and if I don't believe that their gender matches, their biological sex, right? Which is clear if they say that they're trans, that it's very easy to decipher, then no, I am not gonna respond, or I'm not gonna respond to you as that. So what? That has nothing to do with gender. I never said that gender and sex are the same thing. So why is the question? First of all, pronouns are not a derivative of gender. Pronouns are a derivative of sex, not gender. Pronouns are a derivative of gender. What source back set up? Why do you believe? Every person that has a gender that you disagree with that says my pronouns are this, and then you get mad. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Yeah, but how does gender exist? Hang on, hold on, hold on, hold on. We can deduce this really easily. Just to make it clear to you, what is she a derivative of? What is the word she a derivative of? It doesn't matter. Woman, a woman. What is woman a derivative of? Woman. What is female a derivative of? It's derivative of femininity. Wait, hold on. Can I just say, even if it gets irrelevant? Can I explain this to you? Can I explain this to you? Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Three people are gonna want to go out and please. Give me a second, give me a second here. Okay, give me a second here. Three people talking at once. And I got a magic trick for all of you right now. I know this is wild, but when three people talk, you don't get three times the information. You actually get actually none of the information. So you need to have a tiny bit of order here, okay? So Tyler, did you get to say your piece? So just to clear this up for like 10, 10 seconds. Wait, wait, wait, wait. You just said you have to say your piece though. Well, you just asked me, so I just. And you said, yeah. Well, I'm sorry, then I meant no. Okay, well, okay. You got five seconds. Can you do five seconds? Okay, yeah. So she is a derivative of woman. Woman is a derivative of female. Female is biological. Has nothing to do with gender. Okay, Jake. And then we go to prime. And I see Sean was dragged back to reality. There's something I really got to respond here at that. Yeah, but other people raised the hand first. I got it like. So I didn't know was I didn't know was like a raising hand thing. Oh, you weren't here for the inch from now. You weren't watching. You just kind of walked it to the end of the entire time. So we guess somebody's not an actual fan of the hippie. I guess that's going to affect the voters. That's okay, so I will get it to you, Hunter. I promise you have enough time. I know I can get it to you by the end of it. Thank you, Jake. Prime Sean Hunter. Okay, so are you are you going to go full biological essentialism here with the anti-abortion hat? And that's the way you want to dig your grave. Or do you want to like actually have a fucking cogent thought in your head and just understand that gender is literally social. It has very little to do as far as the pronouns that it wasn't as far as the pronouns are concerned and has very little to do with sex. Sex sometimes informs how people will of course have primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Absolutely. But sometimes guess what? Maybe you don't want your big dick. Maybe you want a nice pussy. Maybe you're going to get one. That's fucking great. Have you seen any of a vagina? They look the fucking same. Who gives this shit? If someone says, hey, this is my social pronoun. This is the, these are the pronouns in a social space because it doesn't fucking matter when you're checking out their genome, what you call them behind in the fucking science book. It doesn't matter. What they want is for you socially to understand and accept the fact. What should I do? To understand, I'll tell you, to understand and accept the fact that, hey, this is who the fuck I am. And we have general understanding of one another. The reason you should care about that is because we live in a world with one another and it makes a lot more. Oh, feelings, yeah, okay. It's not feelings. No, no, it's feelings. This is fucking bad, aren't you, man? Salooners, can I respond to that real quick, Jake? You can't go for this one. Give me a second. Give me a second. It's feelings argument. It's give me a second, okay? I'm not to do this. No, I'm not to do this. There's so many people on the show and I understand everybody wants to respond to everything. But, like, Sean has a set of meaning, how long do I raise a hand 10 minutes ago? Dylan, I'm going to, I'm going to exit this. Little, Jake, Jake, I'm going to stop responding. I'm gonna, I only want to say one thing and then somebody else can talk. It has not good feelings. I think that you and I are going to be able to agree with this. So regardless if we believe the same thing on this specific point, it doesn't really matter to how I go about it. Just because I don't agree with what you label yourself as, again, I told you from the beginning, I am not going to try, I'm not going to be that asshole that goes out of my way to make you feel uncomfortable. I am going to try and call you by the name that you prefer. I think that's a healthy compromise. Who am I to say that your name is more masculine or feminine, right? If you want to go ahead and say that your name's Tracy, fine, your name is Tracy. I will go ahead and do that. And that doesn't sacrifice my own beliefs that I don't believe you to be what you are. I don't think that that's an issue. I don't know why anybody else would try and argue past that if I will call you by the name you asked me to call you. Okay, so we're going to throw it a prime because prime would probably respond to that and probably disagree with them. So I'm going to throw it a prime. So then Sean, then Hunter. So actually I'd like to reach out an hour of brands to my considered brothers here. And that I don't think you should be able to compel speech. I mean, try to wait this to the original topic or into the essential, all that stuff, right? I don't think you should compel speech. So if you are going to call someone by their name, right? Like the actual, the name that they give you, right? Like let's say it's Tracy rather than Ted or something, right? Then if you are going to, then I don't think that's like a, well, I shouldn't say what, I shouldn't decide for trans individuals whether that's rude or not. But I would say that like we shouldn't try to force people to use words they don't want to use, right? I also find it hilarious that Devin's an actual jail. Let's let Larry come on Tyler Tyler Tyler. And then started by calling me a name that it's not even my name. I just find it to be just. Okay, okay, fine. Yeah, yeah. So to reach out again, I think we shouldn't be trying to compel speech, right? We were going to respect, respecting speech. Like free speech is also involves like not saying things you don't want to say, right? Like that's part of free speech, right? So I want to say that that's fine, right? Maybe we can actually move back to the original subject because we've got, because as usual, once you have these political debates, they end up moving towards somehow, no matter what the topic is, like to the bodies of our trans brothers and sisters. So maybe we can move back to the original topic, talking about big tech censorship, right? And so I think as long as conservatives, let's say like, for instance, on YouTube aren't misgendering someone, right? Like they are using the name, the given name of a person. Then why should we care? Like why should we care? I don't think it's up to us on the left to be forcing them, to policing them in that way, right? Like as long as it's not, but like obviously misgendering, no, I'm gonna make it very clear, misgendering is harassment in my opinion. And so that should be put an end, that should be against the rules. Okay, Sean, you are next. Yeah, so like, I don't know how I've ended up in a weird like debate about transgender people. My point was that this policy at Twitter favors one side. And I think the debate that spawned from this with all the virtue signaling shows that, that people are passionate about this. My point is, is big tech is on one of these sides and their policies reflect that. Like I have no problem calling you by, like if you're trying to transition gender, I have no problem calling you by your pronoun. That's not the point. The point is, is that some conservatives, like the people on this panel, believe that she refers only to biological females. And that's what they call you. And Twitter disagrees. And that is the left-wing position to disagree with that. That was the overall point. It wasn't about whether or not, like, whether or not that's right or wrong. The point is, is that these policies cut in direction of one person or one side and against another side. That's what I was making. And as far as it being harassment, harassment is persistent and repeatedly, like you can use misgendering as a component of harassment, but on its own, like if you literally can't tell and you make your best guess, that's not harassment. Okay. That's true. I'm going to be over to Hunter. All right. Yeah, Tyler, I would really like a chance to talk to you, man, because I see your hat. I'm guessing from the hat alone, you're probably like a Trump fan too, or at least you were. And I- Then you would be guessing wrong. Oh, really? Okay. Really? Okay. Wow. Very surprising. So I was, but I used to be a conservative. So I feel like- I get the thing when you get surprised a lot. I missed who said that, but it sounds funny. That was CTV. CTV. Gotcha, gotcha. If I could just explain to you, Tyler, some of the stuff. So first of all, the pronoun thing, right? When trans people are transitioning, they usually, in most cases, most every time, they are trying to present themselves as the gender that they identify as. So they might be biologically male, sure, but their gender might differ from their biology and they might identify as a woman, not as a female. And that's what gender dysphoria is. You know, a lot of the times I think people misunderstand the argument and they think that trans people are up here literally claiming that, like, if their penis magically turns into a vagina or something, like, trans people have gender dysphoria. They are like, most trans people are painfully aware of that disconnect there. And one of the ways that they mitigate that, which is literally supported by scientific and medical consensus, is to begin transitioning sometimes socially, which means they try to present more like the gender that they identify as, which means that for the most part, they are going to look like that gender. You probably pass transgender people all the time and don't even realize it because they pass, right? And for the most part, most trans people pass. Enough so that using pronouns really comes down to a utilitarian thing more than anything else. If you were in a crowded restaurant, right? And you saw somebody across the room in a dress with long hair, what are you going to say to the waiter? Are you going to be like, sorry, I'm finishing up here. Are you going to say like, what? I guess I'll go talk to that biological man. And rounds over. That's what I was going to say after everyone started yelling at me. Round is over. I don't understand. Great, guys. I had to do it. Good job. Round's over. Appreciate it. We have the results for polling. I'll let chat vote for a few more seconds since anybody might just be listening to audio then go and vote now. That was a hell of a round, wasn't it? So proud of Hunter, by the way. Do you think you guys- Yeah, yeah, I am very proud of Hunter of saying all of those great things that was not relevant to anything that I had to say. I'm sorry. I thought you were saying the pronouns were that you were specifying. I got a question for the participant. I got an actual question for the participant. I got a question that's relevant, okay? So do you guys want to do? We have one more topic after this. Do you guys want to continue on this topic or shift to the next one? Because it seems like there's still a lot to say. What's the next topic? Yeah, next topic. Let me check. James, do you remember what was the next topic? It was, we've covered filibuster, big tech censorship. Do you remember what was next? We should stick to the trans issue. Is it cancer culture or the next topic? Gun control. I think gun control is one of the most- Was it? It was gun control and one second. I mean, I'll get it. I'll just let everybody finish. I had it on the list. One second. Do, do, do, do, do, do, do. Do, do, do, do, do, do, do. I would, I can be able to stick around probably for the cancer culture part. Oh, cancer culture. That was it. Thank you. Okay. Puncher, we're just keeping that in pocket. He wasn't going to give it to me. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you were looking for that one. Yeah, that you said cancer was already. We have the results. We have the, I've been DM'd by the, I've been DM'd by the, I've been DM'd by the, by the, by the judges. And we have the results right here on this piece of paper. I'm the guest of the three. Everybody always thinks it's down. Everybody also thinks it, man, this results really surprising, really surprising. Can you believe this result guys? It's actually super surprising, actually. So I'm just still in shock over the result here. Looks like it. Sorry, CCTV. You've been kicked out of the ring. I'll let you say you're moniker though, because you've been a great service to the show. Well, this is the hippie-dippy roundtable. You fuckers need to get a lot funnier, right? And there needs to be a lot less disingenuous attacks and some actual truth. I like, I like, I like how I like how we're just eliminating what happened to the moniker. What about the moniker? I like how we're eliminating all the conservatives. Again, elections just be more likable. Well, don't worry. We have everybody's favorite conservative coming on next. Do we? Second. Yeah, everyone's favorite conservative. He didn't howl. You know, I just, somebody know about the surprise guest. Is that my favorite conservative? Show on, head. Surprise, head over show. Nobody knew about me. I don't know who that is. Welcome to our show. Yes, we can hear you. Nice to meet you. The only person I've ever seen with an American flag and background that doesn't make me want to kill myself. In minecraft. In my back, can you look at my background? Quick, actual check. Oh, don't see it. There's a flag right there. You see it. You see it. Second person. It's so nice to meet you. She went ahead of the benefit of your work. And I want to say hi to James. I didn't get to do that. James, I love your work on YouTube. Can you get me Matt Dill Hunt's autograph? Is that a thing you can do? Is that a thing I can ask for? I can get you Matt Dill Hunt's autograph too. You're all friends and I hate it. Let's go to the next topic, which is cancel culture. Is cancel culture a real issue or is it being overhyped in this complete nonsense? I'm going to, of course, throw it first. Is she on head since you just joined? So I actually do think that cancel culture is a real thing. I think lately it's kind of being overhyped. Like, as always, conservatives are running with it, but they're calling everything cancel culture. They're calling, for example, the Dr. Seuss thing, where Dr. Seuss, the publication itself, wanted to get rid of, will stop publishing those few books and they were like, oh, this is cancel culture? Like, no, that's not cancel culture. But I do believe that cancel culture is a real thing. And I actually do believe that it's a problem. And the scariest thing that I heard recently was during a Trump speech, he briefly said during like his normal, where he's like, oh, the radical Democrats are coming and like you roll your eyes. But he had one point where he was like, they do this, they do this, and he said, they wanna get you fired from your jobs. And that, he didn't expand on that, but that kind of scared me because that is going to become a very important conversation, like in the political sphere soon. People getting fired, people getting fired from, or like being forced to resign, like from college campuses and stuff like that. And it's a real fear that like normal everyday people have, like they can't keep up with the newest terms and stuff like that, like a lingo and everything. They're scared that if they say a joke on Facebook, their boss will find out or whatever. And I feel like that's a real conversation that's gonna be happening. And I feel like the left needs to take it seriously because the right is going to run with it. And it's a real fear that normal people have. And there's a lot of examples of it actually happening, like that poor college girl that like said the N word or something like what like five years ago and they like kept it. Did you guys see that story? Yeah. They held on to that for five years. And then when she got into college, the person, this like psychotic person was just like, oh, hey here. And like she had to, you know, not get into that college anymore. Stuff like that. And there's also like the New York Times writer and like that of, yeah, yeah. And so like this is a real issue and it's gonna keep getting worse and worse. And I feel like there's a lot of people that like, oh, sweetie, it's just accountability culture. And like, no, that's not what's happened here. And I feel like the left needs to get a little smarter about it. Yeah. Denims was the first to raise their hands. I'm gonna throw it to Denims first. I wanted to make a quick distinction. When you talk about cancel culture being real, you're not talking about like giant celebrities getting canceled because realistically, these people will bounce right fucking back. Like it doesn't matter how big, okay. Not like, not like J.K. Rowling. Yeah. Or like the James Charles shit. It's like, yeah, he got canceled all right. Yeah. I think the real issue is with workers or any individuals, right? Who can't fight back. So I think I'm not sure on how you mentioned the New York Times thing. And there's lots of things the New York Times has done. But the one that comes to mind is the one woman who went to a party dress, like maybe in some sort of racially insensitive costume, right? And then it does expose about this. This is like a long time ago it happened, right? And the woman had already felt like terrible about it, right? But they decided to put this woman on blast, right? For no particular reason. And it didn't actually, she wasn't anyone like, she wasn't even a public figure, right? Yeah. Just decided to show this woman's life. Why? What did that actually accomplish, right? Now, can cancel culture be useful, right? Do