October 14, 2025 • 37 mins
Left-wing star influencers like Brian Tyler Cohen and "Spencewuah" are spreading wild panic and misinformation about a controversial Supreme Court case. What's really going on? I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, a left-wing streamer's pathetic apology to fans and a MAGA influencer defends ACTUAL racism.
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):
So to all of you gays for Trump, all of
you rainbow flag maga Bible thumpers, congratulations you've helped empower
court that's debating whether telling queer kits they're broken is
free speech.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Day's a day that ends in why so left wing
political influencers are crashing out and spreading misinformation on the Internet.
We're going to break this down, plus so much more
on today's episode of The Bread Versus Everyone podcast, my
(00:31):
daily show where we take on the craziest ideas from
across the Internet and social media, all from an independent perspective.
Up first, we've got a sensitive topic, a controversial case
that was just recently heard before the Supreme Court involving
state laws that ban so called conversion therapy, which refers
(00:53):
to therapeutic treatments, and we'll get into the details on
what that consists of regarding to change someone's sexual orientation
or crucially also their gender identity. Now, as always, influencers
and YouTubers and all the kind of Internet commentators, they're
(01:13):
treating this with nuance and care and informing people about
what's really happening, illustrating to them the good faith arguments
on both sides just kidding me when I lie. None
of that's happening at all. They're spreading insane misinformation and
acting like the sky is falling. I'm going to break
(01:33):
down their response, then give you my complicated thoughts on
this complex case, and yeah, let's get into it without
much further ado. So the first thing I want to
go over is a tweet that went super viral from
the political YouTuber and influencer Brian Tyler Cohen, who's a
self described progressive with millions of subscribers on YouTube and
(01:57):
millions of followers across social media. Play plats well in
a tweet from his account called no Lie with Brian
Tyler Cohen, a tweet that has received eighteen million views.
It's a lot of views. He wrote. The Supreme Court
appears ready to side with Trump in bringing back gay
conversion therapy. This practice involves physically abusing teenagers to try
(02:19):
to turn them heterosexual, including with electric shocks and chemically
induced nausea. Then it has Trump next to a rainbow flag.
So this has eighteen million views. It has lots of
people up in arms and really upset about this, And
I think, I mean, to some extent understandably. So it's
a really harmful thing to say, Oh, they're going to
(02:43):
start shocking the gay out of people again, and Trump's
all behind it, and the Supreme Court's about to do this.
The unfortunate aspect, or actually I would say the fortunate
aspect for reality, but unfortunate for Brian Tyler Cohen and
the people that listen to him, is that that's not true.
That's not reality. And of course it's ironic that this
comes from his account called No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen,
(03:07):
and he just posted a lie that got eighteen million views,
or I guess maybe calling it a lie is slightly harsh.
It's possible that he is mistaken and he thinks this
is true, but it's not actually true. So the case
before the Supreme Court is actually about talk therapy for
gender identity and sexual orientation. So that is the first
(03:29):
important thing to point out to you here. Talk therapy,
not electroshock therapy, not the kind of revulsion therapy where
they induce nausea or any of that kind of thing.
Those extreme, really I think, terrible practices that were used
for a long time. They're not at stake in this case.
States can do and I think should prohibit those as
(03:52):
illegitimate forms of medical treatment. The question is, can this
state literally control what's speech therapists are allowed to say
to their clients or does that violate their First Amendment
rights both in freedom of speech and in freedom of religion.
And I think that's a very complicated question, and it
(04:13):
is totally, of course, not done a disservice. It is
not done fair service by these kinds of tweets which
are conflating it with totally unrelated things. And the actual
case Chiles v. Salazar is interesting and complicated. But one
more thing I want to show you guys about it
before we get into more of the details and my
thoughts is a video from the influencer Spence Wall, my
(04:38):
faith gay TikTok influencer who has a massive following and
people apparently turned two for political insight. Now he was
kind of funny when they just used to do funny
rants and stuff, but now he thinks that he's, like,
I don't know, a political commentator of sorts, and he
went on this rant about this case. Let's take a
listen to this.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
For all of you for Trump, congratulations, honestly, honestly congrat
You're melting orange creams of Cole Messiah and his hand picks.
Supreme Court justices just signaled that they might strike down
Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for miners. They haven't ruled
for it yet, but during arguments this week alone, a
majority of the conservative justices made it very clear that
(05:21):
they're leaning towards the side of the counselor who says
that this ban goes against her First Amendment rights. And no,
we're not talking about shock therapy. This isn't the fucking
nineteen fifties. This case is about talk therapy.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
But okay, I want to just pause there and give
Spencer a little bit of credit. As much as I
give him crap and as much as I am going
to disagree with him, he at least got the facts
right here, And unlike so many people, unlike No Lie
with Brian Tyler Cohen, he didn't just say this was
about electroshock therapy or whatever even when it's not and
get people all worked up based on something that's not true.
(05:54):
So I will shout out to you for that one, King.
The rest of what you're saying kind of sounds de lulu,
and we'll get into it. But shout out to you therapy.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
But it's still built off of the idea that being
queer or being trans is something to be and can
be fixed. Every major medical and psychological association says that
this is not only ineffective but harmful. But the Court's
conservative majority, the same ones who banned abortions and upheld
bands on gender a firming care, seem more worried about
a therapist's right to speak freely than protecting the LGBTQ
(06:26):
plus youth from emotional abuse. Justice Leital even suggested that
medical consensus might be politicized.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
I love, I love how Spencer acts like that's some
insane thing. How could you ever suggest that the experts
might be politicized, that medical consensus might be subject to like, babe,
where were you all of COVID? The entire pandemic with
the problem is we live and exist in different realities
and someone like Spencer and I we don't even exist
(06:57):
in a shared plane of factual reality enough truly dialogue
with each other. It's very concerning. And of course the
other thing is specifically on gender identity related transrelated issues. Yeah, absolutely,
medical associations have been compromised by ideology and activists gests,
and in particular, we know this because they've repeatedly made
(07:19):
very false, blatantly false statements about child transitioning. They've said
it's safe and effective. All the research, all the studies
say it's fine. We know that's not true from the
actual systemic reviews like the CAST review that have looked
at the evidence and actually waited it for its quality.
But all these expert associations, because again they were captured
by ideology, made a bunch of unfounded or vastly overstated
(07:43):
claims about the safety and efficacy of child gender transitions
medical transitions. And yeah, so we know that we can't
just blindly listen to whatever they say about this. And
the conservative justices are not crazy for wondering if the
science might be politicized. I don't. Again, he's just there's
so much he's unaware of here that it's hard to
(08:06):
even try to explain to him in a short version.
But yes, scientific institutions, particularly when it comes to gender
identity and trans stuff, are ideologically compromised.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Side, which means he is openly doubting the decades of
medical research that shows conversion therapy is harmful.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Any well, we'll talk about that a little more, perhaps,
But there's a lot of research showing that conversion therapy
is harmful, but most of that research concerns sexual orientation,
not gender identity. And then most of that research is
not about talk therapy but is about like the kind
of things we were talking about, revulsion therapy, like with
(08:47):
inducing nausea and other, exposure therapy and other and even
the electro shock stuff. So a lot of it is
not directly applicable to talk therapy. And then there's the
and founding issue of sexuality first, gender identity. There is
not all that much research into the safety or efficacy
(09:09):
of talk therapy with gender confused youth, So you're kind
of conflating a whole bunch of things. And yeah, the
justices aren't crazy for asking questions about that or doubting that.
And also the research doesn't settle the question if the
question is fundamentally illegal or constitutional question. But anyway, I'll
(09:29):
let him just keep you happen.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
It's harmful, and he's saying that states shouldn't be allowed
to rely on these medical findings to make laws. So no,
they didn't ban gay marriage, they didn't ban being gay
but this is another clear step that puts so called
religious freedom over the safety of queer individuals, especially queer youth.
