May 7, 2025 • 35 mins
Don't let biased news keep you in the dark. Head to https://ground.news/brad and grab 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Plan this month, which is only $5/month—It’s the perfect way to stay informed without the spin.
The trans athlete debate just took a dystopian twist, with a bizarre turn of events that's playing out in Maine. I break it down in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, the craziest Piers Morgan segment of all time goes viral and another wild story from an American college campus.
CHECK OUT THE MERCH: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
SEND ME A VOICE NOTE: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
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):
I will not be allowed to vote.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I will not be allowed to represent their interests because
of exercising my first Amendment.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Right.
Speaker 4 (00:07):
Just when you thought the trans debate couldn't get more unhinged,
democrats in one state take things in a dystopian new direction.
We're going to break this down, plus the craziest Peers
Morgan segment I've ever seen, and more Shenanigan's in higher
(00:28):
education and so much more on today's episode of The
Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we take
on the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective. Up first,
we got to talk about Maine, the dark blue New
England state that has interestingly become kind of a hot
spot for the transgender athlete wars. This hotly contested ongoing
(00:52):
debate over whether trans women and trans girls who are
biologically male should be allowed to compete in women's in girls' sports,
even though many people think that's unfair, think they have
a biological advantage. I share that view. That's the debate
that's heating up, and it's particularly focused on Maine because
their Democratic governor spoke out against President Trump's attempt to
(01:12):
prohibit this practice and promised to resist it. Plus, in Maine,
they have some high profile high school transgender athletes who
are winning and destroying the competition in girls' sports. Here's
Fox News recording on the latest example of that.
Speaker 5 (01:28):
Now that the fight for fairness in women's sports reaching
a flashpoint yet again in the state of Maine, another
transgender athlete winning more girl track events is the governor
faces off against the Trump administration of its refusal to
bar trans athletes from competing against women.
Speaker 6 (01:44):
I understand this athlete.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
When the eight hundred and the sixteen hundred meter races,
had this individual run with the men, the finish would
have been twelfth place in the sixteen.
Speaker 6 (01:56):
Hundredth and eighth in the eight hundred meter. I ask you,
how's this fair?
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Now? This practice of allowing people born biologically male to
compete in women's in girls' sports is incredibly unpopular because
it's just not reasonable to most people, even ones who
want respect and dignity for all people, trans or not,
and even many people in blue states like in Maine,
where this is not a popular program, even though it
is supported by most of the elected Democrats in that party.
(02:24):
Here's some interesting polling on this question.
Speaker 7 (02:27):
Over one thousand Manors were recently surveyed. For this poll.
Sixty four percent of Mayners say transgender athletes should not
participate in women's sports, in twenty nine percent say the opposite,
that they should be able to compete.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
So, given that even in a largely blue state like Maine,
this isn't a popular position, it's not exactly shocking that
Republican lawmakers in Maine would be against it. Even in
blue states where most people do agree with this, you're
going to have some Conservatives and Republicans who aren't on board,
But in this case, the Republicans speaking out are actually
represents the majority of people in May. Yet, the crackdown
(03:03):
facing one female lawmaker, State Representative Laurel Libby, has become
truly unhinged and dystopian in the way that her Democratic
colleagues have struck out against her and censored her and
silenced her in a pretty flagrant violation of the US
Constitution and a total one to eighty on all their
(03:24):
supposed values about feminism and supporting democracy just for speaking
out on this issue in a way that they disapproved of.
The extremely short version of this story is that Libby
made a Facebook post, which we'll get into the details,
calling out a high school athlete who transitioned to be
a trans girl and then dominated a track and field
competition for Democratic colleagues in the state House not only
(03:47):
censured her, like condemned her, but stripped her of her
right to speak on the floor and vote on legislation,
all because of this Facebook post. Now she finds herself
in this really, really insane situation. Listen to how she
described the current state of affairs in a Fox News interview.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
You're not only banned from speaking on the state House
in Maine, you're banned from voting.
Speaker 6 (04:11):
Because you won't apologize.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
And I don't think you've changed your position as of now,
so they've still got you locked up, don't they.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Yeah, it's been more than two months. Bill, Actually that
my constituents have not had a voice and vote in
the legislature. Two months of every time that there's a
role call vote, including on the Equal Rights Amendment, which
addresses this issue, among others, I was not allowed to vote.
So my constituents are being harmed every time that we
(04:43):
have session. We have session in a little bit today
and I will not be allowed to vote. I will
not be allowed to represent their interests because of exercising
my First Amendment rights.
Speaker 6 (04:54):
So you can't speak, you can't vote.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
I mean, next stop sale in Massachusetts, I do believe right,
So stay away from that town.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
So we're going to get into the details of all
of this, and I'm gonna explain why it's so incredibly hypocritical,
and it actually gets way worse. It's way worse than
you even know. And we're going to get into it
after this. The trans debate is getting insane.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
My pronouns aren't preferred, they are mandatory.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
The only way to figure out what's actually going on
is with ground News, and amazing service that I've used
for years and used to prepare this. Ground News gathers
news from all across the world in one place, so
you could see what both sides are saying make up
your own mind. It also shows you everything you need
to know about a source's ownership, bias, and factuality. Take
(05:37):
the recent UK Supreme Court decision, for example. Using ground News,
you can see how outlets on the left are spinning it.
