August 18, 2025 • 33 mins
A scandal is engulfing the New Yorker after right-wing activist Chris Rufo unearthed EXTREMELY racist anti-white tweets from one of its star writers. Is this a justified callout or cancel culture? I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, the left-wing network MSNBC announces a rebrand... and it's kinda terrible. Finally, a Fox News segment and a MAGA congresswoman's public crashout remind us that Republicans can be snowflakes, too.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Another day, another media scandal, this time involving anti white racism.
We're going to break down the latest media controversy, this
time involving The New Yorker and so much more on
today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone Podcast, where we
(00:22):
take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective of First, guys,
we're going to talk about this really crazy saga that
I've been watching unfold online and just kind of sipping
my tea as it spices up and gets heated, involving
a staff writer for The New Yorker, a woman who
(00:46):
is named Doreen Saint Felix, who she's in the spotlight
right now, in the crosshairs of conservative critics because she
wrote a kind of strange article about the Sydney Sweeney controversy.
Remember the Genes commercial that had woke TikTok melting down
and crying about eugenics and Nazi rhetoric and all that. Yeah,
(01:08):
we covered it extensively on the show.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
You guys are complaining about that Sydney Sweeney jeans, and
so I went and saw it, that's Nazi propaganda.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Well, she wrote an article about this titled the banal
Provocation of Sydney Sweeney's Genes. And this article kind of
waffled between whether it was really that big a deal
or not, and was very kind of flowery, typical New
Yorker style, but it did include a few bizarre lines,
like when she talked about the trashy dog whistle atmosphere
(01:41):
and the adoring legion of Sydney Sweeney fans, the most
extream of whom want to recruit her as kind of
a quote arian princess. My favorite part of the article
was one that actually went under the radar, where she says,
to be clear, many of us the n words, the queers,
the hairy, feminists, etc.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Etc.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Do not react out of a feeling of personal injury,
as if the blondness as beauty standard has terrorized us.
Whom does that standard terrorize more than white Cis women? Honestly, so,
the article was actually strange, like it wasn't even exactly
what you would expect in terms of like woke criticism,
but it had some strange takes and oddball remarks in
(02:23):
it for sure. But anyway, conservative critics really did not
like this depiction of Sidney Sweeney as in the views
of some in aryan princess, calling her like a Nazi
princess or whatever, and just the general tenor of the
article I found rather obnoxious, but totally in keeping with
the New Yorker and their kind of faux intellectual style
(02:46):
and the way that this young woman seems to present herself.
Just there's a certain ethos you've encountered it if you
went to a liberal university, if you grew up in
New England or anywhere like that of kind of the
pretentious for its own sake, liberal who kind of over
intellectual intellectualizes things for no real reason other than to
(03:07):
kind of make themselves seem smarter and more profound than
they actually are. This woman, Dareen Saint Felix, very much
falls into that category. I want to play you, guys
a quick clip of her I found on YouTube, answering
basic questions in the most like obnoxious way imaginable, or
at least the most pretentious way imaginable. Listen to this.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
How did you begin upside down? What is the shape
of your mind hexagon? How will you live now? I
will live very slowly? What are you most sure of?
I'm most sure of when I'll eat dinner. What are
the consequences of silence? More silence? What will people mourn
(03:53):
most when you're gone? My macaroni and cheese? Who should
take responsibility? You should than I should? Is history?
Speaker 5 (04:02):
Fair?
Speaker 4 (04:03):
History? Is constant?
Speaker 5 (04:05):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
I'm getting shivers because this just reminds me of some
of my family members. I'm extended family members I'm not
the most fond of. But anyway, guys, she is now
getting pretty brutally targeted by a right wing outrage mob,
but outraged for some legitimate reasons. They've essentially dug up tons.
(04:27):
It's not just a couple but like tons of very
explicit anti white racist tweets from this woman from about
twenty fifteen, when she would have been about twenty three
years old, and they're demanding that the New Yorker holds
her accountable for this, and so far they haven't. Shocker
(04:47):
plot twist. Now, I am going to read you, guys.
I'm going to do a dramatic reading of some of
these old tweets before I give my take on the
whole controversy and explain the fallout and everything else. Okay, guys,
let's read those tweets at least some of my favorites
that I selected from you, because I mean, there are despicable,
like they're really bad, but they're also funny. I'm sorry.
(05:09):
She tweeted, it's not you white people, per se, but
it's everything that protects you, so it can kill me.
It's not your face, but it is so much your face.
She just like thinks she's so profound and she's really not.
I she just tweeted, of course in twenty fifteen, it's
(05:31):
really gonna suck when we have a white president again.
What just the explicit racism is quite something. I mean,
you don't even have to play the swap the racist
game to see how bad this is. Anyway, White terrorism
is a redundant phrase. Oh oh, not all terrorism, or
(05:58):
even I would wager to say most terrorism is in
fact associated with white people. But okay, now this one,
I have no idea what the context is, but I
just find it very funny, this white squad commercial. I
am tired of your satire, your hoppy beers, your mediocre dick.
Just like leave please not her saying all white men
(06:22):
have mediocre You know what, I don't know. Does she
get dumped by a white man. That's what it's giving
to me. It's giving that she also has this like
very bizarre obsession with white people's hygiene, or in her perception,
the lack thereof. So she wrote in a tweet, white
(06:43):
people who literally started a plague because they couldn't wash
their asses need never say they taught black people hygiene.
I'm not sure that is in fact a historical, historically
correct recollection of the bubonic plague. And also, listen, human
(07:07):
hygiene in history was pretty bleak, and not just in
places with white people. It's just weird. Now this is
my favorite. Of course, white people don't bathe. It's in
their blood. Their lack of hygiene literally started the bubonic plague, lice, syphilis, etc.
(07:27):
Excuse me, not bathing is in our blood. I don't
know any white people that don't bathe. Well, I don't
really know any people that don't bathe. I know a couple,
but I actually try to associate with them as little
as possible. And it has nothing to do with race.
Just a kind of sad it's a kind of sad
and twisted way to look at the world. This, don't
(07:47):
you think, like, obviously this comes off as extremely bigoted
and hateful, but it also comes off as like a
person who's really sad and adrift and resentful and hateful
and not great. This one as well. Middle class white
people think hospitals are places to go when you're sick,
that the police are who to go to when you
(08:09):
need safety. Uh yes, question mark, where do you go
when you're sick? Who do you call when you get
grid like? It's just funny because actually, middle class white
people aren't the ones that think this. Most racial minorities
think this. In fact, only the elite racial minorities who
(08:30):
go to woke colleges and get brainwashed don't think this.