So to all of you gays for Trump, all of
you rainbow flag maga Bible thumpers, congratulations, you've helped empower
(09:54):
court that's debating whether telling queer kids they're broken is
free speech.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
So there's a lot to unpack about that little rant.
I mean, I didn't vote for Trump, gays for Trump.
He's making this about Trump more than it actually is.
This same case would be unfolding if Kamala Harris had
won the election. The conservative Supreme Court majority would still
be hearing it. Challenges would have still been brought to
these blue state laws. The only thing that might have
(10:19):
been different is that the Department of Justice under Trump
weighed in in support of the faith based therapist, and
under Kamala they might have weighed in again, or they
almost certainly would have weighed against her, so that would
be different. But I'm not sure that actually would have
changed much. So making it about gays for Trump is
kind of an abstraction and over simplification, although in fairness,
it's more about gays for Trump the first term, because
(10:41):
the justices he appointed in his first term will be
deciding votes on this case. Now, I want to play you,
so you've kind of heard the critics take I want
to play you a video from the Alliance Defending Freedom
where they explain which is the lawyers and yeah, they're
called the hate group. I mean that's debatable, but they
are the lawyers representing this client, and they say it's
(11:03):
just about their Christian beliefs and the therapist's ability to
speak honestly and help people young people who are confused,
particularly about their gender. We take a look at this
video and then I'm going to get into some of
my thoughts, which are a little complicated.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Colorado has a law that they enacted the censor's counselor
speech specifically on issues of sex and gender identity.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
When a teen comes to me and they state that
they're struggling with their sex or sexuality, the state has
dictated to me that I'm only allowed to help them
go through the process of change in one way, and
that way would be by rejecting their biological sex and
most likely, as in research we're seeing, that leads to
(11:46):
a path of medicalization. If they were a minor who
were to come to me in to say I actually
don't want to go down that path. I would like
to grow in greater alignment with my body and become comfortable.
And that's something I actually cannot engage those clients in
conversations about.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
By censoring these counselors, they're taken away from these kids
the opportunity to have clear, open counseling conversations where they
can explore their own goals, which include realigning with their
biological sex or dealing with their confusion over their identity.
That's something that's good that kids need. Everyone should have
free speech in this country, and this is a case
that's going to bring that forward to the court one
(12:26):
more time.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
So before I give you more of my thoughts in
this case, I just want to present you, guys with
the actual definition of conversion therapy that Colorado put into
this law. Because it is very broad. It encompasses a lot,
and that's very important for what the outcome of this
case is going to be and what the right outcome is.
(12:47):
Because I'll say this first, I absolutely think that efforts
to change someone's sexuality through things like electro shock or
inducing nause or any of these kinds of treatments. These pseudoscientific,
fraudulent treatments can and should be banned for minors that
I totally support, have supported in the past, and I
(13:10):
would say they should almost certainly also be banned for
changing gender identity. You shouldn't be shocking people out of
being confused that they're non binary or whatever. That's not
a legitimate treatment either. The problem is that this law
is breathtakingly broad. It goes much further than that. Let's
take a look at the definition. Conversion therapy means any
(13:31):
practice or treatment by a licensee, registrant, or certificate holder
that attempts or purports to change in individual sexual orientation
or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions,
or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or
feelings towards individuals of the same sex. Now, this is
(13:51):
the important Conversion therapy does not include practices or treatments
that provide acceptance, support, and understand standing for the facilitation
of an individual's coping, social support, and identity exploration and development,
including sexual orientation neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful
conduct or unsafe sexual practices. As long as the counseling
(14:14):
does not seek to change sexual orientation or gender identity,
and of course that none of this counts to assisting
a person undergoing gender transition. So the reason this is
potentially a violation of the First Amendment is that this
state here is engaging in pretty clear viewpoint discrimination. What
(14:35):
they are saying is that you are allowed to counsel
somebody about changing their gender if you support them changing
their gender, but you are not allowed to if you
want to help them reconnect with their biological sex or
become more comfortable with their biological sex. So you are
allowed to talk about this stuff if you affirm their identity,
(14:58):
but not if you don't affirm their or even just
question it to make sure you're really sure about this,
you really understand this, That you can only affirm their
gender identity. I think that's kind of insane, actually. I
think that if, for example, a student comes in or
a young person comes into a therapist's office and says,
I'm a theorian. I identify as an animal. That's my
(15:20):
gender identity, and my pronouns are mew self. Now, of
course I'm being intentionally hyperbolic, although that's a thing it's
not a super common thing, but it is a thing.
But I'm doing that to test this to its limits.
What this law says is that it's illegal for the
counselor to tell you them you're not a cat. You
(15:40):
need to remember reconnect with the fact that you're a human.
Your gender identity of cat self is not valid. But
it's legal for them to say, yes, King, you're a cat.
Let's help you convince your family to acknowledge your pronouns.
That's deranged, and yes, it looks a lot like viewpoint
discriminate from the state against these counselors. And again, I
(16:03):
think there's a big distinction between their speech and a treatment. Obviously,
the state can regulate medical treatments, but just speech and
what you can say to your client. I have a
harder time with the idea that they should be able
to regulate that so extensively and that that doesn't violate
the First Amendment. Here's the thing that these progressives need
(16:25):
to understand. The First Amendment principle here is actually interesting
because it could easily go both ways. If the state
can pass laws that say a counselor cannot even counsel
talk therapy, that doesn't affirm gender identity. And the crazy
thing about that is gender identity, unlike sexuality, is not static.
(16:46):
Some people do change, do feel differently. Some people do desist.
They feel uncomfortable with their sex. Then they go through
puberty and they grow out of it and they feel
fine with their sex. Many of them become gay or lesbian.
And so the idea that counselors couldn't try to help
them do that, and then if it really persists, maybe
they get treatment down the line for being trans or
(17:07):
whatever is already crazy. But what's on illegal on a
First Amendment basis. What's important about this is that if
the state could do this, they could do it in
the opposite direction. So I would ask Spence Wall, I
would ask Brian Tyler Cohen. I would ask the other people.
If a Red state passed a law saying therapists cannot affirm,
(17:28):
even in talk therapy, a trans identity, would you agree
that violates the First Amendment rights of those therapists, And
I think they would say absolutely yes it does. But
hang on, they either have First Amendment rights in the
treatment room or they don't. So you can either have
both or have neither. In terms of the state regulating
these perspectives. I think it's probably better to have both
(17:52):
and then to have people they can if they're mistreated,
they can seek accountability through malpractice lawsuits. And none of
this is to say that I would ever recommend or
put my child in talk therapy for any of these things.
I probably wouldn't. I'm very skeptical. I do think these
treatments should be regulated or restricted when they cross the
(18:13):
line into actual treatments that are not substantiated, not proven,
but just talk therapy, making that illegal for some but
legal for some based on their perspective. That does seem
like a First Amendment violation to me, and it doesn't
seem like a Pandora's box that even progressive should want
to open, because I think if the Supreme Court were
(18:34):
to uphold these laws, you would see a suite of
red states roll out laws doing what I just said,
saying therapists are not allowed to affirm a non biological identity.
Is that what we want? Do we just want the
government playing controlling what therapists can say in their treatment
rooms constantly. I think we're probably better off without that personally,
(18:56):
but it's a messy thing. I mean again, because we're
conflating things that are so beyond the pale, like shocking
the gay out of kids or teenagers and questioning whether
this eleven year old is really non binary or they
just watched too many tiktoks, which definitely they're not. Actually,
(19:17):
so yeah, that's my take on it. I think it's
really complicated, but unfortunately this case is just not getting
the nuance that it deserves. Shocker right. The Internet conversation
over this highly sensitive issue is incredibly misleading and hyperbolic.