a call actual abusers? I think so. I think we can use that to say that no, you cannot go through life using your money, your power, right? And have no consequences whatsoever. But even then, as Denim stated before she left, in that case, it rarely works, right? So I feel like the people with the least power end up being hurt the most, right? And the people with the most power, like the intended targets, end up being hurt the least, any which way. And even when they're not hurt, right? So you'll have, and you'll have a lot of these people, they'll be on CNN, right? Like fucking J.K. Rawling, again, for example. She is on CNN complaining that I'm being canceled while she's in an audience of millions of people, right? So again, it's the little people get hurt, the big people get to walk away. Okay, next I saw actual Jake and then Hunter. Okay. I definitely think there's a little bit where you're right and a little bit where you're wrong. Definitely there was an overcorrection because no one had been held accountable for a very long time, or at least not no one, but nobody that needed to be held accountable. And so you have a surge, and this tends to happen when a vast minority group, whatever that may be, whether it's trans, LGBT, racial minorities, whatever, or ethnic minorities, religious minorities, any of them, you will have this pushback because for a long time they were voiceless and they were not being heard at all. And so it's kind, you made your own bed when you decided not to listen to them in the first case. And sometimes that's going to happen. You're going to have these sort of social casualties along the way as we move towards something that's a better system, in which case, the better system would be where we just hold people accountable to their words at the time and we call it out. This is what the whole anti-racist movement is that I know a lot of right-wingers don't like to hear because they get upset about it for some reason. But really what anti-racism is, and any other kind of like anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, whatever it might be in your space is, hey, actively calling that out right there when it happens, not laughing and going, ha, ha, ha, I'm being socially awkward. And then letting that stew and percolate, that's the point, right? We're going to get to a point where we just go, that's not cool. Now, do I think that someone should have their life ruined because when they were 14 years old, they said the N-word on Xbox Live? No. Do I think that it's reasonable for someone that says the N-word tomorrow to get canceled? Whether or not you're a mom that sells cookies and drives her kids to soccer or not, or whatever, yeah, you kind of know now. There's been a sort of a statute of limitations. We know now, right now, you don't get to do that shit anymore. So there's a little bit of stuff where you got to be edgy in the past, but if you continue to do that in the future, I mean, you know what the terms of service are, both on all these platforms and in the country, like you just know it now. Which of the consequences be though? Which of the consequences, so let's say, It's relative to whatever happens, right? So, okay, so we had, talking about Mom and the N-word, that literally just happened. There was a woman within a grocery store, right, or something, she was talking to a clerk or whatever, right, behind the counter. She called him the N-word and she's like, well, that's what you are, you're an N-word, right? And then no one, I don't think she actually had been identified, but if we could have identified this woman, what would your prescription be for her? Well, my prescription be? Yeah, I mean, I don't have a specific social prescription for every single one of these scenarios of racism, but if she has a position, say she's a teacher or something, yeah, fucking get fired. But if you're an Amazon worker, I mean, like, is Amazon even gonna fire that person? They might, it just depends. So I mean, don't be calling people the N-words, go ahead. It should be adjusted based on like, how severe your crime is, right? Like, if you said a word, it's like, probably shouldn't say that or whatever, but like, if you like- By crime, you mean social crime? Yes. But if you like- I don't need anyone to be jailed for this shit, unless it's harassment. So Hunter, can I respond, Jake? Sure, Hunter wanted to go though. So Hunter- No, no, I'm not trying to cut anybody. If Hunter- Tyler, you can go ahead, Tyler, it's all right. Okay, Tyler. I appreciate that, man. So Jake, so when you're saying that people that are saying the N-word that are racist, are you saying only white people or do you apply that to black people as well, if they say it? I love that question. Are you calling it, are you saying it in like, because it's one of your colloquial friends or is it because, are you saying it to a song or are you calling and denigrating someone based on the color of their skin? There's obvious social differences. It's not just the word, it's how it's used in relative. We are not ants. We can understand social faux pas and understand socialization. We don't have to just go, ah, that word, blacklisted. I guess that was a, that was a... Okay, okay. No pun intended. So just to clarify then, are you saying, I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to straw many arguments, so correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that if like a white person says it in like, as like a term of endearment that it would be socially acceptable? I mean, okay. So again, if you give your white friends the N-word pass, that's fucking weird to me. And if you are a white person with the pass, don't, that's, you're strange to me. Now there's some people, there's some people, there's some people that claim like, I grew up in the neighborhood and I got friends and they gave me the pass, whatever dude. That's weird to me. If you want to do that, cool. But I mean, you know in the world that you're living, if he's saying, if he's saying, hey man, hey bro, and then they, they, they dapp up and then another person sees it in films that you're not going to get canceled for that. Obviously there was like social consent there. If you're screaming at a teller and saying, you're an N-word, that's what you are, you're an N-word. Like what the fuck are you saying? You think that was like Kendrick Lamar's song? Like what? You didn't actually answer. No, he really did. It's new one. It's not a yes or no. I basically, it's literally not a yes or no. Basically what I want to know is I want to make sure that you're just consistent with everybody. Are you saying that in the context of whatever, if you're saying as an term of endearment or if you're saying it in a quote unquote racist way against another person, do you hold that same stance no matter what the race or ethnicity is? Didn't I just say that it mattered based on the social interaction? Out loud? Like my words? I just outlined the question that I just asked you but you're not using that. Right, I said out loud that it matters based on the social interaction, right? Like if I go up to one of my friends and I'm like, hey you sexy bitch, like and that's one of my friends, they'll be like, oh, okay, cool. Yeah, you are also a sexy bitch, Mr. Corn. And then if I say, hey you sexy bitch, just some random woman who doesn't know me, we have no rapport whatsoever, what's her fucking response gonna be? Obviously that's me being a fucking weirdo, not being cool. Like yeah, if you just say one of my N-word to a random black guy who you think you might be cool with at the 7-Eleven, I don't think that's gonna fucking fly my guy. But if you are friends for lifelong with that guy and you're part of the neighborhood, you're part of this culture, like that happens from time to time but it's not like, it's pretty rare, right? And it's irrelevant, right? I don't care about the rarity, I just wanna make sure. So if in your own hypothetical when you were talking about some sexy bitch, in that hypothetical, if you went up to one of your friends, a white friend or a black friend or whatever, and you said, hey, you sexy N-word, or should you or should you not be canceled? Well, I wouldn't, so I hope you cancel me because that's not my culture. I mean like, before getting a bogged down in this, I think it's not, you know what I'm saying? It's on the N-word. There's so many other things that people get canceled. When people get, I think a bigger threat is like being canceled, like being gay, right? And putting up photos of your marriage on some social media, your boss finding out and then you're fired. I think it's like a bigger reason. This is what's actually been canceled. That's a crime, though. That would also be a crime. No, no, no, but I'm saying this is what cancel culture has also looked at. First of all, it depends on. That's discrimination. It's discrimination true, but I'm saying like, that's like- You have a wall of truth. I'm saying that is it, hold on. I'm saying, and they don't have to say that obviously. They can fire you for any fucking reason, right? And then you'll like, you can fire you because you're gay, but they'll say for another reason. So my point is that that's a bigger issue, right? Like then people are just saying these words, right? These actual people being attached for who they are, right? And by their place of employment, I think it's much bigger issue than actual, like someone says a words, a slur. Can I respond? Yeah, I just want to say when it comes to the cancel culture thing, I think it really is, there is a lot of nuance there. The N-word is an easy example to point at. I also think it matters how much consequences or negative consequences derive from like said person's racist action. So for example, if like some soccer mom is like, yeah, driving along in like her minivan, right? And like sings the N-word or even I would say actually, even if a soccer mom is being racist and like uses the N-word in a racist thing, racist context, I think that someone should be like, yo, don't talk like that or you shouldn't be saying that. But I don't think that like, there's any harm coming to black people from like Karen saying the N-word or whatever. I think that, I mean, there could be, but I think- It's rather systemic harm. But yeah. I agree, Hunter, I agree. No, you have to analyze how much harm is done here. And that's a lot of the times, that's a lot of the times what the problem is, like what we saw with this Teen Vogue situation, which is this girl made anti, or I'm sorry, Asian joke tweets was what they really were. When she was a minor in high school in 2011 and got fired from her job, now as like nearly 30 year old woman. So I think that's exactly what you were saying previously, actual Jake, right? Saying that these things like- Well, sure, sure, but what not specifically, specifically it was the- So I'll speak on that Teen Vogue thing, right? It seemed like to me that this woman, she certainly made a mistake, right? She apologized for it, like from what I understand the situation, it's not correct me if I'm wrong, that the employers had already known about this situation and they talked to her and thought like, no, this is something we can move past. And this is a woman trying to move on for life, because that's a big problem with cancer cultures that we don't have like forgiveness. Like we can't like do exactly what Hunter, as I said, like analyze situation, see like they, this person honest, is there are the anti-Asian, that's what she said previously, are there are the erasers here? Or is it the person who said something offensive at the time? Something edgy, right? Then we can understand that maybe they've moved past this, that maybe they've changed, right? So I want to give people room to grow, right? If we don't get people room to grow, then first of all, they won't admit what they've done, right, they'll never admit what they've done because once they admit what they've done, the punishment is coming their way one way or the other, right? We can understand that maybe, maybe, maybe these people can change throughout their lifetimes and then simply firing them for all, this is not necessary. Okay, I'm gonna throw it to Sean because Sean hasn't gotten to talk about this yet. Yeah, respect. So a long time ago in the galaxy far, far away, there were a bunch of losers that would write letters to like media organizations when they saw things that they didn't like to complain. And for some reason, these organizations would take these losers seriously. Now all of those losers have Twitter accounts and it's much easier for them to complain about things they see in their day to day lives. So like when we're talking about cancel culture, it's like individual cases are kind of like whatever, like you can pick one and everybody's gonna dispute it and all that. But I think it is toxic in our society that there are people on the internet who spend all day on the internet looking for people to target and then harass and get them fired from their job, et cetera, et cetera. And to a prime's point about us leaving no room for growth, I think that is 100% true because you'll take a case and I'll pick one that a lot of you will think the woman is in the wrong of like Amy Cooper in Central Park, right? And she calls the police on this guy. I think that any dog mom that gets like threatened mildly by a dude would have probably spas out in the same way. And for some reason that is like international news and we're talking about it. She's fired from her job. The bird watching guy? Yeah, she's talking about it. Didn't she call the cops on him? Yeah, yeah. She weaponized, okay. I picked a case that you guys would deliberately be against her because this is my point, right? So she called the cops on him. She like acknowledges she made the mistake. The guy specifically said like leave her alone shortly after, before they even called into arrest. He even implied that he wasn't interested in testifying against her. His original Facebook post said that he brought dog treats to like scare people who walk their dogs without a leash in that area. But the internet has not relented. The national media has not relented on this woman. So at what point do we say, okay, you look really bad in this interaction. You probably spas out because you're a dog mom and dog moms are cringe as hell. But like, can we move on as a society and let this person come and join us and get an actual job and be cool? Like where's the redemption portion of it? Are we just gonna be vicious and dog pile on this random citizen? So I think that she should have actually had some sort of punishment for what she did because in my opinion, she called in fucking execution. She knew exactly what she's fucking doing against an individual. She actually, she actually, hold on, hold on, hold on. White women who are slow and I'm not gonna let that stand. White women have been using their tears to call in violence against African Americans for centuries. This is not a new concept, right? But beyond that, beyond that, right? I'm giving some sort of punishment for whatever, for what she did. Should this be a forever punishment? No, right? I think like, can she, is there a possibility that this woman can grow up in this situation, kind of stand up what she did was wrong, become a better person at the end of it? Yes, I actually do believe that. But let's not like minimize what she did. She was calling in a motherfucking execution. She was like minimizing what she did. Absolutely crime. Non-issue, okay. Absolutely crime. Jake and Denim's. And I wanna push back on both what Sean said and doubling down on what Prime just said which is absolutely correct. And then pushing back just a little bit with Hunter, not a ton, with the harm thing? With the harm thing? Sure, one instance of saying the n-word at one black person might not seem like a bunch of harm. And in the minuscule it is, in the macro scale, this happens every day. Well, if I could just say really, hold on, hold on. It's like saying one pail of water in the tub isn't gonna overflow it. But yeah, it will if everybody else also does a pail of water. And eventually these things stack up and it leads to systemic normalized racism. This is harm. Another thing with the police, anytime you call the police on a black person for fucking anything, it is weaponizing the police just because of how that apparatus operates in the United States. And I understand there are justified cases where you probably should call the police but let it be known that it's more likely to end up per capita, not overall per capita because there are fewer black people but that's how per capita works. It's per capita more likely to end in violent altercation with the police. Whether or not that person is armed or whatever, who cares, they're supposed to be able to be armed as a second amendment. I don't know why people are worried about this, that kind of thing. It's just weird, there's a lot of harm that happens in the micro, two minority groups, whether it's black, whether it's LGBT, whatever. And it is harm just because it's a little bit of harm doesn't mean it's not harm and it absolutely exacerbates overall harm. And I know that's not really what you were saying, I just wanted to clarify. Well, no, I wasn't even saying that there's no harm. 10 seconds quick, we only have 40 seconds left so under the denims you both get 20. All I was gonna say is I'm not saying there's no harm in a white woman calling a black guy the N-word. I mean, if a white woman says the N-word and it's called on video like we've seen, I just think the consequences should fit the crime overall and I think that sometimes there needs to be some nuance there and we need to be willing to look into it. And I do think that consequences play a role. Again, though, I'm not saying that there's no consequences to a white woman deliberately calling someone again. I didn't think you said that. Well, I just wanna clarify. Denims? Yeah, I just wanted to also add on really quickly. It's a lot like how we view voting where like there's a common talking point of like, well, one vote doesn't matter. And it's like, well, if millions of people say that then it kind of does. The other things I wanted to say I'll try and be as fast as possible. A, I think we should make distinctions between children and adults. If a child does something like they said the N-word in a group chat when they were 16, I just don't care that much, okay? If you're 40 and you're calling people the N-word and you're trying to use it as a slur, I care a lot more. And I wanna make a distinction between people who did it once and repeat offenders who continuously keep getting caught doing this. Also true. Okay, so