Your average black or Hispanic person wants more police in
their neighborhood, not less, but go off Queen. Of course,
after these tweets were brought to light by the right
wing activist Christopher Rufo, Doreen Saint Felix apologized and explained
that listen, she was just an angsty early twenty something
(08:50):
she'd been to one too many slam poetry readings, but
of course she doesn't hate white people. She apologizes for
her remarks and this doesn't represent who she is. Nearly
a day later, just kidding. None of that happened. None
of that happened whatsoever. Now we do know that, according
to The New York Post, she has deleted her ex
account entirely and all the posts about hating white people
(09:13):
and white men. A staffer for The New Yorker who
denounced Sidney Sweeney as an aryan princess, has spouted anti
white and anti Semitic rhetoric in social media posts before
scrubbing her account after being called out on Friday, during
Saint Felix thirty three had written several racist posts on
x the site formerly known as Twitter, including that quote
whiteness fills me with a lot of hate and that
(09:35):
quote the Holocaust is the worst thing to happen to
black people. Side note did the Holocaust happen to black people?
I am confused. The unearthed inflammatory tweets dayed back to
twenty fourteen, three years before the Haitian American journalist was
hired by the left leaning magazine run by longtime editor
(09:57):
David Remnik. In one tweet targeting white men in December
twenty fourteen, Saint Felix wrote, you all are the worst.
Go nurse your effing oedipal complexes. And leave the earth
to the browns and the women. Another tweet simply said
I hate white men. The resurface messages revealed a pattern
of racially charged commentary spanning multiple years. You could say
(10:20):
that New York post. In fact, you could even say
that that might be an understatement, calling this racially charged commentary.
She also suggested that we lived in perfect harmony with
the earth pre whiteness, and blamed environmental destructions specifically on
white capitalism.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
Ah.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Yes, so the reason that China is emitting so much
carbon emissions is because of that dastardly white capitalism. Her
post also contained tone deaf references to the Nazi slaughter
of six million Jews. In one tweet, she described the
Holocaust gesture that's a quote, writing that it's tricknological when
white people invoke the Holocaust because it allows them to
(11:01):
step out of their whiteness and slip on fake oppression.
Are white people who you know, like Jewish white people,
for example, who cite the holocauster they citing fake oppression? Wow? Interesting,
very interesting. I'm a little bit taken aback by some
(11:22):
of these writings, Like I've encountered a lot of this
very explicit anti white sentiment over the years, especially in
my college days. But this is like pretty extreme even
for that. Like it's kind of a new level of
some of this stuff that I don't know. Man, it
seems to have bled over into her modern day work
a little bit. Here's where things get controversial. The right
(11:44):
wing activists who dug this all up are essentially trying
to cancel her. They're trying to get The New Yorker
to fire her or to discipline her, or at least
for her to publicly acknowledge and recognize and apologize for
these posts. And I I think they have a point,
the Christopher repos of a World of the World, when
they point out the tremendous double standard here. There is
(12:08):
no other group that a staff writer at The New
Yorker could have been this racist too and not had
to apologize. Frankly, if they had tweets like this about
black people, they would have been fired years ago, and
no apology would have been accepted or good enough for
them to stay in their job. And with the New
Yorker itself claiming quite explicitly to be an anti racist
(12:30):
institution and to have equity and diversity and all this stuff,
and to have like policed people, public figures and other
people for their past writings and tried to get them
in trouble for problematic past things they've said. I think
it is totally totally fair to call out The New
Yorker here and point out their double standards and hypocrisy.
(12:51):
That said, some of the right wing critics here are
definitely taking things too far. I see absolutely no need
for a federal investigation into the New York as some
have suggested. It's not that deep. And I also don't
think this woman needs to be necessarily fired or canceled
for life for what she wrote in her early twenties.
(13:11):
I think she should apologize. I think she should acknowledge
the posts, and she should explain how her thinking has changed.
If she doesn't do that, I mean, that's fair game
to call someone out, and I don't really think that's
cancel culture because to me, cancel culture is when you
are discarding and punishing people in disproportionate ways for things
(13:32):
from their past that often in most of these like
really egregious cancel culture cases don't accurately represent who they
are today, and there's no like path to redemption. But
if you were just virulently racist and hateful and insane
and never apologized or really acknowledged any evolution in your views.
I mean, I think it's fair for people to question
(13:53):
whether you should be, you know, a media leader and
a thought leader in the political and cultural space. I
do think that's fair to question. I don't think it's
necessarily canceled culture. But I also can't accept the idea
that there's no way she's got to go. No, we
should as a society and as a culture have grace
and compassion for people and allow them to apologize and
(14:15):
acknowledge their mistakes and evolve. Now, maybe people like her
don't afford that to the other side, maybe the kind
of liberal media cadre that she's a part of certainly
didn't afford that to most people during the twenty twenties
early twenty twenties. But I don't believe that turnabout is
fair play necessarily. I think you have to model the
standards that you believe in and the principles, live and
(14:35):
act out the principles that you believe in. And I
don't believe in this merciless, just totally toxic culture where
if you've made a mistake once you've got to go,
your head must role. So I don't want to advocate
that for someone else, but I absolutely think the criticism
here is fair and that she should have to at
least apologize and acknowledge this, not just quietly delete it
(14:56):
and ignore the controversy. Or the New Yorker blocked Chris
of her rufo as if that's going to just make
this go away. It's not. It's not going to go away.
And frankly, this kind of extreme ideology and sentiment, it's
usually not this extreme. She's an outlier case, but this
kind of crazy identitarian leftism is a lot more common
(15:18):
in media circles than you might expect because a lot
of these media people, there's kind of professional media class,
come right out of liberal elite universities where this ideology
is rampant, and they take it with them into the
media institutions that then shape culture and political coverage. And
I do think that is scandalous and in need of serious,
(15:40):
serious course correction. But what do you guys think? What
do you think the right solution is or how to
approach examples like this of hypocrisy. But we don't want
to be canceled culture warriors ourself. Let me know in
the comments. Do make sure you're subscribed if you weren't yet,
hit that like button. While you're at it. Remember you
can also listen to the barad Verse Everyone podcast on
audio podcast platforms for full episodes like Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
(16:04):
iHeartRadio and more. And remember to send in your voicemail
Friday voicemails with your wog hire stories, your personal life
scenarios you want advice on, or whatever questions you guys
have for me. Okay, well, while we are talking about
liberal media and it's never ending dysfunction, we're going to
check in on the fine folks over at MSNBC because
(16:27):
the liberal cable news network just announced a massive rebranding.
It will no longer be known as MSNBC and instead
it will be known as ms NOW. Here is Joe
Scarborough announcing the new rebrand.
Speaker 6 (16:44):
We will become mss NOW, which stands for my Source
for News, opinion and the world. And look, Andrew, they
even have a graphic up. I like there it is.