This is my shocked face. You guys will have to
let me know what you think in the comments below.
(19:38):
Make sure subscribe to the like button. YadA YadA.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Next, we're gonna check in, and I'm gonna keep this
one brief because it's so cringe, but we're gonna check
in with the Hassan piker drama again, and particularly this
streamer that we talked about, Valkyrie, this girl streamer who's
friends with Hassan and has been defending him because of
the collar Gaate and the allegations that he abused his
dog with an electric shock collar to keep the dog
(20:03):
on streams like a prop. Like I've said, he denies it.
I can't prove it, but I do believe on the
weight of the evidence, that's most likely that he did
shock the dog. Anyway, we talked about this yesterday, these
ridiculous streaming personalities defending this by like bringing up Palestine
as if that's just a get out of jail card
(20:23):
for whatever you do. Well, something worse is happening elsewhere
in the world, so blahlah blah. It's just a deflection,
it's a distraction, and she's getting roasted for it, rightfully.
So I called her out for it. I don't send hate.
I don't want people threatened. I don't want people harassed.
But yes, I said that to be Ess and you
shouldn't try to pull that on us. Well, she apparently
didn't handle very well being involved in this controversy, this
(20:46):
Valkyrie streamer person, and she was very upset about all
the mean things being said about her on the internet
on the Reddit. Ran through me that I think it's
from the Pirates of the Caribbean, that meme where he's
like about to be pushed off the plank or whatever,
and he's looking over and he's like, that's how I
feel towards her. Anyway, she ended up. I don't know
(21:06):
if she reached out to him or he reached out
to her, but she ended up speaking to Asthman Gold.
But if you don't know who asmen Gold is, he's
kind of he's huge in the streaming world now. He's
blown up recently, massive audience, tons of fans, tons of followers.
But he's more right leaning. He's had a couple takes
where I'm like, WHOA, I don't agree with that. And
I don't know his exact politics. I think he's moderate
(21:29):
on some things, but anyway, he's like not progressive. He's
not one of these lefty streamers, and he's considered problematic
for various things he said about I don't know, trans
people or whatever. Anyway, this Valkyrie streamer had a conversation
via DM with Asman Gold about handling all the backlash
and the pressure and everything, and he was really nice
(21:51):
and supportive to her, and then she apologized to her
fans for having spoken to him. I'm not kidding. Let's
take a look at that apology. I'm not going to
roll the whole thing. I'll just roll part of it
because the whole thing is just so long and rambling
and dumb. I don't want to waste your time, but
we'll listen to a little bit.
Speaker 6 (22:07):
At the end of the day, it is my fault
for not being aware enough, and I apologize to my community.
It was probably so hurtful and so jarring. I'm not
I'm under a rock and that's my fault. So I
think everyone, including myself, should be more aware of you know,
(22:28):
what's going on in the world and what people are saying.
I just like, it is my fault at the end
of the day. That is my fault. Literally, no one's
fault of my own. I'm not aware enough, and that's
on me. Wait, you're a good role model still this point,
I don't think so. I don't think I am. I
(22:53):
think I have a good job of recognizing when I
do mess up and accepting that and being okay with it.
But it's all good. It's all like, I hear you, guys,
I see you guys.
Speaker 4 (23:05):
You're right, You're so right.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
It's kind of pathetic. It's kind of tough to watch.
It's so pathetic, it's so gravelly, and it's also dishonest.
She's just lying if she says that she didn't know
asmn Gold was controversial. It should not matter. First of all,
it's not a crime to chat with someone via DM. Oh, no,
(23:30):
you chatted with a person who once said a couple
of things I don't like. That's so terrible. You're such
a traitor. Y'all are just so emotionally unstable and unwell.
I don't know, man, imagine having an audience like that.
That's the thing. So she's lying because she's saying, oh,
I didn't know he was so controversial, because she thinks
otherwise her audience will abandon her. There's no way you
(23:50):
can be this online and not be aware as these
streamers are, and not be aware of another streamer having
been involved in some of these controversies that he's been
involved in. So I believe she is just not being honest,
and she's trying to claim ignorance as a defense when
the truth is she knew and she just didn't think
people would get mad. And then as soon as some
crazies in her chat started yelling at her, she all
started bowing down and said, I'm so sorry. Please, oh
(24:13):
my gosh, I'm so sorry. Yes, please please forgive me. Yeah, no,
I'm sorry. If you have an audience that you are
so terrified of like this, Why do you want that audience?
I imagine that sounds genuinely terrible to me to be
constantly like watching your step, groveling, trying not to even
she didn't even say anything bad. She just spoke to
(24:36):
someone privately they think has said something bad. The levels
of outrage olympics mental gymnastics required to be mad about that,
and then the levels of spinelessness required to apologize for it.
Poor guy, asmen Gold, he was just trying to be
nice and this is what he gets. Really very sad,
(24:59):
very gross. A couple of people commented on this that
online that I felt was interesting. The streamer tech Tone wrote,
asmen Gold sticks his neck out for Valkyrie to make
sure she's okay and helps her navigate the discourse she's
going through, and she stabs him in the back and
affirms to her community that he has this evil, unforgivable
human being that should even be talked to, weak, pathetic, spineless. Yeah,
(25:20):
where's the lie in this tweet? I don't see a lie,
I just see truth. It sucks because sounds like, at
least in this situation, asmen Gold was doing the right
thing and being nice to someone and being supportive, and
this is what he gets. This is his reward, right,
what's that saying? Let no good deed go unpunished. It's unfortunate.
I hope that he would continue to be nice to
people though, even if it doesn't work out for you
(25:40):
every time, it's still the right thing to do. The
YouTuber shoe on Head wrote on x she needs to
set herself free from the mind prison that is progressive
audience capture quote, it was hurtful. If those fans are
hurt by you speaking to someone they don't like, they're
inevitably going to leave for another dumb reason. So tell
them to f off and the cool ones we'll stay. Yeah,
this is such a good point when she said in
(26:01):
her little clip where she's like, I'm sure it was
so hurtful. Are you sure of that? Because I'm not
What part of speaking dming someone hurts someone else? Like
this is just so bizarre to me. And if a
person is actually that fragile emotionally that a streamer communicating
(26:24):
privately with another streamer is harmful to them in some way,
that person belongs in a padded room, Like we can't
just have those people roaming society. What if someone sneezes
near them and they collapse, Like I, it's so insane.
And I had somebody who's a mutual of mine when
(26:44):
I was tweeting about this, reply to me and be like,
people keep telling me cancel. Culture is over. And then
I see stuff like this and I'm like, yeah, well,
because these online spaces haven't caught up, they don't know
what the year is. They're all still captive to this
deranged ideology. And honestly, when I see stuff like this
just makes me grateful that I'm not because to be
beholden to an audience like this, I think is a
(27:06):
far worse fate than not having any audience at all.
What do you guys think? Let me know in the comments.
Make sure subscribe, like YadA YadA. Yeah. One final story
I want to talk about is a restaurant, Great White,
has been accused of pretty serious racism and racial discrimination
definitely illegal, by the way, and I saw videos going
(27:29):
viral about it, and I wasn't initially going to talk
about it, and I'll touch on why, but then I
saw this MAGA influencer, Emily Saves America defending what I
think is kind of indefensible, so I do want to
talk about it anyway. Here is a local news clip
from NBCLA about this. These allegations against Great White take
(27:50):
a look.
Speaker 7 (27:51):
They put all Asians in one corner. Cassidy Chow and
her boyfriend dined at Great White Melrose on Saturday, September
twenty seventh, when she says she noticed the restaurant was
seating all of the patrons who appeared to be Asian
in one section of the restaurants.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
And everybody in the comments were like, no, like that
happened to us, And I think there were so many
people coming into light and saying that's a shared experience
that We've had.