we have the votes are in and this is a first, it's a split vote between the judges on who should be voted out and the two people who are up are Prime and Tyler. So I will read out the votes. The first vote is from, the first vote is from Dennebo to vote out Tyler. The second vote is from Geek to vote out Prime. And the last one, which is a celebrity guest judge which I will reveal at the end, voted out Prime. I'm sorry, Prime. You have been voted out by the judges. Thanks so much Dylan for letting me on this. Really appreciate that. Nice to meet you, James. Like I'm actually a big fan of your work. See a lot of it. And nice to talk to all the rest of you and meet you. My name is Prime Kai. I run my own channel. Come visit me, P-R-M-E-C-A-Y-E-S. We have panels, we have discussions. We'll have an open panel right after, well, not right after this, but soon we're gonna have an open panel. So please come check us out. Thank you so much. Okay, next I'm going to... Okay, we're gonna continue the topic on this one. We're going to just keep going on cancel culture. Yeah, so you can keep going. Free to keep going. Well, now actually would probably be a good time for me to split. Cause I've been on here for about an hour now and I got to get going. Damn, you should have said that before we kicked out Prime. Oh, I didn't, I wanted to see Prime go. Wow, Hunter Applehead, you try to come on the left and you throw a black man under the gun. I didn't. I am. There's no harmful consequence. No, I'm just kidding. All right, thanks. Thanks a lot for having me on Dylan. Really appreciate it. Nice meeting you guys. Nice meeting everybody. And nice to see you, Sean. I like your bedroom in your mom's house. It's very nice. Very nice indeed. My own doesn't own a house, but it's nice to see you too. Nice to see you too, buddy. Go make your 60th video about me. It's like seven, you need to start going then. Oh, seven, that's a lot better. Okay, yeah, just, you know, I know, I know. Rivalry here, rivalry here. Damn. Yes, I mean, tell me specifically before I show up not to add home Hunter, but let him do whatever he wants because that's the only way he would agree to be on, but whatever. You mad? It's like salt in the air. We're gonna throw it over to, well, no, you guys can just go. We're trying to get the next person to join. Where's the cat guy? One thing I wanted to bring up about cancel culture, there's also like when people talk about like unionization and stuff, their boss will like find out and like that's one thing that they'll be canceled and fired over. My biggest concern with cancel culture is literally, it's basically going to turn into a workers' rights issue. It's not really right now, but it's absolutely going to turn into that. And I feel like that's a really important thing and that we need to talk about more. Well, luckily there's legislation right now to get rid of right to work. So that's pretty fucking dope. Hey, am I in here? Am I allowed to talk yet? Yeah, you've been allowed to talk. You just haven't taken advantage of it. Okay. Yeah, I got a couple of thoughts. First of all, the left, they're always talking about both sides of their mouth. It's always like cancel culture isn't real, but it's also like, hey, we have to like have forgiveness. We have to understand if people, if they don't really mean harm, we're gonna give them a chance to go through the little struggle session and repent for their sins. And then we're gonna not destroy their lives as long as they show enough, what's the word I'm looking for? As long as they show enough attrition, that's not the word, but you know what I mean? Sorrow for what they've done. So it's like there is no cancel culture or it's good, but if you are repentant enough, we're gonna not destroy your lives. And then people like Jake and the other, the guy who left already, I forgot his name, the black dude, they're both saying that there should be- Whoa, whoa, hold on. Yeah, sorry, crime or whatever his name is. They're both saying there should be punishments for these actions, but they're not telling us what the punishments would be. So Sean brought up the example of the woman who called the cops on the bird watcher and that dude said that, yeah, she should be punished in some way for doing that. I think it's really crazy to make a statement like that and not tell everybody exactly what you're thinking. How long should the struggle session be? How much it, you know, what is the punishment? What's the appropriate punishment for calling the police on somebody when you feel threatened? Okay, that is like- One quick thing, James, can you take over moderation? I desperately need to use the bathroom. Okay. Thank you. If I can make a quick comment, this is like the most insane. I actually can't believe how insane this straw man is about the left. There are literally three lefties on here right now and none of them said cancel culture isn't real. There are lefties who think cancel culture isn't real. There are a lot of lefties and people in general who think cancel culture doesn't impact rich celebrities because that's true, but cancel, everyone here so far has been saying cancel culture definitely affects people. Also the format of this panel, like everyone only has like 30 seconds or a minute to speak, like apologies that maybe some of the guests haven't had the opportunity to be like, well, I determined that the correct crime for this punishment should be precisely this. When you have the opportunity right now, why don't you tell us what the punishment should be for somebody who says niggas? Sure, sure. I mean, like the punishment for something like calling the cops on someone, I don't know, should we have like fines for that? Wrongfully calling the cops on someone? I think that that's a, that seems like a very mild. Can I just say, can I just say, Jake, if you wanna do a quick one filing a false police report. Don't break TOS, bro. It has to be false. Jake. You have to intentionally file a false police report. Like it has to be malicious. If you're incorrect and you file a police report, do we prosecute people because they're incorrect about what they thought they saw? I think not. Well, there wasn't anything that she was incorrect about what she saw. She just called the cops because she felt like someone was suspicious. Did you read his Facebook post, the Amy Cooper guy? Is that what we're talking about? He said she, he said he was gonna poison her dogs. People have to leave that part of the story out. No, but he said that he was doing exactly what she called the police on him for. And then he told them, so he told that to the police. Like that he was willing to walk towards him and to teach her a lesson about walking her dog without a leash in the park near the bird area. He wasn't, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. If any man, any woman, especially a dog mom, they're gonna get the cops called on them. Denon's or Jake? It looks like one of you wanna say something? Well, first of all, I hypocrites sliding in n-words behind everyone else's voices and probably without breaking TOS is one of the rules. Don't do that. Who cares if someone says nigger? You people are so fucking insane. They're not going to let you get side-reeled, so we have to go back. So what I say, he did it twice, bro. After Dylan, I'm not, that's fucking weird. That's actually a good pickup, Jake. I didn't even hear that. Yeah, he slid it under when you and Denon was talking to anyone in there. Anyway, as far as, yeah, it was, it was really awkward. So as far as- I think I'm like the only black guy here and it wasn't awkward for me. Yeah, but it's awkward for me. Just so you know, I'm on my way to sleep. Okay, let me be right back. He just asked us not to do that. Let me be real here. My stream will be taken down if the word is on my stream. So that's why it's not good that- That's why I said it was awkward because- Not because there's someone saying what somebody else is talking, so it can be hidden behind them talking. Like, what kind of weird shit is that? I didn't even hear it. I didn't even hear it. I didn't hear it either. Sorry, it picked up really well on my end. I don't know. It picked up really well on my, anyways. My whole chat blew up. My entire chat blew up. But anyway, as far as the cancel culture thing and to answer the guy's question that's gone now, as far as like what punitive damage ought we take towards someone who dare violate the social order? That's not really what it's about. It's like, what's the social reaction to it? That's what it is. And I'm sorry you have to deal with the rest of us. That's just literally what it is. I'm not saying there's a specific sentence to be carried out. If you're a particularly egregious person, the rest of the people that witnessed that will consider you egregious and will operate in that way. It's literally just social behavior. If you can't understand how to socialize with anybody else and you're confused why saying slurs at people or why someone in the middle of a national race debate might get a little more heat than usual for weaponizing the cops against a bird watcher, your tone deaf and dumb and you deserve it. I genuinely don't understand how you don't like understand the social cues of the situation. Now, as for should her life be ruined? Probably not. Is it ruined? Does she have a life? I don't know what she's got going on. Well, she got fired. But like again, you're going to over correct at the beginning of this because there's massive amounts of people that were in fact pretty voiceless in this conversation for years. We've had race riots for hundreds of years and only really now are people being like actually heard. The fact that you're getting center left people to be like, you know what, maybe BLM, maybe this entire thing is like, I'm actually learning about stuff and the way they're communicating is really good. Like it's going to take a little bit of social change for this to reorganize itself. But I agree that the only way this is going to manifest negatively will be workers rights. But luckily you can protect workers through legislation, which seems to be happening right now. So I mean, like as far as social stuff, I don't think you should go to prison for saying that. If you, but like, I mean, you reap what you sow. If you're an asshole, you're an asshole. You can be that, that's totally fine. Free speech, definitely. But I mean, like it's also the rest of everybody else's free speech to be like, hey, fuck you, buddy. Yeah, so I reject your framing of weaponizing the cops. Again, if you're a woman in your cornered in a park and you feel like they're going to take your dog, you'll matter the races, you're going to call the cops, especially if you're one of these cringe dog moms. Number one, number two. I have a quick question. Wait, wait, quick question. That's a quick question. Number two, you mentioned it earlier in the video like how black people are disproportionately killed only to their population, not to their crime. So I reject again your weaponization of the police nonsense and how this was a life in danger thing. They showed up, they talked to the guy. Everybody was fine. She ended up getting arrested and becoming a national news story. So like... Have you ever been to Central Park? Have you ever been to Central Park? A-A-W, have you ever been to Central Park? Yeah. That's what happened, right? Was it in Central Park? Huh? Central Park is not exactly the most secluded park in the world. This is your constant framing of this as an incident where she was cornered. Oh, I'm sorry. Just the lies? Wait, excuse me, sorry. Wait, are you asking me whether I've been to Central Park? Yes, many, many times. I live in Seattle. Where do you mean where I'm from? So you know the conditions that Central Park gets had like earlier in New York. I've lived in New York for 20-something years. I know what it's like. I used to go to New York every single year for things. I've never been, but I really love the movie, L. It's a big park, yeah, but it's like, but it's not like super secluded. It's in the middle of a city from in Central Park. You can see lots of other people in the video. Wait, there were, and I'm pretty sure that in the video, you can see other people walking around. And it doesn't, and the idea that you're going to try and use that to stretch out this idea. Like you're like, oh, there's somebody in the eye. Oh, she's been cornered. In the video, she's literally saying, oh, the police are gonna, the police are gonna side with me. We know what was happening. Don't play dumb. You always do this shit. Because somebody's always loves to do this shit. They love to walk in and play dumb. Like, oh, it was because she was a dog mom, not because she's obviously playing upon racial stereotypes in order to try and make the police side with her and potentially harm this person. His life could have been ended. This happened right in the height of record civil rights protests, which are a response to unbelievably overwhelming violence against black people. And you're going to try and tell me it's because she was an overzealous dog mom. Get the fuck out. Nobody believes you. Nobody in this audience believes you. And you don't even believe it. Okay, give us a second. We got to let, we got to let you have moral outrage, but he literally admitted to everything he says. That's not moral outrage. The only, the only morally outrageous thing here is how fucking dishonest and stupid you are and how stupid you think the audience is for thinking that you would be able to buy. Yes, I will, I will add, I will ad hum you. I believe you deserve an ad hum. When you think, when you think that you can sell a racist narrative to the audience that's all here watching, you're full of shit and you know it. And we all know it. And the audience knows it. Go read his Facebook posts. Read a statement to the police. I want to make one quick distinction. I think if this had happened at night and she was for some reason in Central Park at like 10 p.m., which I think it was supposed to be. It was during daytime. I saw the video. I could, I could understand calling the cops when there's some dude near you at night, 100%. It's, if it's daytime in Central Park, you're good. You're, you're going to be fine. It's almost certainly. No, she had an overly emotional response for sure. The idea of it, none of us, like everyone here has seen this video, almost probably every person in the audience has seen the video. You cannot successfully, unless like you're trying to just convince some people who have like a, like a goldfish memory. You're not going to convince anyone that he was, that this guy was like cornering her. You're doing exactly the same thing that always happens. You're doing the exact same thing that conservatives always do. That conservatives always do. I know you're really, really frustrated. You don't have any arguments. You just want to talk about it. Why don't you let me have a second? Give a second here. Okay. So same rule as always. Two people talk at once. You don't get double, none of the information. Okay. So I'm going to give Dimama 15 seconds. I'm going to give Sean 15 seconds. Then we're going to wrap it up. Okay. As in, move on to somebody else who wants to talk. Dimama, you got 15 seconds. Yeah, absolutely. You're doing the same thing that conservatives always do, which is they try to make out the black guy who is likely to be the victim of police brutality to be some scary monster. It is a stereotype as oldest time right out of the handbook of the KKK. And anybody who knows anything about history can see it for what it is. Okay. Sean, same mountain. Yeah. I wasn't making him out to be a scary monster. I was acknowledging that he's an agent and what he wrote himself and what he told to the police. Did she freak out 100% but dog moms are incredibly cringed. Bringing up the clan is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed for doing that time. Okay. Now I'm going to, has anybody else risen their hand? I haven't actually seen that. No. Okay. Does anybody else want to talk on this topic? No. No. Okay. Oh, sorry. Oh, did you want to say, well, Demo, if you want to say one more thing, I think it's incredibly, it's funny that you should say it would be embarrassing to bring up the clan. When it's the clan and other right-wing groups have had a massive resurgence lately. I actually think it's really important that we bring up stuff like this. The clan is a huge part of racial oppression in the history of the United States. Something that anybody with even a basic high school understanding of history would be able to recognize. I think it's preeminently relevant to how the police are weaponized against black people in America. And I know you know that. You just don't care. More people went to my college as undergraduates than there are active members of the clan. So obviously throughout history, if you want to ignore linear time and say like, oh, I can't tell the difference between the past and the future when there are millions of members, then that's fine, but today the clan is not a force. Yeah, real quick. Can you just tell me like, like how many people need to be involved in a group that does horrible racist crimes and kills people for it to be taken seriously? That was like the weakest argument I think I've ever heard. But again, I've come to expect just now from you. Now, the clan was a huge problem when there were millions of members after birth of a nation. If you want to go into history. Guess what? You want it to come back? People like you are helping to make it possible for that sort of thing. Because you play defense. That's exactly what's happening. You've diagnosed it perfectly. Thank you, I know. Okay, seems like we finished up on this topic. Might as well move on to the next one. Okay, so obviously with recent shootings, there's been a resurgence of questions about gun control in this country. Do you think that there should be a push for more gun control legislation in this country? Or should there be no more gun control legislation? Or in fact, should there be less gun control legislation? I'll just throw it up in the air. Anybody who's willing to take it by the horns. There should be no gun control. I'm gonna just say that. Okay, that's hilarious. Can we have some serious opinions here? All right. Does anyone have like a cerebellum on a talk? Do you want to attack the argument, buddy? Uh, yeah, sure, buddy. We can all do that. Well, who here is like the most anti-gun? Who's like pro strong regulation, taking away AR-15s and stuff? Start with that, maybe. I feel like we all... Sorry, we're most of us are leftists. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, sorry, dude. Nothing will get gun control faster than a bunch of LGBTQ members having guns, dude. As soon as a bunch of minority groups start having guns, you watch the Republicans. You watch them. You see pride parades with AR-15s. Guess what's gonna fucking happen? Guess what's gonna fucking happen? You're gonna be like, oh, you know what? You know what we shouldn't do? Let these dirty leftist antifa have access to weapons. You know, that's exactly what's gonna fucking happen, I bet. So go ahead, go buy all your weapons because frankly, I think you need them to protect yourself against the police at this point. So go for it. Do it. Go ahead and buy yourself an AR-15. If you are a marginalized or a member of a marginalized group, absolutely do it because the Republicans will turn fucking coat immediately and be like, we should absolutely, okay, sensible gun control on terrorist leftists, okay? And you're gonna see Foxy, Sean Hannity, he's gonna be like, well, I can own a gun, but if you have brown skin, you can't. And you know, shit like that, it's always gonna happen. They're gonna be like- Bro, all you do is over-generalize. The only thing that you've done on this entire panel is just over-generalize. Just assume things and just assume what people are gonna do. You don't actually attack an argument. Bro, you are fucking cringe, bro. You are cringe. All you do is over-generalize. Sorry, was the argument your statement that said, I don't think there should be any gun control whatsoever? So like you would be okay then. So wait, let me, I just wanna be clear. Wait, wait, wait, hold on a second. I wanna be really clear here real quick. Do you think that you should be able to take a otherwise helicopter-mounted machine gun, put that in the back of your truck and drive through town, literally melting buildings with uranium-tipped bullets that are cutting through, blowing up school children before the police are able to stop you. Oh, wait, they can't because their APCs are gonna get blown up by your giant machine gun. Like, is that the type of thing? Because when you say something- What the fuck are you talking about? You're talking about like an actual run. You're talking about- Dude, how bad of a fucking straw man is that? No one said about actually melting- You literally walked in here and said- I said zero, what is gun control? Hey buddy, what is gun control? Wait, gun control, wait. What is gun control? Because you're conflating that with just mowing down like buildings. That's not- Hold on, let me ask you this. Do you believe that you should be able, do you believe that you should be able to put a, like buy an 18-wheeler and mount a giant artillery cannon on the back if you desire? Do you believe that you should be able to do that? You should be able to have an 18-wheeler that you buy with your own money and put a giant cannon- Put a scud missile on that fucker. Maybe let's just say you don't actually level the tone. Do you think you should be able to do that? Absolutely, yeah, absolutely. That is the dumbest thing I think I've ever heard. And this is exactly why- Again, you're not actually attacking- You're not actually attacking the argument. No, no, hold on a second. Wait, you have to actually let me talk about it. You guys are shitty debaters. You can't actually attack the argument itself. So all you're saying is, oh, that's fucking stupid. Okay, well, listen- I have something important to say. Next time you want to, next time you want people to go like- You are cringe. You are cringe. I have some important things. Congratulations, you've done nothing. You want me to be able to argue about that? What people have done, all you've done is say, I don't like that. We are putting a halt to this right now because we have a minute left and we have the straw poll out there. And so if you want your person to stay, you've got to vote in the straw poll because we just had Basya join, which means Basya, you're going to watch as one of your compadres are thrown over at the top rope. Okay? Oh, holy macaroni. First of all, the audience are whereby as well, right? It's only through whereby today. Good stuff. All right, well, I'm looking forward to seeing it. Good to be here just in time. Do you think if you win tonight and get another shot at Basya, you'll win this time? We're going right back to Coconut Island, buddy. Right back to Coconut Island. Every time I talk to you, you sound like if boat shoes were a person. That's because I am if boat shoes were a person. And I fucking love you for it, okay? It's absolutely beautiful. Okay? We have 30 seconds left for voting. Go vote in the straw poll. Okay, so can demon actually address like the issue? Or is he going to say it's just that's fucking stupid? So what is he going to say? Is she or just use the name, please? For what? But no, it's all good. Oh, is that a trance verse? I just thought that was long hair. Sure, sure. I don't really care. I didn't even know she was trans. Yeah, there you go. Let's just talk about this. What you're talking about is so absurd that I don't think that most people really need to put a formal argument, but if you'd like me to. I hate to do it. I hate to do it. I hate to do it. The time is up. The time is up. We have to actually cut to it right now. Let me look at the DMs I've gotten from the judges. Saved by that. Ooh, I'm going to get in trouble for this one. Come on after. Shawn Head, I'm sorry. You've been thrown over the top rope. Okay, all right, this is fun, guys. I hope to do this again one day. Bye. Bye-bye. I'm confused how the voting works. Why? Wait, wait, wait. Okay, let me be clear. The votes are done, but then the judges look at the votes and then make their own evaluations. Based on bottom delegates. Basically they look at the hues on the bottom lower half and then they judge on top of their own judgments of it. It's like a judge. You know how boxing works? It isn't like how the audience votes at home. Like the electoral college. Judges. Super delegates. Yeah, this is like super delegates. If you're bottom half, you get put on a list and they look at them and they decide. Yes. All right, very important. I started this by drinking coffee. I got to go to the bathroom. I'll be back. Okay. You can all continue talking about gun control. So Tyler, I'm interested. You said no gun control? Yeah. Okay, I need to know. Do you support the police? Like, are you a big like blue-eyes matter guy or do you like fucking police? I do not support blue-eyes matter. Are you a libertarian then? Is that? I'm not a libertarian, no. Okay, so I need to understand what your political motivations are behind no gun control. Liberty. Okay, so you're not a libertarian, but your main thing is liberty on that? Correct. You vote? Okay. I do. Did you want me to put an argument for this? I just, I really, I really, I'm gonna take the bait this one time for the purpose of the audience, which is that if there is a huge problem with the idea of people being able to arm themselves in any way imaginable, if you like the idea of your child going out in the backyard and going and picking flowers, and then they accidentally take one step over into your neighbor's property and they step on a landmine and your child is blown limb from limb because of people like Tyler Bluntman's policies that is the world for you. You wanna follow his view of the world. If you want to have your village bombarded by the local Jeff Bezos who's decided to weaponize an army of delivery drones to drop bombs and, or machine guns over the neighbor, that's the type of world you wanna fight for. The idea that we would have a world with no gun control is absolutely absurd. It's so absurd that it might as well be like, well, yes, why don't we implement the Ministry of Magic in America? It's the same level of stupid bullshit. But I felt like I wanted to explain that. Secondly, I do support gun rights, but come on, this is ridiculous. You do not need to have people walking around with hand grenades, landmines, heavy machine guns, sniper rifles all over the street to try and preserve some sense of liberty. In fact, that would ruin any concept of liberty that we have because you can't be free to live in a world where somebody who doesn't like you can buy a 50 caliber machine gun and shoot you from a mile away. You cannot live freely in that world. Sorry. Out of curiosity, as somebody who often defends gun rights on streams like this, is your position when you say no gun control, do you just mean like don't ban assault rifles or do you mean like what basically demon mama has just said? Yeah, he said he wanted like a cannon. No, because demon didn't actually, no. So for one, so when I'm talking about no gun control, I'm talking about there can not be any type of government enforced gun control. That does not mean that I don't believe in some type of regulation, but it's not for the government to impose those things. Who would impose it? When demon is, well, who would impose it? From what? Obtaining a weapon? Who would impose regulation if not the government? What type of regulation? Any regulation, whatever regulation you're for, any regulation that you're for, who enforces that, the individual? If you're talking about who would obtain, like from obtaining a certain weapon, then that would be private business owners. I'm answering your question. No, no, no, stop, stop, stop. A private business owner whose only incentive is to gain capital is going to out of the conscious, the good conscious of their heart, decide not to give someone fucking, like landmines, bazookas, Molotov cocktails. They have fucking money to make. Why would they not do that? We see this problem with capitalism all the time. The free market doesn't adjust for itself. It tries to minimize. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. That's the thing. I'm okay with this. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. It involves only maximizing profit and maximizing capital. So hold on, so just to be clear. Do you think that capitalism is going to do something? Give us a second. Give us a second. We gotta let, we gotta let. Just to be clear. Just to be clear. You're saying that citizens shouldn't own like grenades or any type of like explosives? What is that? Is that not reasonable or not to not have explosive devices? That's completely fucking unreasonable. So hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Let him explain, let him explain. So you understand that the government owns these things, right? On what? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you understand that the government owns these things? Yeah, the government, just to be clear. Yeah, I, I, Oh, see, the government's tier needs. Okay, okay, okay. Real quick, I'm talking to Jake real quick. Give me a second. I'm trying to respond to Jake. Shut it down. I'm shutting it down. Okay, so one person talks at a time now. I'm trying to respond. I know, I know, but now I'm going to, I'm going to tell people when they can talk. That's the next five minutes. And then when order is restored, then we'll get back to the rumble. Tyler, you respond to people being concerned about the grenades. Yeah, so, so my point that I'm making here is that the only way that you could say that you could really defend that people, that citizens should not have the ability to own like explosives and higher capacity weapons or whatever military grade, whatever you want to label it as, that that would have to go against by saying that, okay, well then the government would never inflict tyranny, excuse me, tyranny upon its citizens. The government has already, the government has already bombed its citizens, right? So, so to say that they wouldn't do things like this and to say that we could, how would we attack them? How would we overthrow said government, right? If we don't have, if we don't have these weapons, it's going to make it increasingly more difficult to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Do you understand that? Okay, okay, so, so, so, you wouldn't be able to have a tyrannical government because everything would fall apart, immediately everything would fall apart. The reason you can't have grenades, I can't believe I'm explaining this to an adult human person, but I'm going to. The reason you can't have grenades is because they explode. They explode. We've had grenades before. We have had grenades before. Do you even know the history? They, listen. Actually, did you tell me the history privately owned grenades? They explode and people... Come on, Jay. Come to privacy. Massive destruction in an area. Apparently they used to be allowed. Let's hear about that. Yeah, okay, okay, okay. Grenades in the 1800s, buddy. We had warships, right? We had every single thing that the military had. In the 1800s? Yes. We also had fucking horses. It is true. That there were privately owned... One, one of the... Okay, okay, okay. So, I don't think anybody... It doesn't matter. I don't think anybody understood me. Okay, so I forgot to have something to say. Does anybody here have hearing problems of any sort? Raise your hand if you do. I have tinnitus, actually. Yeah, me, too. Okay. Sorry, sorry, I didn't mean to. Okay. But did you guys hear me? Yes. Okay, so I'm going to now choose who speaks. Jay, so we need privately owned hand grenades to deal with moderator Dillon here. You tyrant. Jesus Christ. Okay, so Tyler just said that there were hand grenades in the 1800s. So, I'm going to throw it over to whoever raises their hand and I want to speak. Okay, Dillon Mama hasn't got to speak in a while. Basiat just got here, so I do think it should go to Basiat, then Dillon Mama, then Enems. There you go. Okay. Then Jay will be last. This is a huge problem with this argument that like, oh, you need to be able to have grenades to fight back against the government. You will not stand a chance against an organized military. It will not happen. No militia will ever do that. Why? Because it will not happen. It simply is not feasible. No, no, no. Dillon strikes the state. Because they have a rainbow. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Okay, I'm now going to mute everyone except for the person talking. You will not turn your mic back on until I have told you to do so. Okay, so it's going to be Dillon Mama. Then this is directed at Tyler. So Tyler will be able to respond. Then it will go through the ringer. Is everybody like piles on? Sean, I saw you raise your hand. Don't worry, you'll get a time to talk as well. Dillon Mama, continue. Okay, so anybody who knows even, again, once again, a small drop of information about the military will know that the military's biggest strength comes from a extremely advanced, extremely expensive technology which no individual person could do. Most billionaires cannot afford that. Secondly, from training. The military is a massive state organ with incredibly, incredibly well-trained people. No militia, no matter how well-trained, will ever stand a chance against the United States military. The fact of the matter is that there is no circumstance that we can think of in which the federal government would have, first of all, have any reason to attack its own citizens. And part of the reason for that is because we have a robust democratic and check and power check system. Now, the value of owning guns, which I support, by the way, I am a pro-gun lefty, the value of owning guns comes in community, local defense. That's where it comes from. Not from this idiotic idea that you're going to be able, you and your fucking friends in your pickup truck are gonna be able to throw some grenades at a government agent. No, you are going to get owned. You will be killed by drones that can literally pick you out while you're sitting on the toilet, just trying to go to the bathroom. They will kill you and nobody will even know. And it is ridiculous to think that you can do otherwise. It is literally in the realm of fantasy land. The reason we talk about gun control and gun ownership is because there is value that comes from communal gun ownership, whether it's from being organized together to be able to defend in the case of, I don't know, a fucking local war, like two towns start fighting each other or two gangs start fighting each other or white nationalist group starts fighting a bunch of queer people or black people or whatever. That is the value of gun ownership, not this fantasy idea of you and your buddies getting in your blue lives matter painted truck and driving towards the capital where you will immediately be vaporized by technology you didn't even know existed because no one, not even billionaires can go against an organized military that is the most powerful military in the world. Just, it's ridiculous. It's hilarious and childish. Okay. Now it's going to be Tyler to respond to that. You can unmute yourself. Okay, there we go. All right, my bad. Just had to unmute myself. Okay. So, so, so this is hilarious. So, so saying that we don't stand a chance against the military because citizens don't have the weaponry needed to attack the military while I'm saying, okay, well let's give citizens and make sure that citizens do have access to this type of weaponry. But you're just like, ah, not. It's just fucking hilarious. Like, you're not actually attacking anything. You, you, you aren't actually attacking anything. You're just saying, oh, well, we cannot, we cannot outdo the government because the government has better weapons than citizens. I'm like, okay. So then citizens should have these weapons, right? You're just like, ah, well, no. And then you're talking about how many people are even in the military. You're talking about between two to four million people if the government all banded together. You're talking about inactive and active military. You're talking about police, everybody. Even going against, I mean, you have what? Here in the United States you have, what is it, like 110 million people between the ages of like 18 and like 60? Even if, even if we went against the government today with being outgunned, I would still likely put it on us to win. But I think that there would be many more casualties that are, that are, that are unnecessary. So, so yeah. So it's just fucking hilarious that you're just gonna say that we don't have the weapons needed to attack the government when I'm saying, we should have the weapons. You're just like, nah. Can I respond to that real quick? I have a real- Sadly not. The thing is, everybody's piling on a one person. So people are gonna pick, people are gonna pick it up after you. Don't worry. Bastia, you're next. You are a muted bust. You can unmute yourself. Thanks. So I admittedly, Dean and mom, I don't really understand your point about community