It looks very sporty.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
So this is so funny to me for so many reasons. First,
I can't be the only one who thinks that with
the logo there, it kind of looks like PMS now
that just the shape kind of looks like a P,
so then it's PMS now and then if it doesn't,
then it kind of looks like miss now and then
the full name what does that even mean? My source
(17:21):
news opinion world, Like, it's not a good acronym even now.
Of course they're doing this renaming because they are splitting
with NBC.
Speaker 5 (17:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Personally, I would just keep the name because they've built
up so much brand capital and branding around it, and
I mean, it's not the worst name in the world MSNBC,
but people know what it is. I think this is
just a terrible idea, but I find it funny and
entertaining because I can tell you they paid consultants probably
(17:52):
millions of dollars, but at least thousands upon thousands upon
thousands of dollars to come up with this with this
Kanva template look ass logo and this really bad brand.
Like a brand is tough, a logo, brand of new network,
a product, it's actually very difficult to do. But this
is like a two out of ten, Like it's actually bleak,
(18:15):
And I do find it comical. There's also this weird
thing that like, when I see MS I think of
the disease. I think of multiple sclerosis, and now like
ms now is their main that to me seems like
a conflation that is going to muddle the branding. The
marketing whiz a Luluchen mercer Venni posted on x that
(18:38):
this seems like a wasted opportunity because it forfeits brand
equity without replacing it with anything better. Because it's so generic,
ms now could be an app, a charity cloud storage product.
Initially I thought it was a rebrand for MS one drive,
and the new logo looks like it belongs to a
Democratic pack. Maybe they're doubling down on being an echo chain,
(19:00):
but puzzling choice. If not, I agree, it actually does
kind of look like Democrat branding, which I mean that
part fits.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
Now.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
Some liberal influencers online are like mad about this, and
they think it might be some form of like cow
telling de Trump or something. But I really, I really
don't think it's all that. But here is the Democratic
strategist and influencer Olibyana Juliana. Take a listen to her video.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
This feels like a bad omen This feels trumpy. To me,
I really don't like what this represents for media. MSNBC
was like the liberal news source. Like we all know
that we have already seen what's happened with CNN and
now this. That's why it's more important now than ever
that you support independent journalists and independent publications.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Yeah. I think she's kind of worked up about nothing,
which means it's a day that ends in why because MSNBC.
I could be wrong, but MSNBC is not about to
get less liberal. It might get more. It's probably gonna
get more anti Trump and more liberal. It's not gonna
get less. I'm just I'm sorry, that's not happening. That's
not a thing. And just like what happened to CNN,
(20:09):
what CNN is still the resistance news network, just now
because they occasionally allow Scott Jennings on air, or they
actually have them on a lot to be fair, but
they have a little bit of viewpoint diversity, or once
in a blue moon they'll book someone like me to
go on a panel on one show. Yeah, it's still
very much a liberal news network. So I don't even
know what she's talking about. And this really has nothing
(20:30):
to do with Trump again, it is about them breaking
with NBC News and wanting to rebrand and choosing to
do so in a way that is really bad. It's
not a trumpy thing. It's not a dark omen or
anything like that. Okay, guys, you're gonna be all right.
What do you guys think had you seen this new logo?
Do you have the same confusion slash humor about it
(20:51):
that I do? Let me know in the comments. Okay, guys,
we're gonna talk about something that I've noticed that is
really bothering me. And I can only call it the
rise of the Republican snowflake, or the Maga snowflake, if
you will, because I grew up in a time when liberals,
I know, if you go back far enough, then you
(21:11):
know the old school religious right, where the scoldly ones,
the ones always trying to censor things in boycott things
and all this and talking about what's offensive. But when
I grew up, it was always kind of the woke
left that was like that, and the right had this
edgy rebelliousness to it, like f your safe space, stop
being condescending, stopp being offended, stop being such a buzzkill.
(21:33):
But I have detected in recent months a real shift
in right of center politics and media in some spaces
towards a kind of maga snowflakeism that is really disturbing
to me. And we'll start with Fox News offering us
an example of that, because Gavin Newsom, the California Democrat
(21:54):
who I've been very critical over the years, is in
this big political fight right now with California vers Texas
over redistricting aka jerrymandering, and he's arguing publicly and he
said this about Governor Greg Abbot.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
It is a five alarm fire for democracy in the
United States of America. Donald Trump, who's trying to light
a torch on democracy, continue to try to rig the election.
Speaker 5 (22:22):
His agenda's failing. This presidency is failing. He knows the
headwinds in a midterm. Now he's dialing up for seats.
He called Greg Abbot, who doesn't have the courage, doesn't
have the conscience, and he has rolled over and he said, yes, sir,
and so we have got to step up. Now.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Did anyone pick up on the microaggression there, No, you
didn't because you're a normal person. You watch the show,
so you're not a whiny snowflake. You don't look for
reasons to get offended. You don't manufacture outrage where none exists,
but apparently a Fox News host does, because guys, it
just so happens that Texas Governor Greg Abbot is in
(23:01):
a wheelchair, and so now a Fox host filling in
for Laura Ingram actually suggested that Gavin Newsom did a
microaggression or something by saying that Abbot rolled over for Trump,
even though that's just like a common phrase. Take a
listen to this clip.
Speaker 7 (23:20):
Congressman Greg Abbot who is in a wheelchair and Newsom
says he rolled over for Trump. That's almost as bad
as Jasmine Crockett calling him governor hot wheels. You know,
we asked for a statement, and Newsom's office said something
flippant like, you know all, you're so woke. He'll get
over it. Abbot will get over it.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
And this is really funny. They put it on screen.
Newsom's office response to rolled over comment in new ad. No,
but how woke of you to ask. I'm sorry Greg's
feelings were hurt. Poor guy. We hope he recovers. What
how how is Fox News making Gavin Newsom seemed like
the relatable normal one and making them seem like the
(24:03):
obnoxious snowflakes were triggered for no reason. Saying someone rolled
over as a way of saying that they like capitulated
to Trump or to anything is a common expression. It
has nothing to do with people in wheelchairs, and it
was obviously not intended as some sort of mockery of
Greg Abbott for being in a wheelchair. The Republican governor
of Texas now the one that they mentioned with Jasmine
(24:24):
Crocketts calling him governor hot wheels. I actually think that
one is probably making fun of him for being in
a wheelchair, and she is nasty like that. But Newsom's
remark was totally not meant in that way. And when
US and Network have spent decades at this point making
fun of libs who are triggered over jokes, who police
micro expressions and microaggressions and this kind of nonsense, and
(24:48):
then you start policing democrats like this and getting triggered
and getting your feelings hurt because of someone's what turn
of phrase that you're connecting to some marginalized identity. The
iron is not lost on me. The hypocrisy is galling,
and it's just so ridiculous. It's a cheap attempt to
kind of avoid talking about the real issue. And it
(25:11):
really pisses me off because they are supposed to know better.