Speaker 8 (28:15):
Numerous reviews online for Great White Melrose and their other
locations also had comments going back years alleging that people
of color were discriminated against. NBC four tracked down former
employees who say this was part of the management culture.
They were very direct about telling me to make sure
(28:35):
I limit the amount of ethnic people that are coming
in Montana. Pine also says she worked at Grand Blanco
as a server when Sarah was a host there.
Speaker 9 (28:44):
We were instructed to tell people that the restaurant was
a capacity when you know, certain demographics came in that
they did not want in the restaurant.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Yeah, so this is kind of insane, I mean, and
definitely illegal. These are just allegations, but it's not just
random people saying something on the internet. Reporters found former
employees on the record with their faces and names attached, saying, Yeah,
the company literally told us to racially discriminate against people. Uh,
(29:16):
that's bad and insane. How did they think they were
gonna get away with that? I don't understand, especially when
some of the employees they were telling to do it
are minorities themselves. You really think they're gonna just let
that one slide anyway? Very strange, very wild to me.
But I wasn't originally going to talk about this, even
though it's going viral on TikTok, because I just thought
(29:36):
it's not controversial or there's no what is there to
say about it? Like everyone will agree that that's bad
and restaurants shouldn't treat people differently. Shouldn't treat customers differently
because of their race. Shouldn't be telling people to close
when it's not rack capacity. Well we're not because they
don't want that crowd. Like that's obvious, definitely illegal, and
obviously just immoral. We shouldn't be treating each other differently
(29:58):
on the basis of immutable characteristics like that. But then
I saw this video from Emily Saves America, who is
a kind of mega Republican girl boss influencer of sorts,
defending this. And this wasn't like an out of context clip.
This is a video she edited, cut and uploaded to
her own channels, saying that she likes this and it's fine, Like,
(30:22):
I'm not even caricaturing her.
Speaker 10 (30:24):
Listen to this, literally helpless people of color says that
they would never eat out of place called Great White.
Started to go really obvious that it was never about
sharks all along, and they just didn't want people of
color to feel comfortable eating there.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
This is why LA's failing. Okay, Great White is delicious,
it's consistent. And now that I know they're white supremacs,
I will support them even more than I already do.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Excuse me? Did she just say that, now that I
know they're white supremacists, I'll support them even more than
I already do? What? Girl? No, that's bad. White supremacy
not good, like what is going on here? So the
way she's talking about it, like all this should matter
(31:08):
is their food. Get over it. This is why LA sucks.
It sounds like she's talking about a different controversy than
the one we're all talking about. It sounds like people
are mad that like, oh, like there was this thing
with Trader Joe's where they got mad that they had
different ethnic names about the different food brands that they
had in store. And it sounds like you're laughing at
(31:29):
some absurd controversy, not people calling them out for like
literal segregationist discrimination.
Speaker 6 (31:35):
What.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
No, that's valid, and that is not why LA is failing.
Because people are bothered if a company allegedly racially discriminates
against customers. Now, there are many reasons LA is failing,
that's not one of them. And maybe she doesn't know
the full scope of what's going on, but I mean,
that's kind of on you before you do a whole
(31:58):
episode of your YouTube channe or podcast about it or
what have you. And regardless, like that sentence to come
out of your mouth is quite a sentence. I what
you say exactly, I don't want to miss quote.
Speaker 5 (32:12):
Great white is delicious. It's consistent. And now that I
know they're white supremacy, I will support them even more
than I already do.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Uh, now that I know their white supremacist, I'll support
them even more than I do. Kudos for honesty, I guess,
but that's an evil thing to onnronically say.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
And here's the thing.
Speaker 5 (32:35):
They make great food, the service whatever not, Oh, never
been that great. I'm white. They didn't treat me better,
but they make good food. The only thing that should
qualify for a restaurant being open and remaining open is
great food.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
Yeah, I'm not trying I agree with that. Actually, I
mean I think again, if we were talking about some
silly controversy, then yeah, it's like, Okay, they make great
food and they serve their customers well. But this is
the point is they're not serving all customers well and
they're likely breaking laws if these allegations are true, and
having great food does an excuse like would I don't
(33:11):
think she'd feel this way if a restaurant banned MAGA supporters, right,
which would be significantly more defensible. I wouldn't support it anyway,
but it'd be more defensible than discriminating against someone for
their race, because you know, MAGA is a belief system
people choose to uphold. I don't think you should ban
people from your restaurants, but like, treating them differently because
of something they believe or stand for is different than
(33:33):
treating them because of the color of their skin differently.
But like, yet, no one would say, well that do
they make good food, that's all that matters. No, Actually,
racial discrimination also matters. If you're making good food but
not serving the whole community, or are treating customers unfairly,
that is bad. This isn't just like oh they're personal
politics or some unrelated controversy. All that really matters is
(33:55):
they do their job well. The point is they're not
doing their job well or fairly to all people, and
that is bad. Am I going crazy? I feel like
I'm going crazy watching this video.
Speaker 9 (34:05):
They're like great white HiT's. All the pieces are fitting together.
They're talking about white people being great. So I go
to these restaurants all the locations all the time. It
is a very hipster it is very diverse.
Speaker 5 (34:19):
First of all, the only thing they would do would
be Ashley racist is if they straight up just deny
the service.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
I'm not I mean, that's part of the allegations that
they turned people away or said they were full when
they weren't. So is she just contradicting herself. Yes, they narrator, Yes,
but also I mean, I don't know. I think it's
even if they didn't fully deny you service, if they
(34:46):
put all the Asians in one corner, that's weird behavior.
I don't know why you would do that, especially if
it's like a less desirable quarter. That's also still bad.
Even if they didn't fully deny service. I don't want
to understand this point, and it directly. Earlier she was
saying saying, I like that they did it. Now she's
saying and they didn't even do anything. They didn't even
do racial discriminate. What I can't keep up.
Speaker 5 (35:08):
I'm not, like, you know, extremely knowledgeable about food that
black people tend to eat, but it's usually not healthy
Australian style breakfasts. So I'm just throwing.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
That out there.
Speaker 5 (35:18):
Maybe that's why you don't see tons of black people there.
If you went to Rosco's Chicken Waffles, I don't think
you would see just four feet tall Chinese women anywhere.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
I mean, that last point is just kind of non
responsive to the actual issue here. Yeah, the issue is
that people are saying or ex employees and customers are
saying they were racially discriminated against, saying, well, maybe just
a lot of black people don't want to eat at
this restaurant. Yeah no, at least I wouldn't care if
it just they oh, yeah, they welcome all customers, but
(35:48):
you know, most of their clientele end up being white
because of people's preferences. I would have no issue. Maybe
some people would be complaining about that, but that would
be totally different than what we're talking about here. So
I feel like the best possible benefit of the doubt
to give is that maybe she just doesn't know the
full story of what's going on and just kind of
popped off from a place of ignorance. But then if
(36:11):
she actually knew all this and just like, yeah, I
love that the more white supremacists they are, the better.
If that statement was intended on ironically, then that's kind
of evil and bad, actually, and you should repent. I
don't know, you guys, let me know what you think
of Emily Saves America's take here. I personally think it
(36:31):
is bad if restaurants racially discriminate against customers allegedly, And yeah,
I think people being upset about that is actually fair
if it did indeed occur. So let me know what
you think in the comments below. Make sure subscribed if
you aren't yet, hit the like button. Yetta Yadi. Yeah. Remember,
you can send in voicemails for our Voicemail Friday episodes
where I react to your woke horror stories, give you
(36:52):
advice on your personal life scenarios, and answer any questions
you guys have for me. The link to send in
one of those is in the description. And with that, guys,
well that that will be it for today's episode and
we'll talk again. Also, we'll talk h
So to all of you gays for Trump, all of
you rainbow flag maga Bible thumpers, congratulations you've helped empower
court that's debating whether telling queer kits they're broken is
free speech.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Day's a day that ends in why so left wing
political influencers are crashing out and spreading misinformation on the Internet.