self-defense. It just seems like a smaller version of what Tyler is discussing. I understand the idea of guns for self-defense, but like, like town and town violence, I don't get that. But maybe we can discuss it afterwards. I'll explain that anytime you'd like. The point that Tyler, though, that you're making, I guess it seems like when I think historically about, I guess, successful revolutions against tyrants, they typically have involved some factions of the existing military or the existing civil society sort of peeling off from that civil society and engaging some kind of insurrection. Whether it be, say, the Russian Revolution where some of the troops just refuse to enforce the Czar's laws or to think of a counter, a very bad example of Spanish Civil War where the military rose up against the government. Yeah, but typically, though, it's not just the government acts in unison against the people or the people acting in unison against the government. So that's one thing, I guess it doesn't really make a lot of sense. This idea that there would ever be this kind of war where the government is just against the people. But the other thing is that if you're serious about protecting freedom, then it seems like rather than thinking about some kind of deterrence with respect to weapons, you would want to be more active in participating in civil society and the democratic institutions that are on an everyday basis help prevent us from getting to a situation where the government actively tyrannizes people. So I mean, suppose, I guess what I mean here is instead of buying grenades or rocket launchers or private battleships, and it is interesting, there's a history of private battleships in this country, letters of marquee during the Revolutionary War and stuff. But instead of that, you would maybe want to go like to your, your local city commission planning board meeting and talk about why you should abolish single-family zoning, you know, make housing more affordable. So participating in government, I just finished this point, participate in democratic government rather than just kind of, I guess, withdraw and imagine that there's like, you know, imagine that, you know, if we buy enough grenades, they will never come for our freedom. Well, no, that's not the point that I'm making. That's not the point that I'm making. My big question to you would be like, why can't I do both of those things at the same time? Well, I think the thing with certain types of weapons, I guess as somebody who, you know, often argues against gun control, there's certain classes of weapons that inevitably lead to third-party harms even when properly used. Like, I guess that's the argument for why we don't have private nuclear weapons or private tanks. You know, if you fire a tank shell or- We do have, we do have private tanks. Well, why we shouldn't have privately owned tanks that have privately owned guns that privately work with private shells. I think that's also an interesting question. Because there are third-party harms there. I can fire a gun at somebody in self-defense and there's no, there's not an inevitable third-party harm, right? But if I use explosives, you know, that risk of third-party harm is very great, right? So it goes beyond just me and the person who maybe is attacking my property or attacking my person or something, right? And so there I think is a clear case for some kinds of weapons that they just, their use inevitably comes with collateral damage or is very likely to compared to say a handgun or an assault rifle, which these are deadly weapons, but they are less likely to be- Quick, quick, quick for chat. I just want to make clear. In the straw poll, you are voting, whoever wins this will be debating Vosh next Friday. So be clear that the person you're voting for, you want to see going head-to-head. Next Friday, I see a lot of people confuse exactly about what the winner will get. So next was, I think it was Denim's actual Jake then, Sean, but I think Tyler, did you want to respond to any of that? Yeah, just a couple of things there. So for one, you bring up the tank situation, which I think is a very interesting perspective. I mean, we have anywhere from a couple of hundred to up to a thousand privately owned citizens right now who have tanks. And it's not like you can't obtain shells for these tanks. You can't absolutely obtain these shells. And I mean, can you name one incident, write one incident here in the United States where someone has taken this tank and just mowed cities down or mowed blocks down? I think the only one that you'll be able to come up with is one where they didn't actually fire these guns. What instance are you going to bring up? Well, there was one where somebody stole a tank from military. Yes, but they didn't. There were zero casualties. There was also a kill-dozer. Okay, one second. I had no idea, though, that- We got to move it on because we don't have a lot of time. I'm going to have to extend this round a little bit because I want to make sure people, I don't want people to get voted off because they just didn't get a shot. So quick, I want to give it to Sean Denham's then Jake in that order. Sean? So two quick points. Like we never even got into like any reasonable like gun control, legislation discussion and all that. And I do agree with Tyler that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to fight back against the tyrannical government, but you don't need like armaments in order to do that. Like I completely disagree with the US military would crush the United States citizen. We have 300 million guns and we've already shown through our misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that an insurgent force is not easily conquerable by the United States military. And these people don't have any, like we destroyed the Iraqi military incredibly quickly, but it's the people with small arms that are organized in small groups that we cannot handle. Also on top of that, while individual billionaires might not have the sophisticated armaments in order to fight in order to fight back against the government, military contractors make up the bulk of our forces in our foreign adventure. So private force is already in some respects, not in all respects, comparable to the government. Now the private military forces work for the United States government primarily, but we're gonna find out post Iraq war, post Afghanistan war, whenever that happens, what's gonna happen to this new industry of private force that we've created. So yeah, you can fight back against the federal government with the 300 million guns that are present in the United States of America. Like we can't conquer Iraq or Afghanistan, it's been proven. So I like, I don't know what the, I don't know what the case is against that, but I'll let somebody else out of the floor. I could argue against that. It was Denim's first, right? Yeah. Yeah, it was Denim's and then actual check. Okay, I'll be fast. Okay, first I'm not gonna respond to Sean because I was already gonna respond to Tyler with some of the other stuff. For starters, I'm gonna make two separate arguments. A, the average civilian is not going to even get close to the tech that the government has. There is no amount of money that the average, the average civilian is never gonna have the amount of money that they need to buy an entire SWAT teams, entire drone strikes, like fighter jets and shit. You just don't. And then the only people who might be able to afford this is billionaires. And you know what? Maybe I don't want a bunch of billionaires owning a ton of fighter jets, just an idea. Second of all, I would like the freedom to go to the supermarket and not worry that the entire building is gonna get bombed. Can you imagine? I'm sorry, the dude who was on the news last or whatever, the dude who was at the salon, he killed eight people. Can you imagine if he had bombs and shit on him? And that was legal for him to have? Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, we already have enough people dying, okay? I want, look, there is the freedom to own things in America, which I love. I wanna be able to own as many fucking, whatever the fucks I want. But I also want the freedom to be able to go places in public and not worry that the buildings are gonna start collapsing because I don't know who has a bomb on them. Okay, next is gonna be actually, well, Tyler, you can respond to that, of course. Yeah, so for one, okay, so then I guess I would ask you, if most citizens aren't gonna be able to have the funds to obtain these weapons, then what are you crying about? What are you crying about gun control about? If you say that most people are not even gonna have access to them. Hold on, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to Denims. About A, billionaires having a fuck ton of bombs? I don't want fucking billionaires who are not necessarily the most greatest. I don't really give a shit, I don't really give a shit what you want. Oh, what does that matter? Like, you get your algorithm, you just ask who could have them. I don't really give a shit what you want. I get like, you have any data. I'll ask you this, do you have any data to back up that if billionaires had so these grenades or bombs that somehow people would be like more unsafe? Do you have like data to back this up? I'm not claiming, that's not even cool. Okay, so you're just crying. I'm saying to people who force people to pee in bottles. I'm not sure I want those people to have a fall off. Okay, so you're just crying. Okay, so you're just crying. Okay, it sounds like you're not capable of recognizing where people's positive freedoms come from. I promise you, please look it up. It's really important. Okay, yeah. Okay, thanks for the beads. When a woman says something, your response is, Karen, like what the, every time? Did you call me Jared, buddy? Yes, Jared, I did. Okay, what does Jared mean? Don't worry about it. Well, I'll explain it to you later. So as far as Sean's take on like, ah, look at the success stories of the Mujahideen and the brave soldiers of Vietnam and like their countries were fucked for years because of our military industrial complex. You think that we wouldn't, we want to live in a fucking cave, bro? Is that like what you want in urgency? Like that's the idea. Did North Vietnam win? What? No, no, no, they didn't win that one. What cost is the point, right? Yeah, but we didn't win. Listen, I'm not gonna call out the military force. Not that I want that. Actually, to bring up Vietnam, this is quite interesting. It's still my turn, though. It's still my turn. Yeah, it is still my turn. Foreign countries would help. But it's, but it's still my turn. Jake, it is your turn, yes. Thank you very much. Oh, you're gonna have to wait, okay? Your honor. So as far as that shit, like there's this like fucking, there's like this pipe dream that like, oh, we're gonna take up arms against the tyrannical government. You're not. You're gonna get fucking blown up immediately and then people will be dissuaded immediately because of drone strikes. I'm sorry, they won the arms race long ago. And as far as the 1800s grenades, have you seen those things? They look like lawn darts. They don't have shrapnel in them. They just go gunpowder. They made it like ceramic and shit. As far as like the proliferation of guns and having billionaires being able to have fucking private militaries, how can you not see how that's bad? You don't want tyranny? How about not having hundreds of tyrants on the coasts and anywhere there is a billionaire just making fucking like, like, like, I don't know. Like fucking their own little fiefdoms because they own all the weapons in the area and they've somehow locked down the local water supply. Now like, that's literally what's gonna happen. It's literally just tyranny, but you allow capitalism to provide the catalyst to create the tyranny rather than at least having some sort of government powers of separation here. Where's the proof that's gonna happen? What do you mean the proof it's gonna happen? Literally the Dark Ages. What? There's a really huge- A monopoly of violence is how the Dark Ages were incorporated. I wanna make sure that Tyler has a time to respond. I see Sean- He wasn't talking about- He was talking about Bessie. Oh, okay, it was- I should be able to respond is what I'm saying. Or Sean- No, he was talking to Sean. I'm sorry, what that? He was talking- Oh, it's okay, Sean, I'm sorry. Sorry, just seeing everybody was piling on Tyler. It's hard to know what he's not piling on Tyler. Yeah, that's why I jumped down. I went off some critical support for Tyler here. Well, my point that I wanted to make in response is that I never said Iraq and Afghanistan is ideal. My point was this is an example of a small arms force fighting against the best trained, most well-equipped military in the history of the world. Like we have not been able to conquer them. You brought up Vietnam. I don't know why- Wait, hold on, what was- I need to ask what you mean by conquering- We had fear of power against the Vietnamese as well. I need to- Like the whole point is if the government was tyrannical, could we bog down that tyrannical government in a never-ending struggle where they'll eventually give up? The United States will give up on Afghanistan. That's what's going to happen. But will they give up on them? We gotta cut it. We have already gone 10 minutes over the actual vote time. So we have to- Don't worry, you're gonna have more time to talk about this. We're just gonna kick somebody off. So you might actually not get more time to talk about this. Okay, so- Oh, you know- The president sent me their votes. Okay. Okay. Did you do? Okay. So the votes are in, and they're, again, a split vote. The first vote for somebody to be kicked is Sean. The second vote for somebody to be kicked is Denims. And the third vote for somebody to be kicked is Denims. I'm very sorry, Denims. You've been voted off by the judges. Thank you so much for having me, sir. I was happy to have you. Hey, you made it to the final six, though. True, true. All right, we'll have a good one. I'm Denims, switch.tv slash Denims. I stream at 6 a.m. PST every single day. And chair shot, done. Okay, so now we're down to the final five. Now there will be no more audience voting. Your votes now are worthless, like real democracy. Now it will be cited only by the judges, which the audience is showing their appreciation for right now in chat. They're mad. They seem very happy. They don't like that. They look very happy. They're scripting with their voice. Screw these plebes. I mean, I'm the electoral college. Anyway, pass the water to them, we don't need them. So now we will continue to talk on gun control. You may continue. Okay. Anyway, James, can you take over? I need to call somebody. It's really important. Okay. Can I offer a little support to Tyler's position here since everybody has a dog piling on him? I guess the one thing I would say is- You fucking do it. The only argument that Tyler's making that I have some sympathy for, because again, just to be clear, I think your prescription for gun control here is ridiculous. The idea that we should have none of it and that the purpose should primarily be to fight the government. Yeah, you don't- The point though, I think that's ridiculous. The way to preserve freedom is to participate in civil society actively rather than to rely on weapons. But if you, your argument though, the argument here that you could never win, I don't think that's borne out really by like real experience here. I mean, the combination of a heavily armed population plus the inevitable foreign support that would come to anybody, I suppose, trying to overthrow the American government. I mean, the chances like greater, I think, than zero obviously would be bloody and brutal and miserable, but it certainly isn't zero. And it's certainly, like again, while again, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, I think it's a little different because I don't think it's actually so cut and drive that it's just over and we're just gonna leave. People have been trying that one for a while. It ain't happened yet. But Vietnam and Iraq though, by contrast, I mean, Vietnam, we didn't win that one and Iraq mixed at best in terms of America achieving its outcomes there. So, yeah. That was pretty one-sided. So that's pretty one-sided though. Like, hold on a second. I wanna respond to this. I wanted to respond to this for a minute. So like, okay, so first of all, there's a couple of big problems with this. First of all, we can talk about Iraq all day long. The casualties on the US side were not very high and the casualties on the Iraqi side were ridiculous. Was it a smart move? No, of course not. There's a whole bunch of other reasons, but as far as the war goes, we pretty clearly won that one, unfortunately. Like, that was- What would be the fortunate outcome there? Wait, the fortunate outcome would have not been to go to war at all. That would have been- Yeah, okay, all right. In what scenario? What was the war in Iraq? In the Iraq war? Oh, yeah, absolutely. I think we can all admit that like, there were geopolitical issues that led to that not being a victory, not actually the military. We pretty much crushed the military victory. Yeah, like, I don't like the idea of us picking bad wars, but that's neither here nor there. The fact of the matter is that there's a different problem in America, which is that we're going against the government that built this country, that can easily access all utilities. We're talking about, you would have to look at not a war where the US goes against an insurgent populace, but a war in which a highly technically powerful power goes against its own people. And I don't think we have a whole lot of precedent for that. And I don't think it's going to go well, especially when we know that every single consumer-used product that we would use to like find our way around everything from Google Maps and all of this has backdoors that are literally designed specifically for the government. The government will know everything and everywhere. Their technological advantage is ridiculous. And of course, on top of all of that, you have the fact that there are problems of scale, which is no matter how big of a people's militia that you put together, you will never, ever, ever be able to run a nuclear carrier. That will not happen. The US government has like 11, if I remember correctly, it's not going to happen. Like this is, I think that I recognize that there is an argument to be made for the power of insurgent forces, but let's be real, most of those are born out of absolute desperation and the results are not good. If you go look at countries where this happened, everywhere from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the cost was so great. And the reason why it was able to even unfolded that way is because it was America saying, yeah, who cares? We can carpet bomb this place. And guess what? The countries are economically devastated. So this idea that like there would even be anything left to win at the end is ridiculous. I agree with you, Bastiat though, at the very end of the day, that we should not look to solve these problems by some inevitable war, but that we should instead participate in building a better society. And yes, while I do think that there are specific instances in which having an armed community can be very, very valuable, that's because I don't believe that there is ever going to be a situation, and I should hope so, because it would be a horrible situation if it were to happen, where the federal government is at war with citizens in the United States, because that would be a dreadful affair. I see Jay's hand is not so... What would you consider at war? Well, what I consider at war, well... Yeah, what would you classify it like just bombing sentences or what would you consider? Jay could be right after Tyler, I'll give Tyler a chance to give a quick rebuttal. And this new moderator is a freaking Chad, holy moly, I've never seen this guy before. So yeah, so Damon, what would you consider just like a bombing or what would you consider? I don't know, I think that civil wars are a lot harder to determine. I would say that prolonged sieges, executions, killings, shootings on a daily basis would probably be considered a war. But again, I think the standards for what classifies a civil war are probably pretty complicated. It's not really my area of expertise. So my thing is, is that I think our fundamental disagreement is that from what it sounds like what you've just been saying over and over again, which is a lot of words, is just that we are not gonna win. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just... I mean, I've heard that one like literally a thousand times. You're just saying that, hey, well, citizens, you're not gonna win, so what's the point, right? So my thing is that, well, no, even if, even if you're saying that, well, it's unlikely that we're gonna win, that seems to be more of a reason that, okay, well, then we need to make sure that we have this level of weaponry, right? So the government has already, government has bombed its citizens, the government goes against its citizens all the time. So to say, I know you're not saying that they wouldn't, but if they are doing those things, it makes logical sense that we would need the weapons that we need to minimize the casualties on our side when we will go over to the casualties objectively. Let me ask you this. Once again, just because Jake's been patiently waiting. So we'll give you maybe a really quick rebuttal, even mama, and then quick over to Jake. I'd like to respond, yeah. So what I'm talking about is that it is simply not going to happen that you're going to win against the US government. It will not happen. That is not going to be a winning situation. Yes, I'm saying that because it is like saying that, well, if we have a slightly bigger rifle, we'll lose, but with a bigger rifle. No, you have to prevent that from happening in the first place. We can acknowledge this, right? Like imagine if the sun was going to explode. There's no way we could stop the sun from exploding, right? You would hope that there would be a way to avoid that ever happening in the first place. The goal is that we should use the reason why we have society, why we have governments, why we organize as people is because we acknowledge the amount of ridiculous damage and pain that can come from ceaseless war. We acknowledge that war is not good. And that's why we build societies. It's called civilization. You don't run around killing each other with rocks because of whoever has the biggest rock because we realize it's not a good way to live. So what I'm saying is the answer is not hoping that you can raise enough money on your GoFundMe to fund a nuclear submarine, but instead that you could say, maybe we should avoid ever getting to the place where I would need to try and GoFundMe a nuclear submarine so I can fight back against the United States government. I want to at least give Jacob a quick one to kind of throw his hat into the ring here, Tyler. I promise we'll come right to you right now. Oh yeah, no problem, no problem. Okay, wanted to push back a little bit at Bastia and also there's just general, the general conversation I guess. The idea that like, yeah, maybe foreign countries like a China or something could see a civil unrest in the United States where the government is fighting with its people and you'd have this insurgency and then you'd have China join in and disrupt the government. That is not what right-wingers are talking about when they wanna overthrow a tyrannical government, right? They do not want someone else outside of our borders doing something within the borders. That's a foreigner and that ain't good if you're a Republican. So that's what I was saying. Even if they say they're allied forces, eventually that would become the new tyranny and then they would just go on again and say we need more guns. So the proliferation of this arms race that you can't win between a massive government and between individual people, even if there's 300 million of us, at best your argument is to escalate violence, escalate the ability to kill people on a massive scale. Also the catastrophic ramifications of having anything that has third-party interactions with it like explosives, right? Any of that involves escalates the problem beyond what it was when you just were debating regular gun control. You can for now in this country deal with it through societal change as well as through sometimes you need some forms of political violence. Sure, like a BLM riot tipping over a car, like these things happen, race riots are things. Sometimes the tension gets to the point where it breaks and it needs to happen. But not to the point where you think you can actually overthrow or have, not even overthrow, have a reasonable shot against anyone in 2021 as far as technology has gone. Yeah, maybe in the 1800s you could when ceramic bombs were things and Flint locks were normal and rifling was rare. But I mean, like as soon as that happened, it changed war forever. It made everything catastrophic. The reason we have SEAL Team 6 is because you don't have fucking musket balls firing at people anymore. You have precision weapons, you have precision strikes. You're like, you are not SEAL Team 6, bro. You're not gonna be doing that. So this is not happening. Well, what I wanna do is just to be fair cause we had heard from both demon mama and then actual Jake. And so Tyler, if you have a quick one, I know Sean's had his hand up for a while too. Okay. Yeah, so again, this is just the same argument. The argument is just, well, because we don't think that we're gonna be able to overthrow the government because they have weapons that we don't have, then we should further not have weapons that the government doesn't have. Like it's- That's not the argument. That's not the argument. It's so fucking- It's so- That is your argument. That is it. That's your argument. So hold on, so hold on. Did you not just say that it's, so do you think that we could overthrow the government right now? No, but that's not the reason- Okay, why can't we? But that's not the, so the reason- Why? Why technological differences, but that's not the argument. It's not just technological differences. It's organizational differences, it's funding differences. Right, also that, all of those things. Yes, of course. And guess what? This is what it boils down to. It boils down to, there's a trade-off. Would it be easier if we had weapons? Wait, the trade-off of the fucking argument. Well, I do wanna, let's get over to Sean cause Sean has been waiting awhile here to do this. Go ahead, Sean. I think I can explain this afterwards. There's this weird thing where you're like, oh, the Iraqis and Afghanis, they took massive casualties. It's like, yeah, I mean, good thing that the American people have a numbers advantage. Like obviously it's a brutal war. Obviously it's the last result. But like the idea of the United States has nuclear weapons, therefore they win. Sure, I mean, I guess, but like nuking your own tax base when you're a government entity is not the best case scenario for a victory. So yeah, an insurgent force is extremely problematic as is right now in the United States of America. To deny that is to deny reality. You have 150 million gun owners or some ridiculous number like that. In the U.S., you have a three million man army, like basic math, even with tactical superiority, weapons superiority. We've seen this before in Afghanistan, in Iraq. Obviously Afghanistan and Iraq didn't beat back the U.S. and win, but the U.S. did not conquer them. That's the whole point. And unlike Afghanistan or Iraq, the United States government would have to fight amongst its own tax base that fuels the government. So yeah, the idea that we mount a resistance against the federal government is absolutely ridiculous. You're not, you're probably gonna get bogged down until the government goes bankrupt. Sure, but like, yeah, of course. That's like the end point of the argument, not the actual argument though. The United States military. And this is way off the point of gun control. Right, the actual argument is not that eventually we're gonna lose a war against America, although that is true. The actual argument is if you have gun proliferation or explosive proliferation, fucking any form of increased munitions among a populace, it lowers the quality of life significantly due to increased third-party violence experience. Like it is so brain dead. That's the argument, not that eventually you're gonna have tyranny. The only reason that it would rise to that occasion is because you created a fucking arms race. I have a question for you, Jake, because I have a question for you. I have the same question for demon as well. So I have a question for both of you. Okay, so we've gone very far off of this to like because I said that I believe in zero gun control, but you didn't actually state like what level of gun control that both of you reasonable. What does that mean? Yeah, we can all we can all deliberate what reasonable means. So you don't know you disagree. No, I actually have a I actually have a detailed plan, but do we want to get bogged down in what my particular gun control has to say? And then we can if we want to, we can dig into that. So I just want to say, I guess first of all, a small point on the gun, on the plausibility of pushing back in the government. I guess I would only say that first of all, you know that these maggot people love Russia and they love Putin. So they happen to get some foreign support, I am sure for one. And the founders, I mean, they initially hated France, but then they made all kinds of deals with France. I mean, but the real issue here, I guess, is that once again, and this seems to be a real big conservative debate tactic, is that we started talking about gun control and then we immediately get sidetracked in the plausibility of basically the right wing version of the revolution, which is to say this thing that is never going to happen that is used to suppress discussion about actually improving society in some plausible possible way. And at the end of the day, if your position is that we need these weapons to fight the government, you are making arguments that are so detached from reality, detached from anything that affects people in real life that you may as well be talking, you may as well be in the same loony bin with those folks who say, look, we don't need to do anything about climate change. What we really need to do is overthrow capitalism, all right? And then we can think about climate change because there's no hope for doing it under capitalism. You're just making the same kind of nonsensical argument here. You're appealing to some a-historical, ridiculous event that's never going to happen and it's fun to talk about. I enjoy meming about it with everybody else here. But at the end of the day, if you want to have a serious discussion about gun control and your point is we need these weapons to fight the most powerful government in the world and that's how we're going to stop tyranny, it's ridiculous. And if that's the only argument you've got for it, I mean, we made a real, I think me and Jake, I don't know what Jake's position is on guns, but I think the two of us made a pretty clear argument for what reasonable might mean, which is to say a reasonable likelihood of third party harms. And when you talk about a gun with a bullet that you can point at a person and that's a conflict between two people, hey, maybe there's a really good and powerful liberty argument for that. And that's an argument I would be happy to make. On the other hand, when you're talking about explosives, all right, that destroy other people's property, that hit other people's lives, people who are not even involved in your dispute. Well, that's something that I think there's a real clear reasonable argument to say, look, in a society where we've acknowledged that we want a government, you're saying you're not a libertarian, you clearly, if you're not a libertarian, want to have some kind of government, the first and foremost purpose of the government is to be a monopoly of violence, right? Except in self-defense, we don't use violence in this society because we have a government and that is the purpose of government. And if you don't think that's the purpose of government, then you're either a libertarian in denial because you like that MAGA hat or you're inconsistent beyond what we... This isn't a MAGA hat, buddy. It's a make abortion illegal again hat. Oh, it's all the same nonsense. It's not the same. I don't support Trump. So first, so... All right, yeah. Yeah, so I've got a red-arm ban, but it's not a swastika and I don't support the NSDAP, guys. All right, it's very different. It's very different. I'm not saying... I'm not saying... Okay, I'm a part of a parody. You're just making the same assumptions that, like, leftists make. So I don't support Trump. I'm not a Republican. I don't support the Republican Party nor do I support the Democratic Party, right? So that's... Oh, he's an... He's an centrist. So I'm not a centrist. I don't understand... I'm an originalist. I'm an originalist. So... So here we go. So when you're talking about things like bombs and grenades and things like that, when you have a regulation, because I would agree that if somebody is walking around with a bomb or a grenade or something like that, it could maybe go off for whatever reason and then harm innocent people, which is why I would be okay for a regulation against that. That doesn't actually go against the Second Amendment in your right to bear arms, right? But to say that you could not own a grenade in totality would absolutely go against the Second Amendment. No, my argument is not only just to overthrow its tyrannical government while that is an important piece, and I agree with the founders on that. My central argument is that that is my right to do so. It is not your fucking concern if I want to own any weapon that I want to own. It's literally my concern. Let's go straight to the top, man. Private nuclear weapons. Yes or no? Let's go straight to the logical conclusion here. I have to declare a weapon. Yes or no? Let's go. So private nuclear weapons. You're fucking insane. Okay, wait, wait, wait. Because you don't know how to argue against it. Why are you arguing? Why are you arguing? Why are you arguing? Why are you yelling? Okay, you could be both being muted because I was talking and I've just gotten back. I had to deal with something, an aggravating situation. I'll talk about it on a different stream, but somebody's flying over to visit me and they got stopped by TSA on the halfway point and their plane's already taken off. They can debate that. So we can debate that. We can debate why TSA sucks. Wonderful. Okay, so we have talked for how long, James, I was gone. How long have this round gone on? Okay, then I think it's time for the get the judges opinion. Okay, I've gotten one vote, gotten a second vote and I've gotten a third vote. You guys curious what the votes are? Oh, yeah. Well, only corn boy, okay, well then. Well, obviously. I'm here for you, girl. The first vote to kick is for Sean. The second vote to kick is for actual Jake. The third vote to kick. Wait, was I saying something? Oh, the third vote to kick. I'm sorry, actual Jake, you have to go. Oh no, who are those judges? Those fools. Danibo and Geek, you in here, you scared? I'm kidding. Danibo and Geek, you gotta bring it to them, I'm sorry. Wait, how do you not kick Sean? He was not really good in that round. Judges, yeah, it's not my fault, you gotta blame the judges. Judges? Maybe get some, have better quality judges because I gotta say, go and blame the Geek. Go go blame the Geek, okay? I'm definitely gonna do that. Twitch.tv slash actual Jake. Twitch.tv slash actual Jake. Leftist corn politics. Chairshot, okay. Now we're down to the final four and look at this. Demonmama, Bastia, Sean and Tyler Bluntman. What do you think of this crew, Jake? James, sorry, Jake. It's quite the crew indeed. I'm very excited for this. You're very excited? Absolutely. So do you think we should continue this talk on gun control? Yeah. Can I say something to Tyler? I'm pretty dumb on this one. I don't wanna be, I don't wanna be, I don't wanna go out on, if we're gonna go out on this topic, I don't wanna go out on this topic. Look, Tyler, I didn't mean to blow up there like a private nuclear weapon, but what gets me, why that's so frustrating to me is if you believe in liberty, all right, as it seems like you do, then presumably what you're most interested in is preventing third-party harms. So to say harms to people who don't consent to those harms, right? So if you engage in violence against somebody else, you've basically consented to violence against yourself in a sense, you know? Agreed. If you engage in it. But when you're using weapons, like say nuclear weapons, what you're doing, like it's impossible to avoid that kind of harm. And that's why at a certain weapon, or at a certain point, that's why your argument just seems to be so irrational. It seems like you were clinging to consistency despite all reality. I am consistent, but let me go ahead and address what you're saying. So what is your, if I could just have