I made my debut on Fox News like almost ten
years ago at this point, making fun of liberal snowflakes
who thought college students needed care bears to remind them
to brush their teeth and drink glasses of water every
day and other ridiculous nonsense. Well now we got the
(25:31):
Fox News care bear up here saying, oh, Democrats, you
can't say rolled over about somebody who's in a wheelchair.
Why not grow up? Nobody has this thin skin, nobody's
cancel culture. There's woke stuff. No one likes this, don't
do it, but just with a mega branding or twist
to it, it comes off as so disingenuous and dishonest.
And I expect better from them, I really do. And
(25:53):
that's how I feel about the politicians pulling this crap
as well. I have to show you, guys this recent
clip of Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who used to be a
moderate who I liked, but her district got shifted to
a more red district and she just went full extreme,
far right, all sorts of stuff. She's now running for
(26:14):
governor of South Carolina, so she's getting a lot of
press coverage. You have to watch this exchange that Nancy
Mace had with a reporter who highlighted a totally legitimate
question about something Mace was presenting in terms of public policy,
and Nancy Mace went full triggered snowflake feminist and invoked
her identity as a woman as a shield from legit criticism.
(26:37):
Take a listen to this. It's it's really something, my
nun Flucker's.
Speaker 8 (26:41):
One of the accomplishments, you know, things we were touting
was the I.
Speaker 4 (26:45):
Tony six LA change. What was the accident at a
long point road?
Speaker 8 (26:49):
Yeah, not the interchange, Yeah, but that funding came from
the inflation reductions, which she moved against this stuff, right,
Is that an accomplishment is something?
Speaker 2 (27:00):
No?
Speaker 8 (27:00):
Absolutely, I mean absolutely I can tell that because I will.
We'll often argue over how much money is spent, so
we fight over how we spend the money, how we
appropriate it. But once the appropriations happen, I'm going to
make sure that South Carolina that we get our fair share.
When there's money being appropriated by the federal government. It
is literally our job to make sure that we help organizations,
(27:22):
government entities, satan local get those appropriations by supporting them
with letters of support. And that's what my office says.
That's literally part of the job of being a member
of Congress.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
And maybe you're confused. You're very confused, and you're.
Speaker 8 (27:35):
A raging Democrat, so raging leftists with that kind of questioning.
And I would say, as a woman like you might
want to think about how you view other women and
how you treat other women the way you question them,
because women are going to lead this country off the
brank and conservative women. The first female president of this
country is going to be a conservative woman, not some
liberal like you. Okay, again, just a question about the bill,
(27:58):
whether people are order or not after recount, This is
literally the job of a member of Congress. You might
want to look up what a member of Congress does
and maybe read the Constitution, if seim before asking you
such a question five times over looking for a quire predation,
I clearly need it. We'll very pick up a constitutional reading.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
What on earth is this triggered feminist snowflake bullshit? This
supporter asked a legitimate question because Nancy Mays was touting
as an accomplishment an infrastructure project that was originally funded
by a bill she voted against. They're like, wait, is
that your accomplishment? Now, there's a legitimate explanation there that
in Congress, even when you vote against funding, you still
(28:41):
then can advocate when they're distributing that funding for your district.
And so what sounds like happened here is that Nancy
Mays voted against the original bill, but after it was
passed and the money was going to be spent, she
used her position as a congresswoman to get a project
for her district. That's great, that's a totally legit response
to an entirely legitimate question. But you are not in
(29:06):
any way, shape or form above questioning or a legitimate
question like this, which does not make the reporter a
radical leftist just because she asked you a slightly tough question.
You are not above that kind of basic criticism or
scrutiny because you are a woman, Nancy Mace. And that
is genuinely more of a feminist triggered meltdown than I
(29:29):
have seen in years from a democratic politician. This is
the kind of thing that Republicans are supposed to be
against right when they say we don't do identity politics.
Apparently some Republicans like Nancy Mays not only do identity politics,
but do it on steroids to avoid legitimate criticism. You
should think about not asking tough questions to a woman
(29:51):
as a woman. No, she's doing her job. You should
try it sometime instead of constantly playing the victim and
getting triggered and avoid this kind of basic, legitimate pushback
or scrutiny by citing your identity as a shield. Seriously,
we have Republicans pulling this kind of crap in the
(30:11):
Year of Our Lord twenty twenty five. I think it's
an abomination, honestly, because it is so bad and so
obnoxious when progressives do this. But that's their stick. They're
supposed to do it right, like that's their belief system.
When you, as a Republican, fix your mouth to say
we don't do identity politics, we're gonna stop woke, but
(30:33):
then the second that it's convenient for you, you become
the biggest feminist snowflake on the block. I don't just
have zero respect for that, I have negative respect for that.
I have contempt for that. That is nothing but contemptuous
and again there's just this snowflake y element to this.
You want to be the governor of South Carolina and
(30:54):
you're gonna crash out like this because a reporter asked
you a slightly tough question. Nancy, get a grip. But
of course, you know, when I've criticized her in the past,
she has instantly invoked the fact that she's a woman
in response to me, I'm not joking. And of course
I've also requested interviews with her and she has. She
(31:16):
did them before when I was just praising her, when
she was still in her you know, moderate cosplay early
in her career, she did multiple interviews with me. Now,
my platform in my audience is much bear, but she
won't do interviews with me anymore. Wonder why because I
guess she just can't even handle a basic question about
an infrastructure project without crashing out, without I don't know,
(31:37):
just going into feminist psychosis. So she knows that she
can't handle the smoke. But of course she's also the
one always tweeting about how she's a brave warrior fighting
for women and she stands the line, holds the line
and all this stuff. But she's actually incredibly afraid of
basic accountability or scrutiny from the press of the media,
and instantly uses her identity as a shield when she
(32:00):
does face that kind of scrutiny. Yikes, yikes, she wants
to be the Republican governor of South Carolina. Listen, I
think she has no place in a Republican party at all.
That says it rejects identity of politics and wokeism, because
that is the face of a woke Republican if I
have ever seen one in my life. But what do
(32:21):
you guys think? Are you buying Nancy Mace's don't question
me I'm a woman script I am most certainly not,
but I do want to hear from you guys. Let
me know in the comments below. Remember to tune into
full episodes of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
or wherever you get your podcasts. Make sure you're subscribed.
(32:41):
Hit that like button while you're at it. Remember to
send in your voicemails for my Voicemail Friday episodes. Those
are linked in the description the place to send those
in where you can send in your kind of wolkr stories,
personal life scenarios you want my advice on or any
questions you guys have for me, And with that, guys,
we will talk again. Real s, Remember thet A coot
(33:02):
voting
Another day, another media scandal, this time involving anti white racism.