We're going to break this down, plus so much more
on today's episode of The Bread Versus Everyone podcast, my
(00:31):
daily show where we take on the craziest ideas from
across the Internet and social media, all from an independent perspective.
Up first, we've got a sensitive topic, a controversial case
that was just recently heard before the Supreme Court involving
state laws that ban so called conversion therapy, which refers
(00:53):
to therapeutic treatments, and we'll get into the details on
what that consists of regarding to change someone's sexual orientation
or crucially also their gender identity. Now, as always, influencers
and YouTubers and all the kind of Internet commentators, they're
(01:13):
treating this with nuance and care and informing people about
what's really happening, illustrating to them the good faith arguments
on both sides just kidding me when I lie. None
of that's happening at all. They're spreading insane misinformation and
acting like the sky is falling. I'm going to break
(01:33):
down their response, then give you my complicated thoughts on
this complex case, and yeah, let's get into it without
much further ado. So the first thing I want to
go over is a tweet that went super viral from
the political YouTuber and influencer Brian Tyler Cohen, who's a
self described progressive with millions of subscribers on YouTube and
(01:57):
millions of followers across social media. Play plats well in
a tweet from his account called no Lie with Brian
Tyler Cohen, a tweet that has received eighteen million views.
It's a lot of views. He wrote. The Supreme Court
appears ready to side with Trump in bringing back gay
conversion therapy. This practice involves physically abusing teenagers to try
(02:19):
to turn them heterosexual, including with electric shocks and chemically
induced nausea. Then it has Trump next to a rainbow flag.
So this has eighteen million views. It has lots of
people up in arms and really upset about this, And
I think, I mean, to some extent understandably. So it's
a really harmful thing to say, Oh, they're going to
(02:43):
start shocking the gay out of people again, and Trump's
all behind it, and the Supreme Court's about to do this.
The unfortunate aspect, or actually I would say the fortunate
aspect for reality, but unfortunate for Brian Tyler Cohen and
the people that listen to him, is that that's not true.
That's not reality. And of course it's ironic that this
comes from his account called No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen,
(03:07):
and he just posted a lie that got eighteen million views,
or I guess maybe calling it a lie is slightly harsh.
It's possible that he is mistaken and he thinks this
is true, but it's not actually true. So the case
before the Supreme Court is actually about talk therapy for
gender identity and sexual orientation. So that is the first
(03:29):
important thing to point out to you here. Talk therapy,
not electroshock therapy, not the kind of revulsion therapy where
they induce nausea or any of that kind of thing.
Those extreme, really I think, terrible practices that were used
for a long time. They're not at stake in this case.
States can do and I think should prohibit those as
(03:52):
illegitimate forms of medical treatment. The question is, can this
state literally control what's speech therapists are allowed to say
to their clients or does that violate their First Amendment
rights both in freedom of speech and in freedom of religion.
And I think that's a very complicated question, and it
(04:13):
is totally, of course, not done a disservice. It is
not done fair service by these kinds of tweets which
are conflating it with totally unrelated things. And the actual
case Chiles v. Salazar is interesting and complicated. But one
more thing I want to show you guys about it
before we get into more of the details and my
thoughts is a video from the influencer Spence Wall, my
(04:38):
faith gay TikTok influencer who has a massive following and
people apparently turned two for political insight. Now he was
kind of funny when they just used to do funny
rants and stuff, but now he thinks that he's, like,
I don't know, a political commentator of sorts, and he
went on this rant about this case. Let's take a
listen to this.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
For all of you for Trump, congratulations, honestly, honestly congrat
You're melting orange creams of Cole Messiah and his hand picks.
Supreme Court justices just signaled that they might strike down
Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for miners. They haven't ruled
for it yet, but during arguments this week alone, a
majority of the conservative justices made it very clear that
(05:21):
they're leaning towards the side of the counselor who says
that this ban goes against her First Amendment rights. And no,
we're not talking about shock therapy. This isn't the fucking
nineteen fifties. This case is about talk therapy.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
But okay, I want to just pause there and give
Spencer a little bit of credit. As much as I
give him crap and as much as I am going
to disagree with him, he at least got the facts
right here, And unlike so many people, unlike No Lie
with Brian Tyler Cohen, he didn't just say this was
about electroshock therapy or whatever even when it's not and
get people all worked up based on something that's not true.
(05:54):
So I will shout out to you for that one, King.
The rest of what you're saying kind of sounds de lulu,
and we'll get into it. But shout out to you therapy.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
But it's still built off of the idea that being
queer or being trans is something to be and can
be fixed. Every major medical and psychological association says that
this is not only ineffective but harmful. But the Court's
conservative majority, the same ones who banned abortions and upheld
bands on gender a firming care, seem more worried about
a therapist's right to speak freely than protecting the LGBTQ
(06:26):
plus youth from emotional abuse. Justice Leital even suggested that
medical consensus might be politicized.
Speaker 2 (06:33):
I love, I love how Spencer acts like that's some
insane thing. How could you ever suggest that the experts
might be politicized, that medical consensus might be subject to like, babe,
where were you all of COVID? The entire pandemic with
the problem is we live and exist in different realities
and someone like Spencer and I we don't even exist
(06:57):
in a shared plane of factual reality enough truly dialogue
with each other. It's very concerning. And of course the
other thing is specifically on gender identity related transrelated issues. Yeah, absolutely,
medical associations have been compromised by ideology and activists gests,
and in particular, we know this because they've repeatedly made
(07:19):
very false, blatantly false statements about child transitioning. They've said
it's safe and effective. All the research, all the studies
say it's fine. We know that's not true from the
actual systemic reviews like the CAST review that have looked
at the evidence and actually waited it for its quality.
But all these expert associations, because again they were captured
by ideology, made a bunch of unfounded or vastly overstated
(07:43):
claims about the safety and efficacy of child gender transitions
medical transitions. And yeah, so we know that we can't
just blindly listen to whatever they say about this. And
the conservative justices are not crazy for wondering if the
science might be politicized. I don't. Again, he's just there's
so much he's unaware of here that it's hard to
(08:06):
even try to explain to him in a short version.
But yes, scientific institutions, particularly when it comes to gender
identity and trans stuff, are ideologically compromised.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
Side, which means he is openly doubting the decades of
medical research that shows conversion therapy is harmful.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Any well, we'll talk about that a little more, perhaps,
But there's a lot of research showing that conversion therapy
is harmful, but most of that research concerns sexual orientation,
not gender identity. And then most of that research is
not about talk therapy but is about like the kind
of things we were talking about, revulsion therapy, like with
(08:47):
inducing nausea and other, exposure therapy and other and even
the electro shock stuff. So a lot of it is
not directly applicable to talk therapy. And then there's the
and founding issue of sexuality first, gender identity. There is
not all that much research into the safety or efficacy
(09:09):
of talk therapy with gender confused youth, So you're kind
of conflating a whole bunch of things. And yeah, the
justices aren't crazy for asking questions about that or doubting that.
And also the research doesn't settle the question if the
question is fundamentally illegal or constitutional question. But anyway, I'll
(09:29):
let him just keep you happen.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
It's harmful, and he's saying that states shouldn't be allowed
to rely on these medical findings to make laws. So no,
they didn't ban gay marriage, they didn't ban being gay
but this is another clear step that puts so called
religious freedom over the safety of queer individuals, especially queer youth.
So to all of you gays for Trump, all of
you rainbow flag maga Bible thumpers, congratulations, you've helped empower
(09:54):
court that's debating whether telling queer kids they're broken is
free speech.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
So there's a lot to unpack about that little rant.