five minutes with Basia out right here just so we can have kind of like a quick conversation. So Basia, what is your main concern? Or I would ask you this, at what level should we limit guns or weapons in general? Like where would you stop it? If there's a very likely third-party harm, right? I think there's a very reasonable case for limitation. And so I'd start with, and again, I go to the nuclear weapon for the point of starting, I guess to go with the principle, right? If you set off a nuclear device anywhere in the world, you have created a, not just the blast, not just the heat, right? But you have also the radiation and the fallout that affects entire continents, right? There is no way to use the nuclear weapon without causing third-party harm to somebody. So that therefore clear case of we got to ban it, you know? And then you go down from there with other types of weapons. Okay, so let me go ahead and address this real quick. So for someone, again, so I'm very second amendment, right? I'm very, very on that, right? But that does not mean that you could not have regulations that wouldn't technically violate the second amendment. So when you're talking about like a nuclear weapon, if someone were to, first of all, you'd have to have like $10 billion to even afford a real nuclear weapon anyway. But in order to have a nuclear weapon, like you said, you could have radiation and it could affect third parties. And I absolutely agree with you, which is why, if you were to be able to own a nuclear weapon under my moral framework, then you would need to have the mass amounts of land to where you'd have to have like 100 to 300 square miles. So if that nuclear weapon happened to go off, it would only affect you and your property. You couldn't just have your next-door neighbor that lives in a fucking townhome own a nuclear fucking weapon, right? Okay, there's so many problems with this. So as long as you had that, then that would be fine. Yeah, I just, I'll stop talking because I've been going for a while. I'll just respond to this and then I'll stop. And it's up to you. Okay, okay. Baciat, then we'll go to Sean. Look, right there is just an example of why this position makes no sense, all right? Even if you're saying you have to own enough land to be able to start a nuclear weapon and cause no harm to somebody else. And again, that would mean you would have to own, again, if we're talking about fallout, which would be a real harm to the people who breathe it in, you know, cancer, right? That's the entire continental United States to avoid fallout. If you watch, if you look at fallout patterns because you find nuclear weapons fascinating as I do, then yeah, fallout travels with the windstream across continents, all right? There's no avoiding that, all right? So the position there, again, I respect how, and I'm really trying to be as charitable as I can here with a position that is, as I've said, I think very defensively insane. But what you're trying to do here is you are clinging to a logical consistency despite all reality to defend, I think, a position where I don't think you need to do that. I think you just need to say, I think you just, I think you can make that argument of what is a reasonable, right? What is a reasonable risk of third-party harms? And instead of saying, I need to consider everything, including the nuclear weapon, maybe we could start a little lower and you could make your case somewhere else and concede that the nuclear weapon. Yeah, that's always gonna cause third-party harms. If you're not willing to do that, then it seems like you are just sticking to ideology because you desire consistency beyond any kind of rational real-world consideration and that just seems like nonsense. Oh, I mean, I don't even think it's that goes that far. I mean, Tyler has already walked back, like cowardly retreated from his position at the beginning and now is like, well, maybe there can be regulation. Here's the problem. Even if you want to regulate it and just say, that's not what you sounded out at the beginning when I asked if you should be able to mount it and understand it in the back. You didn't even, You're trying to reach a loud now because you've been- There shouldn't be regulation. So now you're just over-generalizing regulation. No, no, you're just a coward and you can't own up to it. No, you're not even attacking my position. I'm not your bro. You're not even strong. You're not even strawmaning me. You're just committing like non-sequiturs. You're just giving arguments that I never made. You're super triggered right now and it's really funny. I'm triggered? At the very, yes. At the very beginning. Wait a second, hold on a second. I'm triggered when I called you a buddy. Yo, calm down. Oh, I'm the snowflake buddy? You are super, super frustrated. It's actually hilarious. Yeah, you are. Right, right, right, right. Okay, buddy, go ahead. The sparkling is great. Yeah, so at the very beginning of this conversation, I very clearly asked you, you think that somebody should be able to mount a giant cannon on the back of an 18-wheeler and you said yes. Now you're like, well, actually, they can't actually do that. Well, here's the problem. I never said that. You can do that. I'm talking about his regulation of nuclear weapons. You are strawmaning the shit out of me. Do you know how to debate without using logical fallacies? You are so, okay. Do you know how to debate without using logical fallacies? Okay, okay, okay. You literally wanted to stop on the top. It was ad-hom over generalize and strawman. Shut it down. Shutting it down. Sean wanted to talk or whatever he forgot to. Yeah. I don't know what to say about the position. Tyler's position. Because you're logically fallacious. Sean, no, okay, okay, okay. You are a walking logical fallacy. That is what you should try. We're going to bring it over to Sean and then afterwards we'll bring it back. Hopefully, there'll be a little less interrupting. Sean. Tyler's position is essentially governments are instituted among men. We can only give governments rights that we already have. Therefore, nuclear weapons. I don't agree with it. I agree with Bastiat. Like, this goes up into the atmosphere. It affects generations to come when you use this weapon. Obviously, that's way too far. But to say that you can't have regulations on nuclear weapons is not the same thing as saying that you don't want regulations on guns. It was gun control that he was talking about earlier. And a nuclear weapon that we are so far removed from something using gunpowder to shoot a projectile into somebody. When we're talking about that, that this conversation has become completely pointless. Like, we're not even talking about legislation or anything like that. And it's, you know, it is what it is. It's where the panel goes naturally. But yeah, I do agree with Bastiat on that. But I understand the philosophical framework in which Tyler is operating under. If government is instituted among men, they should not be able to do things that we as individual citizens can't do. That's the idea, right? I just, if nobody else is jumping in, I, the point you just made, Sean. One second, one second. I do want to say, your mama did never get the finishing point. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Your mama finished her point. Tyler will respond. Then we'll throw the bus. Okay. Cool. Okay. So there is a number of problems. The government is always going to be able to do some things that the people cannot. That is just a fact of any government, unless you want to go like full on anarchy and talk about like a non-governmental systems, which is a whole different conversation. That will always be the case. The government will always be able to do some things. Now there is a problem with weapons that goes beyond just whether somebody can own something on their property. You see, because if you own something that can cause mass damage and we don't even need to go all the way to nukes. I can talk about something like a canister of white phosphorus gas that if even accidentally discharged could kill and horribly, torturously kill a lot of people. And if somebody got real mad, even if it wasn't the owner, they grabbed that canister, rolled it into a school. Suddenly you have a whole bunch of dead people and it's horrifying and disgusting. Now, the reason that we all know that it is possible for people to illegally acquire certain arms. But every time you make that more difficult, it becomes more and more likely that we will be able to stop someone from ever getting their hands on such weapons. This is not like some sort of wild position. It's just true. Even in countries that restrict gun ownership, it becomes harder and harder for gun crimes to be done because it becomes more and more difficult to get a gun without tripping an alarm bell. Now, I think that gun ownership is fine, largely because I think that guns can be reasonably controlled to a immediate conflict. But we can recognize that many, many types of guns such as mounted machine guns, automatic weapons, super long range sniper rifles with explosive rounds, poison gas, biological agents. These are all things that under Tyler's system that he said here, people should be able to own despite the fact that the moment you let one person own those or reality, a lot of people who would buy them because of a novelty and all kinds of stuff, you suddenly have a bunch of weapons that could do a whole lot of damage, kill a whole lot of people standing around. And the likelihood that you will ever use those weapons against some tyrannical government is so low and we're paying such a price. All it takes is one kid, you have a party over, your kids are having a party, your kid runs into the little display room where you have your canister of nerve gas and he's like, what's this daddy? Instantly party dead, all dead in the blink of an eye. And you want that type of world? That's ridiculous. This is so patently ridiculous. And you don't even need to go to nukes to get to that position. You could say this about a lot of things. Did you know it's a really common occurrence in America for toddlers to pick up guns and accidentally kill a relative as in this happens like a statistically significant amount of times. That's with guns, guns which we acknowledge don't have high risk of third party damage. If you think that it's like a fantasy that people are like having canisters of fucking nerve gas around their house or white phosphorus around their house won't lead to horrific outcomes, horrific death that you can't even imagine the agony on. You're just living in a fantasy land. But I mean, what's new? This entire conversation has been taking place in a fantasy land. Mostly of Tyler's making, let's be real. Okay. I'm going to let Bob Sacco because I didn't say Bob Sacco would go. They were just talking to me. Shouldn't I be able to respond? Okay. That's fair, Tyler. Okay. So a couple of things. So for one, bio weapons were outlawed globally in like the 70s. So there are no bio weapons. Second, when you're discussing things like phosphorus gas or bombs or anything that has some sort of kill radius outside of just like pinpointed accuracy like a gun would have than having a regulation I am fine with. Right? That's not walking it back. You don't understand the difference between going against the second amendment and literally walking back your position. Oh my God, bro, bro, bro. If there is a regulation or if you have a bomb if you walked around with a bomb right that could go off that could harm more people than just the person that you are trying to like if someone was robbing you and you had to shoot them then I am absolutely okay with having a regulation that stops walking around with bombs in public that has nothing to do with obtaining these weapons and having them on my fucking property. Now that being said if you had something like I just talked about that. Did you understand? Hold on, hold on. If you have something that is like phosphorus gas which is a chemical weapon I would have to look at what is the range what's like the kill radius of phosphorus gas and whatever that kill radius may be then you would need to have either property to where it can't exceed that. Now, if you can't have property to where you couldn't control if you couldn't have property that could contain said weapon then no, you should not be able or permitted to own it because you're going to kill other innocent people or likely to kill other innocent people. So that's fine. Control from the bottom up right now without realizing it. Can I be clear? Because people are telling me. What's that gun control? D-Mama, is bro a word you're fine with? Oh, I mean, I don't really appreciate it. I know what I know. I mean, let's be real. We know what's going on with that. But I don't know. I just don't know because some people don't know about dude and bro because they are going to find everybody. The way I tell people is that if I know you and I'm comfortable with you and you call me dude, that's fine. I don't like to be called bro because I'm not a bro and I'm certainly not this person's bro. But yeah, I know exactly. We all know what's going on there but it's all right. I'm fine about it. Just since you're asking I'll tell you what I actually feel about it. What is gun control? What is gun control? Can I just be clear though? Can we just, let's just go by everybody's names from now on. Is that cool with everybody? Sure. Demon, what is gun control? That's demon mama, but yes. Gun control is a set of regulations that the government puts on certain types of weapons which we categorize as a gun. A gun is usually a piece of an alloy that we form into a thing that can fire a piece of ammunition out of the chamber and control is when we give a government authority to make rules about how many of those you can own. And when we started this conversation you were very gung-ho about your position but there's two major problems. The first of which is that I've already, and you weren't listening, so I understand it can be a little hard to follow big ideas. But you, when you were listening, and I talked about, when I talked about, I know, hold on a second, calm down. When I talked about how weapons even stored on somebody's personal property can be very, very dangerous, like biological weapons, which apparently you don't believe exist, which is hilarious. But also chemical weapons, all kinds of, oh well, but you would be against that, wouldn't you? If the government, if the government has agreed, if the government, hold on a second. You're asking me a question. You're asking me a question. I'm not back peddling. So I'm answering your question. Bro, are you actually trying to have a discussion or are you just trying to look like an asshole? Wait a second. It was my turn. Hold on a second. It was my turn. It was my turn. He interrupted. He's got no minute. Okay, okay, okay, I've no, okay. So I can't, I can't let this go on. I actually can't because the time I went off, the time I went off 10 minutes ago, right? So I've been letting this go on. And Bostia was supposed to get a time to speak. And Bostia hasn't got a time to speak. You just gotta shove it to Bostia. I have to. I'm sorry. If I don't, then nobody's gonna have time to speak. It's hard to see the little hands, yeah, my best. Are you calling my hands little? Yeah, like Donald Trump little. Holy moly. Jeez, Louise. I just try to be as charitable as fucking possible with these insane takes. You can tell me I got fucking tiny hands. Jeez, Louise. Sad, many such cases, okay? Look, there are a couple of things that, first of all, I don't care. First of all, Sean, what you said about governments, and they shouldn't have powers that others have like that. That doesn't make sense. That's the purpose of government is to give government the monopoly on violence. Like if government couldn't have powers that otherwise people have, like government couldn't have any special powers, it would have no purpose. Like the purpose of government is to take on that monopoly of violence so that it can enforce law. And we install these governments presumably because we think they are better than the alternative. I also happen to believe that they would exist irrespective of what we want anyway, as human history seems to suggest. But either way, at least when we think about it, that's the purpose, is to establish a monopoly of violence and enforce law, not to have like no greater right than we do. So yeah, governments certainly have powers more than people. That's more than the individual. That is indeed their purpose for being. As far as weapons though, I don't understand your point, Tyler, about property and how you are tying an amount of property to a weapon. We already talked about this a little bit with nuclear weapons. It seems very arbitrary though, the way you're exercising it, particularly when we think about other weapons, like say grenades or tanks, to tie this to a certain kind of property restriction. Wait, let me finish this point and then I'll let you go, but I wanna get those all out. I don't understand how you could ever make any kind of determination as to you having enough property to therefore be able to responsibly use a weapon. It also seems like a very strange way to limit certain people from having weapons. It seems like basically an income restriction tied to a type of weapon. And if we're talking about property and income restrictions, at a certain point you might wonder whether this starts to tie down to guns. And this gets to something that I think I have perhaps said that has perhaps contributed to some of the muddy nature of this debate, which is this. I was talking about weapons with high risks of third-party harm. And while I think that's a neat way to differentiate explosives, at the end of the day, it is also quite true that guns, as they exist, have a high risk of third-party harms. And it's not even very spooky guns, really. It's not even assault rifles. Handguns are responsible for the overwhelming majority of deaths related to guns in the United States. I'm gonna source here for anybody who's curious. It's massive. It's actually very surprising. In some states, it's almost all the gun deaths are handguns. Some states is a little different, but in any event, so it really, it does kind of muddy the gun debate a little bit, but ultimately what you've said, Tyler and Sean, in terms of gun control, it just, it seems like demon mama had a point that you were, in particular, Tyler was seeking sort of backhanded property restriction form of gun control that even for a neoliberal show like me, it seems like a very strange way to limit people to certain types of weapons based on income. Okay, so