We're going to break down the latest media controversy, this
time involving The New Yorker and so much more on
today's episode of the Brad Versus Everyone Podcast, where we
(00:22):
take on the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective of First, guys,
we're going to talk about this really crazy saga that
I've been watching unfold online and just kind of sipping
my tea as it spices up and gets heated, involving
a staff writer for The New Yorker, a woman who
(00:46):
is named Doreen Saint Felix, who she's in the spotlight
right now, in the crosshairs of conservative critics because she
wrote a kind of strange article about the Sydney Sweeney controversy.
Remember the Genes commercial that had woke TikTok melting down
and crying about eugenics and Nazi rhetoric and all that. Yeah,
(01:08):
we covered it extensively on the show.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
You guys are complaining about that Sydney Sweeney jeans, and
so I went and saw it, that's Nazi propaganda.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
Well, she wrote an article about this titled the banal
Provocation of Sydney Sweeney's Genes. And this article kind of
waffled between whether it was really that big a deal
or not, and was very kind of flowery, typical New
Yorker style, but it did include a few bizarre lines,
like when she talked about the trashy dog whistle atmosphere
(01:41):
and the adoring legion of Sydney Sweeney fans, the most
extream of whom want to recruit her as kind of
a quote arian princess. My favorite part of the article
was one that actually went under the radar, where she says,
to be clear, many of us the n words, the queers,
the hairy, feminists, etc.
Speaker 3 (02:00):
Etc.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Do not react out of a feeling of personal injury,
as if the blondness as beauty standard has terrorized us.
Whom does that standard terrorize more than white Cis women? Honestly, so,
the article was actually strange, like it wasn't even exactly
what you would expect in terms of like woke criticism,
but it had some strange takes and oddball remarks in
(02:23):
it for sure. But anyway, conservative critics really did not
like this depiction of Sidney Sweeney as in the views
of some in aryan princess, calling her like a Nazi
princess or whatever, and just the general tenor of the
article I found rather obnoxious, but totally in keeping with
the New Yorker and their kind of faux intellectual style
(02:46):
and the way that this young woman seems to present herself.
Just there's a certain ethos you've encountered it if you
went to a liberal university, if you grew up in
New England or anywhere like that of kind of the
pretentious for its own sake, liberal who kind of over
intellectual intellectualizes things for no real reason other than to
(03:07):
kind of make themselves seem smarter and more profound than
they actually are. This woman, Dareen Saint Felix, very much
falls into that category. I want to play you, guys
a quick clip of her I found on YouTube, answering
basic questions in the most like obnoxious way imaginable, or
at least the most pretentious way imaginable. Listen to this.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
How did you begin upside down? What is the shape
of your mind hexagon? How will you live now? I
will live very slowly? What are you most sure of?
I'm most sure of when I'll eat dinner. What are
the consequences of silence? More silence? What will people mourn
(03:53):
most when you're gone? My macaroni and cheese? Who should
take responsibility? You should than I should? Is history?
Speaker 5 (04:02):
Fair?
Speaker 4 (04:03):
History? Is constant?
Speaker 5 (04:05):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
I'm getting shivers because this just reminds me of some
of my family members. I'm extended family members I'm not
the most fond of. But anyway, guys, she is now
getting pretty brutally targeted by a right wing outrage mob,
but outraged for some legitimate reasons. They've essentially dug up tons.
(04:27):
It's not just a couple but like tons of very
explicit anti white racist tweets from this woman from about
twenty fifteen, when she would have been about twenty three
years old, and they're demanding that the New Yorker holds
her accountable for this, and so far they haven't. Shocker
(04:47):
plot twist. Now, I am going to read you, guys.
I'm going to do a dramatic reading of some of
these old tweets before I give my take on the
whole controversy and explain the fallout and everything else. Okay, guys,
let's read those tweets at least some of my favorites
that I selected from you, because I mean, there are despicable,
like they're really bad, but they're also funny. I'm sorry.
(05:09):
She tweeted, it's not you white people, per se, but
it's everything that protects you, so it can kill me.
It's not your face, but it is so much your face.
She just like thinks she's so profound and she's really not.
I she just tweeted, of course in twenty fifteen, it's
(05:31):
really gonna suck when we have a white president again.
What just the explicit racism is quite something. I mean,
you don't even have to play the swap the racist
game to see how bad this is. Anyway, White terrorism
is a redundant phrase. Oh oh, not all terrorism, or
(05:58):
even I would wager to say most terrorism is in
fact associated with white people. But okay, now this one,
I have no idea what the context is, but I
just find it very funny, this white squad commercial. I
am tired of your satire, your hoppy beers, your mediocre dick.
Just like leave please not her saying all white men
(06:22):
have mediocre You know what, I don't know. Does she
get dumped by a white man. That's what it's giving
to me. It's giving that she also has this like
very bizarre obsession with white people's hygiene, or in her perception,
the lack thereof. So she wrote in a tweet, white
(06:43):
people who literally started a plague because they couldn't wash
their asses need never say they taught black people hygiene.
I'm not sure that is in fact a historical, historically
correct recollection of the bubonic plague. And also, listen, human
(07:07):
hygiene in history was pretty bleak, and not just in
places with white people. It's just weird. Now this is
my favorite. Of course, white people don't bathe. It's in
their blood. Their lack of hygiene literally started the bubonic plague, lice, syphilis, etc.
(07:27):
Excuse me, not bathing is in our blood. I don't
know any white people that don't bathe. Well, I don't
really know any people that don't bathe. I know a couple,
but I actually try to associate with them as little
as possible. And it has nothing to do with race.
Just a kind of sad it's a kind of sad
and twisted way to look at the world. This, don't
(07:47):
you think, like, obviously this comes off as extremely bigoted
and hateful, but it also comes off as like a
person who's really sad and adrift and resentful and hateful
and not great. This one as well. Middle class white
people think hospitals are places to go when you're sick,
that the police are who to go to when you
(08:09):
need safety. Uh yes, question mark, where do you go
when you're sick? Who do you call when you get
grid like? It's just funny because actually, middle class white
people aren't the ones that think this. Most racial minorities
think this. In fact, only the elite racial minorities who
(08:30):
go to woke colleges and get brainwashed don't think this.