I mean, I didn't vote for Trump, gays for Trump.
He's making this about Trump more than it actually is.
This same case would be unfolding if Kamala Harris had
won the election. The conservative Supreme Court majority would still
be hearing it. Challenges would have still been brought to
these blue state laws. The only thing that might have
(10:19):
been different is that the Department of Justice under Trump
weighed in in support of the faith based therapist, and
under Kamala they might have weighed in again, or they
almost certainly would have weighed against her, so that would
be different. But I'm not sure that actually would have
changed much. So making it about gays for Trump is
kind of an abstraction and over simplification, although in fairness,
it's more about gays for Trump the first term, because
(10:41):
the justices he appointed in his first term will be
deciding votes on this case. Now, I want to play you,
so you've kind of heard the critics take I want
to play you a video from the Alliance Defending Freedom
where they explain which is the lawyers and yeah, they're
called the hate group. I mean that's debatable, but they
are the lawyers representing this client, and they say it's
(11:03):
just about their Christian beliefs and the therapist's ability to
speak honestly and help people young people who are confused,
particularly about their gender. We take a look at this
video and then I'm going to get into some of
my thoughts, which are a little complicated.
Speaker 3 (11:17):
Colorado has a law that they enacted the censor's counselor
speech specifically on issues of sex and gender identity.
Speaker 4 (11:24):
When a teen comes to me and they state that
they're struggling with their sex or sexuality, the state has
dictated to me that I'm only allowed to help them
go through the process of change in one way, and
that way would be by rejecting their biological sex and
most likely, as in research we're seeing, that leads to
(11:46):
a path of medicalization. If they were a minor who
were to come to me in to say I actually
don't want to go down that path. I would like
to grow in greater alignment with my body and become comfortable.
And that's something I actually cannot engage those clients in
conversations about.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
By censoring these counselors, they're taken away from these kids
the opportunity to have clear, open counseling conversations where they
can explore their own goals, which include realigning with their
biological sex or dealing with their confusion over their identity.
That's something that's good that kids need. Everyone should have
free speech in this country, and this is a case
that's going to bring that forward to the court one
(12:26):
more time.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
So before I give you more of my thoughts in
this case, I just want to present you, guys with
the actual definition of conversion therapy that Colorado put into
this law. Because it is very broad. It encompasses a lot,
and that's very important for what the outcome of this
case is going to be and what the right outcome is.
(12:47):
Because I'll say this first, I absolutely think that efforts
to change someone's sexuality through things like electro shock or
inducing nause or any of these kinds of treatments. These pseudoscientific,
fraudulent treatments can and should be banned for minors that
I totally support, have supported in the past, and I
(13:10):
would say they should almost certainly also be banned for
changing gender identity. You shouldn't be shocking people out of
being confused that they're non binary or whatever. That's not
a legitimate treatment either. The problem is that this law
is breathtakingly broad. It goes much further than that. Let's
take a look at the definition. Conversion therapy means any
(13:31):
practice or treatment by a licensee, registrant, or certificate holder
that attempts or purports to change in individual sexual orientation
or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions,
or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or
feelings towards individuals of the same sex. Now, this is
(13:51):
the important Conversion therapy does not include practices or treatments
that provide acceptance, support, and understand standing for the facilitation
of an individual's coping, social support, and identity exploration and development,
including sexual orientation neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful
conduct or unsafe sexual practices. As long as the counseling
(14:14):
does not seek to change sexual orientation or gender identity,
and of course that none of this counts to assisting
a person undergoing gender transition. So the reason this is
potentially a violation of the First Amendment is that this
state here is engaging in pretty clear viewpoint discrimination. What
(14:35):
they are saying is that you are allowed to counsel
somebody about changing their gender if you support them changing
their gender, but you are not allowed to if you
want to help them reconnect with their biological sex or
become more comfortable with their biological sex. So you are
allowed to talk about this stuff if you affirm their identity,
(14:58):
but not if you don't affirm their or even just
question it to make sure you're really sure about this,
you really understand this, That you can only affirm their
gender identity. I think that's kind of insane, actually. I
think that if, for example, a student comes in or
a young person comes into a therapist's office and says,
I'm a theorian. I identify as an animal. That's my
(15:20):
gender identity, and my pronouns are mew self. Now, of
course I'm being intentionally hyperbolic, although that's a thing it's
not a super common thing, but it is a thing.
But I'm doing that to test this to its limits.
What this law says is that it's illegal for the
counselor to tell you them you're not a cat. You
(15:40):
need to remember reconnect with the fact that you're a human.
Your gender identity of cat self is not valid. But
it's legal for them to say, yes, King, you're a cat.
Let's help you convince your family to acknowledge your pronouns.
That's deranged, and yes, it looks a lot like viewpoint
discriminate from the state against these counselors. And again, I
(16:03):
think there's a big distinction between their speech and a treatment. Obviously,
the state can regulate medical treatments, but just speech and
what you can say to your client. I have a
harder time with the idea that they should be able
to regulate that so extensively and that that doesn't violate
the First Amendment. Here's the thing that these progressives need
(16:25):
to understand. The First Amendment principle here is actually interesting
because it could easily go both ways. If the state
can pass laws that say a counselor cannot even counsel
talk therapy, that doesn't affirm gender identity. And the crazy
thing about that is gender identity, unlike sexuality, is not static.
(16:46):
Some people do change, do feel differently. Some people do desist.
They feel uncomfortable with their sex. Then they go through
puberty and they grow out of it and they feel
fine with their sex. Many of them become gay or lesbian.
And so the idea that counselors couldn't try to help
them do that, and then if it really persists, maybe
they get treatment down the line for being trans or
(17:07):
whatever is already crazy. But what's on illegal on a
First Amendment basis. What's important about this is that if
the state could do this, they could do it in
the opposite direction. So I would ask Spence Wall, I
would ask Brian Tyler Cohen. I would ask the other people.
If a Red state passed a law saying therapists cannot affirm,
(17:28):
even in talk therapy, a trans identity, would you agree
that violates the First Amendment rights of those therapists, And
I think they would say absolutely yes it does. But
hang on, they either have First Amendment rights in the
treatment room or they don't. So you can either have
both or have neither. In terms of the state regulating
these perspectives. I think it's probably better to have both
(17:52):
and then to have people they can if they're mistreated,
they can seek accountability through malpractice lawsuits. And none of
this is to say that I would ever recommend or
put my child in talk therapy for any of these things.
I probably wouldn't. I'm very skeptical. I do think these
treatments should be regulated or restricted when they cross the
(18:13):
line into actual treatments that are not substantiated, not proven,
but just talk therapy, making that illegal for some but
legal for some based on their perspective. That does seem
like a First Amendment violation to me, and it doesn't
seem like a Pandora's box that even progressive should want
to open, because I think if the Supreme Court were
(18:34):
to uphold these laws, you would see a suite of
red states roll out laws doing what I just said,
saying therapists are not allowed to affirm a non biological identity.
Is that what we want? Do we just want the
government playing controlling what therapists can say in their treatment
rooms constantly. I think we're probably better off without that personally,
(18:56):
but it's a messy thing. I mean again, because we're
conflating things that are so beyond the pale, like shocking
the gay out of kids or teenagers and questioning whether
this eleven year old is really non binary or they
just watched too many tiktoks, which definitely they're not. Actually,
(19:17):
so yeah, that's my take on it. I think it's
really complicated, but unfortunately this case is just not getting
the nuance that it deserves. Shocker right. The Internet conversation
over this highly sensitive issue is incredibly misleading and hyperbolic.
This is my shocked face. You guys will have to
let me know what you think in the comments below.
(19:38):
Make sure subscribe to the like button. YadA YadA.