let me respond to that. So I don't really, I don't really see how that is. Well, he was talking. Yeah, I know, I know. But after that, we have to go to it. I just want to be clear that any... I can see that Sean needs to talk to me. I just want to be clear. I just want to be clear. You said he again. To who? To me, Sean. To boss me out. Yeah, yeah. Demon mama earlier. No, earlier. I was listening. I was still multiple time with Chad. So I just want to be clear. I wasn't even talking about demon. No, earlier. Earlier. No, I was listening very closer. I just want to be very clear any more of that. And there's not much more I can do to keep you on, man. I'm sorry, but like... Okay, well, I'm going to be very clear with this. So for one, it is very... It is going to be increasingly difficult for me to look at somebody who I believe and I understand that they don't believe that they are a male. And for me to just immediately turn this off and say, okay, well, my brain now recognizes to refer to them as what they want to be called. Now that being said, I am not going out of my way to do this if I am doing that, which I've tried multiple times just to say demon over and over so that I stay away from gender-specific pronouns. But if something happens to slip by, then I'm sorry, like either you could deal with it or you can kick me off. I don't really give a shit. So I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. You could kick me. Yeah, I'm fine. Okay, next round. Wonderful. Can I respond to Basia very quick? Sure, yeah, next round. I was just stating the philosophical underpinnings that are related to what Tyler was saying. And to your point that government has a monopoly on force, but if you think about it philosophically, they have the right to protect property and life, which you as an individual do. So you're just granting that to the government because it's more efficient to do that. And yes, I don't know why you're doing this. Yes, you have the right to defend your life from an attacker. Yeah. You have the right to defend your property from an attacker. We institute a government because it's way more convenient to have a central authority with the monopoly on force for a civilization than to leave it to every individual to fight it out because we have different skill levels in our combat and blah, blah, blah. So that's like the philosophy that he was going with. I was just trying to express that. Yeah, I get that. In that position. I get that point kind of, I guess the thing is I would be hesitant to reduce everything to that. I suppose that's certainly at least one view of government though, that it basically, no. Yeah, that's actually a pretty good point. I wonder if I'd have to think about it for a minute, but I guess if you're saying that it still feels like there are things that government does that are unique in the sense of the way that it can enforce law. No, actually, because you could engage in self-defense of somebody else's as destiny has made the point many times, perhaps to his financial detriment, you can engage in defense of others' property and person too. So actually, yeah, okay. I see what you mean, Sean. That point makes sense. But that was like the philosophical. Yeah, I see what you're saying, that everything government does is basically defense of people or defense of property. If you work it back far enough. Okay, all right, I get that. The reason, I guess, that's hard because I'm thinking about pollution, for example, but ultimately, yeah, I suppose the alternative, we didn't have pollution laws, would be everybody who gets pollution stains on their shirt would have a moral right to attack the people admitting the pollution. So therefore, yeah, okay, that's what you meant. All right, that makes sense. I understand, I appreciate it. I do think pollution has some interesting parallels to the entire gun control debate, which I'm really glad that we can actually talk about actual gun control and not whatever that was, because I do think there's some interesting discussions to be had as far as how far you go with gun control. For example, one thing that I actually do become concerned about is, though I believe in reasonable gun control, I think there is a meaningful risk at doing things like doing mental health checks. And a lot of people, that's the first thing they think of is, oh yeah, we should have a mental health check. But keep in mind that, what, 10 years ago, less than 10 years ago, anybody who is trans would have been considered definitively mentally ill, which seems a little bad because some of the most responsible gun owners I've ever known are trans people and people who actually know about their guns and don't just sort of tote them around. It's very weird that we would have a situation like that. So I do have actual concerns about certain aspects of gun control and how they can be weaponized against marginalized people. But it's always very hard to have that conversation. But yeah, with regards, I know earlier there was a question about what I would propose for gun control rules. I think most of the restrictions that we should have is stuff like this. All weapons should be sold alongside safety equipment. So if you're buying a weapon, you have to buy safety equipment with it. And the reason being is that safety equipment, we have a lot of evidence that shows that safety equipment, like gun locks, gun safes, et cetera, are really effective at reducing accidental discharge, which is one of the ways that people die. Another thing that you can do is you can close loopholes that allow people to get them under the table. You can close loopholes on selling independent uppers and lowers, I think. I can't remember which one it is that's restricted. Only one is restricted. So what tends to happen is that people will buy from third-party sellers a whole bunch of pieces of an automatic weapon that are legal in and of themselves, but they're not allowed to buy the upper. I think it is the upper is the part that you can buy. And then they will find a way to illegally, on the download, obtain just the upper, which as it turns out is a lot easier to smuggle than an entire gun. But you can legally buy all of the other pieces, just not that one, but you don't need to tell anybody that you buy that piece. So stuff like that, putting restrictions on that would be pretty reasonable so that you could say, hey, maybe we shouldn't have lots of stuff like that. I'm confused on what you're saying about buying the pieces to assemble an automatic weapon, because if you modify a semi-automatic weapon and make it an automatic weapon, all you have to do is inform the ATF. Like you don't have to like, like that's not legal on its own. If I'm not mistaken, I think that depends on the state because there are some states that have. Wait, you're saying that you didn't turn out. States can put more restrictions on guns than, yeah. So there are, and I happen, like again, it's been a while since I've like brushed up on state by state gun legislation. I used to be really super into guns, haven't been for a few years just because of life circumstances. But there are some states that do allow you to modify weaponry. I know that like, of course, like Knob Creek, the big gun festival is like one of the famous ones where people show off their modified ones. And you do have to notify, but there are also a lot of states that ban them outright. However, one of the things that, again, this loophole that I know this from personal experience, I used to do writing in a company that did this sort of stuff, hired me. And interestingly, I conscientiously objected to keep writing for them because I thought it was very weird that they were essentially helping create a black market for modified assault weapons, or not assault weapons, automatic weapons, it's the wrong word, automatic weapons in states where those are outlawed. I don't really, I never wanted to support that. So yeah, I told my boss, no, I'm not going to write for that company. But yeah. That is quite interesting, Asha. I had heard about bump stocks. And I know that automatic weapons purchased before certain, I think 1986, there's some different rules with, just like grandfathered in, like so many other kind of old laws provide for grandfathering. But I didn't know about the modification kits, which seems like a strange and inconsistent loophole. I looked that up and it does seem to be true. So wow. You can find, there's all kinds of spun up. I guess. So I want to stop this here for a second, because we have passed the 11 hour, it's 11 PM, and I want to make it clear that now, this is the last about five minutes of the show. And you guys have, or the last three, instead of doing it the way where like, hey, you know, the judges decide, how about we do a poll, combined with judge voting, so the judges can look at what the people said. I'm bending a little bit because I saw how much people just hated private judge votes. And tell people what you would debate Vosh about. Convince them why you should debate Vosh, why you should win to go debate him. I'm going to start with Bastiat. Oh, I don't know. If you want to hear more about sucking dicks and coconuts and do socialism round too, that'd be fun. Ultimately, while I think that, you know, folks listening, you know, all means aside. You know, I totally understand wanting to, you know, get somebody new. So, you know, I totally wouldn't hold it against somebody for that. What I would say is that if you enjoyed a little bit of what we did, and that wasn't really, that wasn't my best performance. It was my favorite job I've ever done. I would like to ask him a little bit more about what he really means by socialism because the second half of the debate kind of seemed like he seemed to be, he seemed to me like kind of a social democrat rather than a socialist. I'd like to press a little bit more on what it is that separates him from that. Like where, where that socialism really comes into play and what that would look like. So I'd like to do that again a little better this time. With that being said, at the same time, you know, I totally understand wanting to see somebody new, but that's probably what I would do. I think a better version of the first one. And, you know, we could maybe do some foreign policy too. I know that's something that, that he had a big debate about recently, but I imagine that as somebody who is a little more pro-American intervention, pro-America generally, that's, you know, we probably have some, some, some bust up there. So that'd be my thought. Socialism round two and maybe talk about foreign policy too. So that's a thought. Okay. Do you wanna know? Yeah, I actually have a couple of options. The first one I would love to talk to Vosch about is veganism. I would love to have a conversation with Vosch because Vosch and I have kind of similar positions but with a couple of core differences. And I have a really interesting conversation I'd love to have with Vosch about veganism. Secondly, it's about neo pronouns. People have a whole lot of opinions about neo pronouns these days. And sometimes I've noticed that Vosch does downplay the value and the importance of respecting neo pronouns. I would love to have that conversation. And third, gun control. Because lately I've been noticing that Vosch has been a little back and forth on what his position on gun control is. And I think we could actually have a super good conversation as somebody who grew up embedded in gun culture as literally a junior NRA member when I was younger, grew up around guns, fired guns all the time for recreation, often in not very safe ways I will say when I was younger. But I know a lot about guns, been around guns a lot and I would love to be able to challenge Vosch on some of his positions on gun control. Okay, and Sean? Yeah, so I've already debated Vosch and I didn't know that was the prize I'll put in quotes for doing this. I just came on because I was invited like a couple of hours ago, like started yesterday. But I mean, if you want me to debate them on something I like my strengths are in the individual criminal cases that catch a lot of headlines. You wanna do Kyle Rittenhouse, it's not going to end well for him based on what I've seen or anything like that. If you're interested in seeing another debate between me and him for those of you who saw the first one, that's up to you. But yeah, I was just here because it was fun and I was invited. So, you know. There you go, now the big though. What's that? Paul is in chat. You guys can vote. So what did you guys think of the first ever hippie-dippy rumble? It's ever hippie-dippy rumble. I wasn't here for the first one. I actually wish I could have talked to Shu An Head because she has blocked me on Twitter.com and that makes it very hard. She has blocked me on Twitter.com and that makes it very hard for me to operate on Twitter.com for me to operate on Twitter.com because so many people retweet and like her stuff and I can't see it. So I really wish I could have got a chance to talk with Shu An Head and ask about that. But that being said, this was pretty fun. I know I missed the first half of it but I just wanna say thanks for the invite. Dean and mama, it was always good to talk with you. And Sean, I don't think we've ever talked before but I hope we can do it again sometime. And it'd be fun. And James, again, freaking Chad moderator over here. I mean, not to keep kissing ass here, but I just, I've never seen you work before. I've really enjoyed it. Again, not the first time I've had a weasley, spineless, cowardly, conservative try and do subtle, misgendery, disrespectful stuff. It's very obvious. I think they think they're being really sneaky and whatnot. I do appreciate you coming down on that. I will say that again, I've done this a million times. It happens in nearly every conversation I have with conservatives. They really, really don't like trans people these days. In fact, many conservative channels are dumping those out. So be aware of that. I do appreciate people being willing to call that out. Although for the record, I did not have any say in this person being removed. But I do think that if I'm completely honest, that type of behavior does make a toxic environment. It's pretty terrible. So, but other than that, I mean, it's been really fun. This has been one of the spiciest panels I think I've ever been on in my entire life. I mean, God, this was a hell of a ride. And I don't know, it makes me very excited for the future of the hippie-dippy rumbles. Dylan, seriously, you must have done a lot of work on this going on. I mean, you had so many big names and just a little bit. Yeah, I started working on the concept about six months ago and I started the official organizing about two months ago. Right on, congrats. Yeah, they asked me yesterday. I had fun. I enjoyed it. In hindsight, I wish I could have popped in like an hour late. I've been here the whole three hours. I'm tired. I'm cranky and I want to eat something. So there's that. But if you follow me on Twitter, though, I'm at I am Sean 90. I'll follow anybody back on the panel that I've never heard of before because it would be interesting to follow you. But you probably won't like my content because I am a more right-leaning YouTuber. So I understand that. But everybody, I try to be cordial. You know, you fight back a little bit when you feel like you're getting attacked, but like not go with the low blows as much as possible. And I enjoyed it. So that's how I felt about it. OK, let me check the results. It seems that the people have voted for Demon Mama over Basia and Sean. Now let's go see if the judges agree after looking at that data. OK, it seems. So I'm just waiting for the last person to say the vote. I thought this was a dramatic pause. Congrats on winning the poll, Demon Mama. Thank you. I appreciate that a lot. It was great arguing alongside you. OK, and the winner of the first ever hippie, dippy, roundtable, royal rumble is Demon Mama. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Thank you all so much for voting for me. I did my homework. I did my fucking exercises coming in with the demon energy. Thank you so much. And am I allowed to plug in Victor? Of course you are. Please, please join my Discord. Discord.gg forward slash demon mama. That's the best way to get up with my notifications when I'm going live and doing cool stuff, which is a lot these days. We just begin season two with our amazing backdrop. And you can also find all of my social links if you were really thrilled by my performance. You can come hang out with us at demon mama.com forward slash live. We have a giant chat there. You can usually stream on YouTube, but now I'm doing dual stream, which is super fun. And yeah, we would love to have you. We have an absolutely incredible Discord community and I stream long, powerful streams about politics and life. So thank you all very much. It was an honor competing with all of you. Wonderful. And you will be facing Vosh next Friday for the championship. I also want to take a moment to thank all of you degenerate late voters who just put me over the top after the vote stop. Thanks for that. Like many left-leaning liberal type people, you couldn't get out of bed to vote in time. So hey, thank you so much for that. Just I appreciate you all tuning in to the night show. And I appreciate you guys all sticking in for the long haul. I know this is a very, very, very long show, but I really do appreciate it, everybody. And I think everybody can agree. Congratulations demon mama on winning the first hippie dippy royal rumble. Indeed, that was quite a matchup of people. So enjoy your victory and a good look in the debate. If any of you if any of you want to ask me questions or argue with me, always do Q&A afterwards. So feel free to come by my stream if you want to. Great. And I also want to say you can find modern day debates on YouTube, spelled exactly how I said it. I'd really appreciate it if you give them a look out too, because it helped me get a lot of guests last second, like Sean, for example. Sean, anything you want to say? Yeah, find me in YouTube actual justice warrior on Twitter as at I am Sean 90, spelled the old fashioned Irish way. Thank you guys for having me on Dylan and James. Collaborative effort and all that. I really enjoyed it. OK, you all have a blessed day. Even though Sean, thank you for coming on, even if you kind of steamrolled the skeleton the whole time, never giving me a single time to talk. That was pretty, it's pretty wrong. Anyway, thank you all. I'm going to send you over to a certain somebody who is here who, I mean, you know, kind of deserves it. You all have a blessed day. Take care. Take care. Bye.