Your average black or Hispanic person wants more police in
their neighborhood, not less, but go off Queen. Of course,
after these tweets were brought to light by the right
wing activist Christopher Rufo, Doreen Saint Felix apologized and explained
that listen, she was just an angsty early twenty something
(08:50):
she'd been to one too many slam poetry readings, but
of course she doesn't hate white people. She apologizes for
her remarks and this doesn't represent who she is. Nearly
a day later, just kidding. None of that happened. None
of that happened whatsoever. Now we do know that, according
to The New York Post, she has deleted her ex
account entirely and all the posts about hating white people
(09:13):
and white men. A staffer for The New Yorker who
denounced Sidney Sweeney as an aryan princess, has spouted anti
white and anti Semitic rhetoric in social media posts before
scrubbing her account after being called out on Friday, during
Saint Felix thirty three had written several racist posts on
x the site formerly known as Twitter, including that quote
whiteness fills me with a lot of hate and that
(09:35):
quote the Holocaust is the worst thing to happen to
black people. Side note did the Holocaust happen to black people?
I am confused. The unearthed inflammatory tweets dayed back to
twenty fourteen, three years before the Haitian American journalist was
hired by the left leaning magazine run by longtime editor
(09:57):
David Remnik. In one tweet targeting white men in December
twenty fourteen, Saint Felix wrote, you all are the worst.
Go nurse your effing oedipal complexes. And leave the earth
to the browns and the women. Another tweet simply said
I hate white men. The resurface messages revealed a pattern
of racially charged commentary spanning multiple years. You could say
(10:20):
that New York post. In fact, you could even say
that that might be an understatement, calling this racially charged commentary.
She also suggested that we lived in perfect harmony with
the earth pre whiteness, and blamed environmental destructions specifically on
white capitalism.
Speaker 5 (10:39):
Ah.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Yes, so the reason that China is emitting so much
carbon emissions is because of that dastardly white capitalism. Her
post also contained tone deaf references to the Nazi slaughter
of six million Jews. In one tweet, she described the
Holocaust gesture that's a quote, writing that it's tricknological when
white people invoke the Holocaust because it allows them to
(11:01):
step out of their whiteness and slip on fake oppression.
Are white people who you know, like Jewish white people,
for example, who cite the holocauster they citing fake oppression? Wow? Interesting,
very interesting. I'm a little bit taken aback by some
(11:22):
of these writings, Like I've encountered a lot of this
very explicit anti white sentiment over the years, especially in
my college days. But this is like pretty extreme even
for that. Like it's kind of a new level of
some of this stuff that I don't know. Man, it
seems to have bled over into her modern day work
a little bit. Here's where things get controversial. The right
(11:44):
wing activists who dug this all up are essentially trying
to cancel her. They're trying to get The New Yorker
to fire her or to discipline her, or at least
for her to publicly acknowledge and recognize and apologize for
these posts. And I I think they have a point,
the Christopher repos of a World of the World, when
they point out the tremendous double standard here. There is
(12:08):
no other group that a staff writer at The New
Yorker could have been this racist too and not had
to apologize. Frankly, if they had tweets like this about
black people, they would have been fired years ago, and
no apology would have been accepted or good enough for
them to stay in their job. And with the New
Yorker itself claiming quite explicitly to be an anti racist
(12:30):
institution and to have equity and diversity and all this stuff,
and to have like policed people, public figures and other
people for their past writings and tried to get them
in trouble for problematic past things they've said. I think
it is totally totally fair to call out The New
Yorker here and point out their double standards and hypocrisy.
(12:51):
That said, some of the right wing critics here are
definitely taking things too far. I see absolutely no need
for a federal investigation into the New York as some
have suggested. It's not that deep. And I also don't
think this woman needs to be necessarily fired or canceled
for life for what she wrote in her early twenties.
(13:11):
I think she should apologize. I think she should acknowledge
the posts, and she should explain how her thinking has changed.
If she doesn't do that, I mean, that's fair game
to call someone out, and I don't really think that's
cancel culture because to me, cancel culture is when you
are discarding and punishing people in disproportionate ways for things
(13:32):
from their past that often in most of these like
really egregious cancel culture cases don't accurately represent who they
are today, and there's no like path to redemption. But
if you were just virulently racist and hateful and insane
and never apologized or really acknowledged any evolution in your views.
I mean, I think it's fair for people to question
(13:53):
whether you should be, you know, a media leader and
a thought leader in the political and cultural space. I
do think that's fair to question. I don't think it's
necessarily canceled culture. But I also can't accept the idea
that there's no way she's got to go. No, we
should as a society and as a culture have grace
and compassion for people and allow them to apologize and
(14:15):
acknowledge their mistakes and evolve. Now, maybe people like her
don't afford that to the other side, maybe the kind
of liberal media cadre that she's a part of certainly
didn't afford that to most people during the twenty twenties
early twenty twenties. But I don't believe that turnabout is
fair play necessarily. I think you have to model the
standards that you believe in and the principles, live and
(14:35):
act out the principles that you believe in. And I
don't believe in this merciless, just totally toxic culture where
if you've made a mistake once you've got to go,
your head must role. So I don't want to advocate
that for someone else, but I absolutely think the criticism
here is fair and that she should have to at
least apologize and acknowledge this, not just quietly delete it
(14:56):
and ignore the controversy. Or the New Yorker blocked Chris
of her rufo as if that's going to just make
this go away. It's not. It's not going to go away.
And frankly, this kind of extreme ideology and sentiment, it's
usually not this extreme. She's an outlier case, but this
kind of crazy identitarian leftism is a lot more common
(15:18):
in media circles than you might expect because a lot
of these media people, there's kind of professional media class,
come right out of liberal elite universities where this ideology
is rampant, and they take it with them into the
media institutions that then shape culture and political coverage. And
I do think that is scandalous and in need of serious,
(15:40):
serious course correction. But what do you guys think? What
do you think the right solution is or how to
approach examples like this of hypocrisy. But we don't want
to be canceled culture warriors ourself. Let me know in
the comments. Do make sure you're subscribed if you weren't yet,
hit that like button. While you're at it. Remember you
can also listen to the barad Verse Everyone podcast on
audio podcast platforms for full episodes like Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
(16:04):
iHeartRadio and more. And remember to send in your voicemail
Friday voicemails with your wog hire stories, your personal life
scenarios you want advice on, or whatever questions you guys
have for me. Okay, well, while we are talking about
liberal media and it's never ending dysfunction, we're going to
check in on the fine folks over at MSNBC because
(16:27):
the liberal cable news network just announced a massive rebranding.
It will no longer be known as MSNBC and instead
it will be known as ms NOW. Here is Joe
Scarborough announcing the new rebrand.
Speaker 6 (16:44):
We will become mss NOW, which stands for my Source
for News, opinion and the world. And look, Andrew, they
even have a graphic up. I like there it is.
It looks very sporty.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
So this is so funny to me for so many reasons. First,
I can't be the only one who thinks that with
the logo there, it kind of looks like PMS now
that just the shape kind of looks like a P,
so then it's PMS now and then if it doesn't,
then it kind of looks like miss now and then
the full name what does that even mean? My source
(17:21):
news opinion world, Like, it's not a good acronym even now.