Speaker 5 (19:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
Next, we're gonna check in, and I'm gonna keep this
one brief because it's so cringe, but we're gonna check
in with the Hassan piker drama again, and particularly this
streamer that we talked about, Valkyrie, this girl streamer who's
friends with Hassan and has been defending him because of
the collar Gaate and the allegations that he abused his
dog with an electric shock collar to keep the dog
(20:03):
on streams like a prop. Like I've said, he denies it.
I can't prove it, but I do believe on the
weight of the evidence, that's most likely that he did
shock the dog. Anyway, we talked about this yesterday, these
ridiculous streaming personalities defending this by like bringing up Palestine
as if that's just a get out of jail card
(20:23):
for whatever you do. Well, something worse is happening elsewhere
in the world, so blahlah blah. It's just a deflection,
it's a distraction, and she's getting roasted for it, rightfully.
So I called her out for it. I don't send hate.
I don't want people threatened. I don't want people harassed.
But yes, I said that to be Ess and you
shouldn't try to pull that on us. Well, she apparently
didn't handle very well being involved in this controversy, this
(20:46):
Valkyrie streamer person, and she was very upset about all
the mean things being said about her on the internet
on the Reddit. Ran through me that I think it's
from the Pirates of the Caribbean, that meme where he's
like about to be pushed off the plank or whatever,
and he's looking over and he's like, that's how I
feel towards her. Anyway, she ended up. I don't know
(21:06):
if she reached out to him or he reached out
to her, but she ended up speaking to Asthman Gold.
But if you don't know who asmen Gold is, he's
kind of he's huge in the streaming world now. He's
blown up recently, massive audience, tons of fans, tons of followers.
But he's more right leaning. He's had a couple takes
where I'm like, WHOA, I don't agree with that. And
I don't know his exact politics. I think he's moderate
(21:29):
on some things, but anyway, he's like not progressive. He's
not one of these lefty streamers, and he's considered problematic
for various things he said about I don't know, trans
people or whatever. Anyway, this Valkyrie streamer had a conversation
via DM with Asman Gold about handling all the backlash
and the pressure and everything, and he was really nice
(21:51):
and supportive to her, and then she apologized to her
fans for having spoken to him. I'm not kidding. Let's
take a look at that apology. I'm not going to
roll the whole thing. I'll just roll part of it
because the whole thing is just so long and rambling
and dumb. I don't want to waste your time, but
we'll listen to a little bit.
Speaker 6 (22:07):
At the end of the day, it is my fault
for not being aware enough, and I apologize to my community.
It was probably so hurtful and so jarring. I'm not
I'm under a rock and that's my fault. So I
think everyone, including myself, should be more aware of you know,
(22:28):
what's going on in the world and what people are saying.
I just like, it is my fault at the end
of the day. That is my fault. Literally, no one's
fault of my own. I'm not aware enough, and that's
on me. Wait, you're a good role model still this point,
I don't think so. I don't think I am. I
(22:53):
think I have a good job of recognizing when I
do mess up and accepting that and being okay with it.
But it's all good. It's all like, I hear you, guys,
I see you guys.
Speaker 4 (23:05):
You're right, You're so right.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
It's kind of pathetic. It's kind of tough to watch.
It's so pathetic, it's so gravelly, and it's also dishonest.
She's just lying if she says that she didn't know
asmn Gold was controversial. It should not matter. First of all,
it's not a crime to chat with someone via DM. Oh, no,
(23:30):
you chatted with a person who once said a couple
of things I don't like. That's so terrible. You're such
a traitor. Y'all are just so emotionally unstable and unwell.
I don't know, man, imagine having an audience like that.
That's the thing. So she's lying because she's saying, oh,
I didn't know he was so controversial, because she thinks
otherwise her audience will abandon her. There's no way you
(23:50):
can be this online and not be aware as these
streamers are, and not be aware of another streamer having
been involved in some of these controversies that he's been
involved in. So I believe she is just not being honest,
and she's trying to claim ignorance as a defense when
the truth is she knew and she just didn't think
people would get mad. And then as soon as some
crazies in her chat started yelling at her, she all
started bowing down and said, I'm so sorry. Please, oh
(24:13):
my gosh, I'm so sorry. Yes, please please forgive me. Yeah, no,
I'm sorry. If you have an audience that you are
so terrified of like this, Why do you want that audience?
I imagine that sounds genuinely terrible to me to be
constantly like watching your step, groveling, trying not to even
she didn't even say anything bad. She just spoke to
(24:36):
someone privately they think has said something bad. The levels
of outrage olympics mental gymnastics required to be mad about that,
and then the levels of spinelessness required to apologize for it.
Poor guy, asmen Gold, he was just trying to be
nice and this is what he gets. Really very sad,
(24:59):
very gross. A couple of people commented on this that
online that I felt was interesting. The streamer tech Tone wrote,
asmen Gold sticks his neck out for Valkyrie to make
sure she's okay and helps her navigate the discourse she's
going through, and she stabs him in the back and
affirms to her community that he has this evil, unforgivable
human being that should even be talked to, weak, pathetic, spineless. Yeah,
(25:20):
where's the lie in this tweet? I don't see a lie,
I just see truth. It sucks because sounds like, at
least in this situation, asmen Gold was doing the right
thing and being nice to someone and being supportive, and
this is what he gets. This is his reward, right,
what's that saying? Let no good deed go unpunished. It's unfortunate.
I hope that he would continue to be nice to
people though, even if it doesn't work out for you
(25:40):
every time, it's still the right thing to do. The
YouTuber shoe on Head wrote on x she needs to
set herself free from the mind prison that is progressive
audience capture quote, it was hurtful. If those fans are
hurt by you speaking to someone they don't like, they're
inevitably going to leave for another dumb reason. So tell
them to f off and the cool ones we'll stay. Yeah,
this is such a good point when she said in
(26:01):
her little clip where she's like, I'm sure it was
so hurtful. Are you sure of that? Because I'm not
What part of speaking dming someone hurts someone else? Like
this is just so bizarre to me. And if a
person is actually that fragile emotionally that a streamer communicating
(26:24):
privately with another streamer is harmful to them in some way,
that person belongs in a padded room, Like we can't
just have those people roaming society. What if someone sneezes
near them and they collapse, Like I, it's so insane.
And I had somebody who's a mutual of mine when
(26:44):
I was tweeting about this, reply to me and be like,
people keep telling me cancel. Culture is over. And then
I see stuff like this and I'm like, yeah, well,
because these online spaces haven't caught up, they don't know
what the year is. They're all still captive to this
deranged ideology. And honestly, when I see stuff like this
just makes me grateful that I'm not because to be
beholden to an audience like this, I think is a
(27:06):
far worse fate than not having any audience at all.
What do you guys think? Let me know in the comments.
Make sure subscribe, like YadA YadA. Yeah. One final story
I want to talk about is a restaurant, Great White,
has been accused of pretty serious racism and racial discrimination
definitely illegal, by the way, and I saw videos going
(27:29):
viral about it, and I wasn't initially going to talk
about it, and I'll touch on why, but then I
saw this MAGA influencer, Emily Saves America defending what I
think is kind of indefensible, so I do want to
talk about it anyway. Here is a local news clip
from NBCLA about this. These allegations against Great White take
(27:50):
a look.
Speaker 7 (27:51):
They put all Asians in one corner. Cassidy Chow and
her boyfriend dined at Great White Melrose on Saturday, September
twenty seventh, when she says she noticed the restaurant was
seating all of the patrons who appeared to be Asian
in one section of the restaurants.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
And everybody in the comments were like, no, like that
happened to us, And I think there were so many
people coming into light and saying that's a shared experience
that We've had.