Of course they're doing this renaming because they are splitting
with NBC.
Speaker 5 (17:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
Personally, I would just keep the name because they've built
up so much brand capital and branding around it, and
I mean, it's not the worst name in the world MSNBC,
but people know what it is. I think this is
just a terrible idea, but I find it funny and
entertaining because I can tell you they paid consultants probably
(17:52):
millions of dollars, but at least thousands upon thousands upon
thousands of dollars to come up with this with this
Kanva template look ass logo and this really bad brand.
Like a brand is tough, a logo, brand of new network,
a product, it's actually very difficult to do. But this
is like a two out of ten, Like it's actually bleak,
(18:15):
And I do find it comical. There's also this weird
thing that like, when I see MS I think of
the disease. I think of multiple sclerosis, and now like
ms now is their main that to me seems like
a conflation that is going to muddle the branding. The
marketing whiz a Luluchen mercer Venni posted on x that
(18:38):
this seems like a wasted opportunity because it forfeits brand
equity without replacing it with anything better. Because it's so generic,
ms now could be an app, a charity cloud storage product.
Initially I thought it was a rebrand for MS one drive,
and the new logo looks like it belongs to a
Democratic pack. Maybe they're doubling down on being an echo chain,
(19:00):
but puzzling choice. If not, I agree, it actually does
kind of look like Democrat branding, which I mean that
part fits.
Speaker 5 (19:09):
Now.
Speaker 1 (19:10):
Some liberal influencers online are like mad about this, and
they think it might be some form of like cow
telling de Trump or something. But I really, I really
don't think it's all that. But here is the Democratic
strategist and influencer Olibyana Juliana. Take a listen to her video.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
This feels like a bad omen This feels trumpy. To me,
I really don't like what this represents for media. MSNBC
was like the liberal news source. Like we all know
that we have already seen what's happened with CNN and
now this. That's why it's more important now than ever
that you support independent journalists and independent publications.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
Yeah. I think she's kind of worked up about nothing,
which means it's a day that ends in why because MSNBC.
I could be wrong, but MSNBC is not about to
get less liberal. It might get more. It's probably gonna
get more anti Trump and more liberal. It's not gonna
get less. I'm just I'm sorry, that's not happening. That's
not a thing. And just like what happened to CNN,
(20:09):
what CNN is still the resistance news network, just now
because they occasionally allow Scott Jennings on air, or they
actually have them on a lot to be fair, but
they have a little bit of viewpoint diversity, or once
in a blue moon they'll book someone like me to
go on a panel on one show. Yeah, it's still
very much a liberal news network. So I don't even
know what she's talking about. And this really has nothing
(20:30):
to do with Trump again, it is about them breaking
with NBC News and wanting to rebrand and choosing to
do so in a way that is really bad. It's
not a trumpy thing. It's not a dark omen or
anything like that. Okay, guys, you're gonna be all right.
What do you guys think had you seen this new logo?
Do you have the same confusion slash humor about it
(20:51):
that I do? Let me know in the comments. Okay, guys,
we're gonna talk about something that I've noticed that is
really bothering me. And I can only call it the
rise of the Republican snowflake, or the Maga snowflake, if
you will, because I grew up in a time when liberals,
I know, if you go back far enough, then you
(21:11):
know the old school religious right, where the scoldly ones,
the ones always trying to censor things in boycott things
and all this and talking about what's offensive. But when
I grew up, it was always kind of the woke
left that was like that, and the right had this
edgy rebelliousness to it, like f your safe space, stop
being condescending, stopp being offended, stop being such a buzzkill.
(21:33):
But I have detected in recent months a real shift
in right of center politics and media in some spaces
towards a kind of maga snowflakeism that is really disturbing
to me. And we'll start with Fox News offering us
an example of that, because Gavin Newsom, the California Democrat
(21:54):
who I've been very critical over the years, is in
this big political fight right now with California vers Texas
over redistricting aka jerrymandering, and he's arguing publicly and he
said this about Governor Greg Abbot.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
It is a five alarm fire for democracy in the
United States of America. Donald Trump, who's trying to light
a torch on democracy, continue to try to rig the election.
Speaker 5 (22:22):
His agenda's failing. This presidency is failing. He knows the
headwinds in a midterm. Now he's dialing up for seats.
He called Greg Abbot, who doesn't have the courage, doesn't
have the conscience, and he has rolled over and he said, yes, sir,
and so we have got to step up. Now.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Did anyone pick up on the microaggression there, No, you
didn't because you're a normal person. You watch the show,
so you're not a whiny snowflake. You don't look for
reasons to get offended. You don't manufacture outrage where none exists,
but apparently a Fox News host does, because guys, it
just so happens that Texas Governor Greg Abbot is in
(23:01):
a wheelchair, and so now a Fox host filling in
for Laura Ingram actually suggested that Gavin Newsom did a
microaggression or something by saying that Abbot rolled over for Trump,
even though that's just like a common phrase. Take a
listen to this clip.
Speaker 7 (23:20):
Congressman Greg Abbot who is in a wheelchair and Newsom
says he rolled over for Trump. That's almost as bad
as Jasmine Crockett calling him governor hot wheels. You know,
we asked for a statement, and Newsom's office said something
flippant like, you know all, you're so woke. He'll get
over it. Abbot will get over it.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
And this is really funny. They put it on screen.
Newsom's office response to rolled over comment in new ad. No,
but how woke of you to ask. I'm sorry Greg's
feelings were hurt. Poor guy. We hope he recovers. What
how how is Fox News making Gavin Newsom seemed like
the relatable normal one and making them seem like the
(24:03):
obnoxious snowflakes were triggered for no reason. Saying someone rolled
over as a way of saying that they like capitulated
to Trump or to anything is a common expression. It
has nothing to do with people in wheelchairs, and it
was obviously not intended as some sort of mockery of
Greg Abbott for being in a wheelchair. The Republican governor
of Texas now the one that they mentioned with Jasmine
(24:24):
Crocketts calling him governor hot wheels. I actually think that
one is probably making fun of him for being in
a wheelchair, and she is nasty like that. But Newsom's
remark was totally not meant in that way. And when
US and Network have spent decades at this point making
fun of libs who are triggered over jokes, who police
micro expressions and microaggressions and this kind of nonsense, and
(24:48):
then you start policing democrats like this and getting triggered
and getting your feelings hurt because of someone's what turn
of phrase that you're connecting to some marginalized identity. The
iron is not lost on me. The hypocrisy is galling,
and it's just so ridiculous. It's a cheap attempt to
kind of avoid talking about the real issue. And it
(25:11):
really pisses me off because they are supposed to know better.
I made my debut on Fox News like almost ten
years ago at this point, making fun of liberal snowflakes
who thought college students needed care bears to remind them
to brush their teeth and drink glasses of water every
day and other ridiculous nonsense. Well now we got the
(25:31):
Fox News care bear up here saying, oh, Democrats, you
can't say rolled over about somebody who's in a wheelchair.
Why not grow up? Nobody has this thin skin, nobody's
cancel culture. There's woke stuff. No one likes this, don't
do it, but just with a mega branding or twist
to it, it comes off as so disingenuous and dishonest.
And I expect better from them, I really do. And
(25:53):
that's how I feel about the politicians pulling this crap
as well. I have to show you, guys this recent
clip of Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who used to be a
moderate who I liked, but her district got shifted to
a more red district and she just went full extreme,
far right, all sorts of stuff. She's now running for
(26:14):
governor of South Carolina, so she's getting a lot of
press coverage. You have to watch this exchange that Nancy
Mace had with a reporter who highlighted a totally legitimate
question about something Mace was presenting in terms of public policy,
and Nancy Mace went full triggered snowflake feminist and invoked
her identity as a woman as a shield from legit criticism.
(26:37):
Take a listen to this. It's it's really something, my
nun Flucker's.
Speaker 8 (26:41):
One of the accomplishments, you know, things we were touting
was the I.
Speaker 4 (26:45):
Tony six LA change. What was the accident at a
long point road?
Speaker 8 (26:49):
Yeah, not the interchange, Yeah, but that funding came from
the inflation reductions, which she moved against this stuff, right,
Is that an accomplishment is something?
Speaker 2 (27:00):
No?
Speaker 8 (27:00):
Absolutely, I mean absolutely I can tell that because I will.
We'll often argue over how much money is spent, so
we fight over how we spend the money, how we
appropriate it. But once the appropriations happen, I'm going to
make sure that South Carolina that we get our fair share.
When there's money being appropriated by the federal government. It
is literally our job to make sure that we help organizations,
(27:22):
government entities, satan local get those appropriations by supporting them
with letters of support. And that's what my office says.
That's literally part of the job of being a member
of Congress.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
And maybe you're confused. You're very confused, and you're.
Speaker 8 (27:35):
A raging Democrat, so raging leftists with that kind of questioning.
And I would say, as a woman like you might
want to think about how you view other women and
how you treat other women the way you question them,
because women are going to lead this country off the
brank and conservative women. The first female president of this
country is going to be a conservative woman, not some
liberal like you. Okay, again, just a question about the bill,
(27:58):
whether people are order or not after recount, This is
literally the job of a member of Congress. You might
want to look up what a member of Congress does
and maybe read the Constitution, if seim before asking you
such a question five times over looking for a quire predation,
I clearly need it. We'll very pick up a constitutional reading.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
What on earth is this triggered feminist snowflake bullshit? This
supporter asked a legitimate question because Nancy Mays was touting
as an accomplishment an infrastructure project that was originally funded
by a bill she voted against. They're like, wait, is
that your accomplishment? Now, there's a legitimate explanation there that
in Congress, even when you vote against funding, you still
(28:41):
then can advocate when they're distributing that funding for your district.
And so what sounds like happened here is that Nancy
Mays voted against the original bill, but after it was
passed and the money was going to be spent, she
used her position as a congresswoman to get a project
for her district. That's great, that's a totally legit response
to an entirely legitimate question. But you are not in
(29:06):
any way, shape or form above questioning or a legitimate
question like this, which does not make the reporter a
radical leftist just because she asked you a slightly tough question.
You are not above that kind of basic criticism or
scrutiny because you are a woman, Nancy Mace. And that
is genuinely more of a feminist triggered meltdown than I
(29:29):
have seen in years from a democratic politician. This is
the kind of thing that Republicans are supposed to be
against right when they say we don't do identity politics.
Apparently some Republicans like Nancy Mays not only do identity politics,
but do it on steroids to avoid legitimate criticism. You
should think about not asking tough questions to a woman
(29:51):
as a woman. No, she's doing her job. You should
try it sometime instead of constantly playing the victim and
getting triggered and avoid this kind of basic, legitimate pushback
or scrutiny by citing your identity as a shield. Seriously,
we have Republicans pulling this kind of crap in the
(30:11):
Year of Our Lord twenty twenty five. I think it's
an abomination, honestly, because it is so bad and so
obnoxious when progressives do this. But that's their stick. They're
supposed to do it right, like that's their belief system.
When you, as a Republican, fix your mouth to say
we don't do identity politics, we're gonna stop woke, but
(30:33):
then the second that it's convenient for you, you become
the biggest feminist snowflake on the block. I don't just
have zero respect for that, I have negative respect for that.
I have contempt for that. That is nothing but contemptuous
and again there's just this snowflake y element to this.
You want to be the governor of South Carolina and
(30:54):
you're gonna crash out like this because a reporter asked
you a slightly tough question. Nancy, get a grip. But
of course, you know, when I've criticized her in the past,
she has instantly invoked the fact that she's a woman
in response to me, I'm not joking. And of course
I've also requested interviews with her and she has. She
(31:16):
did them before when I was just praising her, when
she was still in her you know, moderate cosplay early
in her career, she did multiple interviews with me. Now,
my platform in my audience is much bear, but she
won't do interviews with me anymore. Wonder why because I
guess she just can't even handle a basic question about
an infrastructure project without crashing out, without I don't know,
(31:37):
just going into feminist psychosis. So she knows that she
can't handle the smoke. But of course she's also the
one always tweeting about how she's a brave warrior fighting
for women and she stands the line, holds the line
and all this stuff. But she's actually incredibly afraid of
basic accountability or scrutiny from the press of the media,
and instantly uses her identity as a shield when she
(32:00):
does face that kind of scrutiny. Yikes, yikes, she wants
to be the Republican governor of South Carolina. Listen, I
think she has no place in a Republican party at all.
That says it rejects identity of politics and wokeism, because
that is the face of a woke Republican if I
have ever seen one in my life. But what do
(32:21):
you guys think? Are you buying Nancy Mace's don't question
me I'm a woman script I am most certainly not,
but I do want to hear from you guys. Let
me know in the comments below. Remember to tune into
full episodes of the Brad Versus Everyone podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio,
or wherever you get your podcasts. Make sure you're subscribed.
(32:41):
Hit that like button while you're at it. Remember to
send in your voicemails for my Voicemail Friday episodes. Those
are linked in the description the place to send those
in where you can send in your kind of wolkr stories,
personal life scenarios you want my advice on or any
questions you guys have for me, And with that, guys,
we will talk again. Real s, Remember thet A coot
(33:02):
voting
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com