Speaker 8 (28:15):
Numerous reviews online for Great White Melrose and their other
locations also had comments going back years alleging that people
of color were discriminated against. NBC four tracked down former
employees who say this was part of the management culture.
They were very direct about telling me to make sure
(28:35):
I limit the amount of ethnic people that are coming
in Montana. Pine also says she worked at Grand Blanco
as a server when Sarah was a host there.
Speaker 9 (28:44):
We were instructed to tell people that the restaurant was
a capacity when you know, certain demographics came in that
they did not want in the restaurant.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
Yeah, so this is kind of insane, I mean, and
definitely illegal. These are just allegations, but it's not just
random people saying something on the internet. Reporters found former
employees on the record with their faces and names attached, saying, Yeah,
the company literally told us to racially discriminate against people. Uh,
(29:16):
that's bad and insane. How did they think they were
gonna get away with that? I don't understand, especially when
some of the employees they were telling to do it
are minorities themselves. You really think they're gonna just let
that one slide anyway? Very strange, very wild to me.
But I wasn't originally going to talk about this, even
though it's going viral on TikTok, because I just thought
(29:36):
it's not controversial or there's no what is there to
say about it? Like everyone will agree that that's bad
and restaurants shouldn't treat people differently. Shouldn't treat customers differently
because of their race. Shouldn't be telling people to close
when it's not rack capacity. Well we're not because they
don't want that crowd. Like that's obvious, definitely illegal, and
obviously just immoral. We shouldn't be treating each other differently
(29:58):
on the basis of immutable characteristics like that. But then
I saw this video from Emily Saves America, who is
a kind of mega Republican girl boss influencer of sorts,
defending this. And this wasn't like an out of context clip.
This is a video she edited, cut and uploaded to
her own channels, saying that she likes this and it's fine, Like,
(30:22):
I'm not even caricaturing her.
Speaker 10 (30:24):
Listen to this, literally helpless people of color says that
they would never eat out of place called Great White.
Started to go really obvious that it was never about
sharks all along, and they just didn't want people of
color to feel comfortable eating there.
Speaker 5 (30:37):
This is why LA's failing. Okay, Great White is delicious,
it's consistent. And now that I know they're white supremacs,
I will support them even more than I already do.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
Excuse me? Did she just say that, now that I
know they're white supremacists, I'll support them even more than
I already do? What? Girl? No, that's bad. White supremacy
not good, like what is going on here? So the
way she's talking about it, like all this should matter
(31:08):
is their food. Get over it. This is why LA sucks.
It sounds like she's talking about a different controversy than
the one we're all talking about. It sounds like people
are mad that like, oh, like there was this thing
with Trader Joe's where they got mad that they had
different ethnic names about the different food brands that they
had in store. And it sounds like you're laughing at
(31:29):
some absurd controversy, not people calling them out for like
literal segregationist discrimination.
Speaker 6 (31:35):
What.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
No, that's valid, and that is not why LA is failing.
Because people are bothered if a company allegedly racially discriminates
against customers. Now, there are many reasons LA is failing,
that's not one of them. And maybe she doesn't know
the full scope of what's going on, but I mean,
that's kind of on you before you do a whole
(31:58):
episode of your YouTube channe or podcast about it or
what have you. And regardless, like that sentence to come
out of your mouth is quite a sentence. I what
you say exactly, I don't want to miss quote.
Speaker 5 (32:12):
Great white is delicious. It's consistent. And now that I
know they're white supremacy, I will support them even more
than I already do.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Uh, now that I know their white supremacist, I'll support
them even more than I do. Kudos for honesty, I guess,
but that's an evil thing to onnronically say.
Speaker 4 (32:34):
And here's the thing.
Speaker 5 (32:35):
They make great food, the service whatever not, Oh, never
been that great. I'm white. They didn't treat me better,
but they make good food. The only thing that should
qualify for a restaurant being open and remaining open is
great food.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
Yeah, I'm not trying I agree with that. Actually, I
mean I think again, if we were talking about some
silly controversy, then yeah, it's like, Okay, they make great
food and they serve their customers well. But this is
the point is they're not serving all customers well and
they're likely breaking laws if these allegations are true, and
having great food does an excuse like would I don't
(33:11):
think she'd feel this way if a restaurant banned MAGA supporters, right,
which would be significantly more defensible. I wouldn't support it anyway,
but it'd be more defensible than discriminating against someone for
their race, because you know, MAGA is a belief system
people choose to uphold. I don't think you should ban
people from your restaurants, but like, treating them differently because
of something they believe or stand for is different than
(33:33):
treating them because of the color of their skin differently.
But like, yet, no one would say, well that do
they make good food, that's all that matters. No, Actually,
racial discrimination also matters. If you're making good food but
not serving the whole community, or are treating customers unfairly,
that is bad. This isn't just like oh they're personal
politics or some unrelated controversy. All that really matters is
(33:55):
they do their job well. The point is they're not
doing their job well or fairly to all people, and
that is bad. Am I going crazy? I feel like
I'm going crazy watching this video.
Speaker 9 (34:05):
They're like great white HiT's. All the pieces are fitting together.
They're talking about white people being great. So I go
to these restaurants all the locations all the time. It
is a very hipster it is very diverse.
Speaker 5 (34:19):
First of all, the only thing they would do would
be Ashley racist is if they straight up just deny
the service.
Speaker 2 (34:24):
I'm not I mean, that's part of the allegations that
they turned people away or said they were full when
they weren't. So is she just contradicting herself. Yes, they narrator, Yes,
but also I mean, I don't know. I think it's
even if they didn't fully deny you service, if they
(34:46):
put all the Asians in one corner, that's weird behavior.
I don't know why you would do that, especially if
it's like a less desirable quarter. That's also still bad.
Even if they didn't fully deny service. I don't want
to understand this point, and it directly. Earlier she was
saying saying, I like that they did it. Now she's
saying and they didn't even do anything. They didn't even
do racial discriminate. What I can't keep up.
Speaker 5 (35:08):
I'm not, like, you know, extremely knowledgeable about food that
black people tend to eat, but it's usually not healthy
Australian style breakfasts. So I'm just throwing.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
That out there.
Speaker 5 (35:18):
Maybe that's why you don't see tons of black people there.
If you went to Rosco's Chicken Waffles, I don't think
you would see just four feet tall Chinese women anywhere.
Speaker 2 (35:27):
I mean, that last point is just kind of non
responsive to the actual issue here. Yeah, the issue is
that people are saying or ex employees and customers are
saying they were racially discriminated against, saying, well, maybe just
a lot of black people don't want to eat at
this restaurant. Yeah no, at least I wouldn't care if
it just they oh, yeah, they welcome all customers, but
(35:48):
you know, most of their clientele end up being white
because of people's preferences. I would have no issue. Maybe
some people would be complaining about that, but that would
be totally different than what we're talking about here. So
I feel like the best possible benefit of the doubt
to give is that maybe she just doesn't know the
full story of what's going on and just kind of
popped off from a place of ignorance. But then if
(36:11):
she actually knew all this and just like, yeah, I
love that the more white supremacists they are, the better.
If that statement was intended on ironically, then that's kind
of evil and bad, actually, and you should repent. I
don't know, you guys, let me know what you think
of Emily Saves America's take here. I personally think it
(36:31):
is bad if restaurants racially discriminate against customers allegedly, And yeah,
I think people being upset about that is actually fair
if it did indeed occur. So let me know what
you think in the comments below. Make sure subscribed if
you aren't yet, hit the like button. Yetta Yadi. Yeah. Remember,
you can send in voicemails for our Voicemail Friday episodes
where I react to your woke horror stories, give you
(36:52):
advice on your personal life scenarios, and answer any questions
you guys have for me. The link to send in
one of those is in the description. And with that, guys,
well that that will be it for today's episode and
we'll talk again. Also, we'll talk h
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.