The Independent wrote Supreme Court ruling just the latest curb
on trans rights worldwide LUSS. You can see how right
wing media discovering the story the Daily Wire wrote UK
Supreme Court rules trans identifying men are not women. That's
(05:58):
quite the differences news. You can get a neutral summary
of every story, see how both sides are framing it,
see who's covering the story at all and who isn't,
and most importantly, use your critical thinking skills to make
up your mind for yourself. You can get the same
plan that I use, which is the Vantage subscription. If
you sign up through my link ground dot News, slash
Brad or scan the QR code on screen, get forty
(06:20):
percent off unlimited access, which comes out to about five
dollars a month. This exclusive discount is available now through
this link. So act now to break your media bubble
and keep your critical thinking skills sharp. So I think
it's important to go over the full context here, starting
with the Facebook post that Laura la Be made that
got her in so much trouble in the first place.
(06:40):
On February seventeenth, she attached this photo of two different
images spliced together of track and field podiums of the
award winners, and one is three boys on the left
side and then on the right side is two girls
and one trans girl. I guess is how this person identifies.
She attached the followup statement to this image. Update we've
(07:02):
learned that just one year ago John was competing in
boy's pole vault. That's when he had his fifth place finish.
So all of this transpired in the last year with
the full blessing of the Main Principles Association. Two years ago,
John tied for fifth place in boy's pole vault tonight, Katie,
which she wrote in quotes one first place in the
girl's main State Class B championship. That's it. She just
(07:26):
attached this image and this description of events, all of which,
to be clear, was publicly reported on in local news
outlets and was publicly available in information, but she did
amplify it with her platform as a local representative. With
the following criticism, and notably, she did not blur out
the face of this athlete or blur out identifiable information
(07:49):
on their jersey and such, and that's where some of
the criticism came in. And while Libby certainly didn't deserve
everything that came next, I think it is actually potentially
fair to argue that because this person is a minor
she could have covered their face and covered the name
of their school, but that was part of the criticism,
and then some they took it to an absolutely astronomical level.
(08:10):
Libby's Democratic colleagues and Lockstep introduced a resolution censuring her
and stripping her of her basic function and duties of
voting and speaking on the floor as a duly elected
state representative. And this central resolution is one of the
most insane documents I've seen in some time. So this
resolution just describes the facts of what Libby did that
(08:31):
I just went over, and then criticizes the fact that
quote accompanying the pictures. Representative Libby posted a statement criticizing
the participation of transgender students in high school sports. Fact
check to be clear, she's saying in women's sports. She's
not saying they can't participate in sports. Back to the
resolution here. They also complain that Representative Libby's post has
received national attention that she has amplified by appearing on
(08:55):
national television and radio broadcast to discuss, which she is
totally allowed to do, by the way, Whereas a recent
study from the Williams Institute at UCLA found that transgender
people are over four times more likely to be victims
of violence, and whereas numerous replies to Representative Libby's posts
suggested that harm should come to the young athlete. So
(09:16):
obviously we don't want harm to come to anyone, and
violence happening to any people or any group of people
at disproportionate rates is a bad thing. But Libby never
called for violence against anyone. Nothing in that post suggested
anything of the sort. And just because some group is
disproportionately likely to be subject to violence doesn't mean you
can't criticize them or therefore aren't allowed to have opinions
(09:36):
about issues related to that group just because some other
people out there sometimes commit violence, that's a complete non
sequitor and a disingenuous way to try to shut down
an argument. In the same way, Libby is not responsible
for what a few random crazy people wrote in her
comments section. I mean, that's just not fair. She can't
control what other people say, and any time you speak
on a large platform, there'll be some crazy people who
(09:59):
see it. By the same logic, if Democratic members of
this state legislature had criticized Trump and a couple people
in the comments suggest they want violence staffin at Trump,
they should be censured. Obviously, that not like you're only
responsible for your words, and she didn't encourage violence, so
she's not responsible for that. But this is what they
wrote in this document that they used to strip her
of her democratically granted powers as an elected official. Whereas
(10:22):
Representative Libby's post named the miner and used photos of
the miner without that miner's consent in an effort to
advance her political agenda, and whereas, when it was brought
to our attention that her posts may endanger the miner,
Representative Libby refused to take down the post and instead
continued to bring media attention to the miner. And whereas
it is a basic tenet of politics and good moral
character that children should not be targeted by adult politicians,
(10:43):
especially when that targeting could result in serious harm. And
whereas the school district, as a result of Representative Libby's actions,
has had to increase security at the school, causing unnecessary
stress and disruption to other students, parents, teachers, and school
support staff in the entire community. And it goes on.
So they don't really actually provide any evidence that she
has somehow made this person unsafe. But I want everyone
(11:06):
to be safe. I don't want harm to come to anyone.
But she is not responsible for the actions of others.
And you are allowed to criticize people, and you are
allowed to whether you think it's right or not, whether
you think you should do.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
It or not.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
You are allowed to post images of someone, especially when
those images are coming from newspapers and public social media
posts and are publicly available without their consent. That's like
a thing people do all the time. Maybe I do
think you could argue she should have maybe blurred the
photo of the name of the person, of the face
of the person, of the school they go to, but
and still made her point. But it was publicly available information.
(11:38):
She does have a right to share it. That speech
is protected by the First Amendment. And yet they are
formally punishing her as the state government here for doing it.
They also, and this is one of the craziest parts,
tried to force her to apologize. The resolution says that
Representative Laurel D. Libby must accept full responsibility for the
incident and publicly apologize to the House and to the
(12:01):
people of the state of Maine. So, yeah, no, you
can't do that. You can't coerce someone into apologizing you
can't force them to take down their First Amendment protected speech.
Everything about this is unconstitutional, a blatant violation of the
First Amendment, and deeply, deeply hypocritical from the party that
says they're the feminists who want women in politics, but
(12:23):
just not women with these opinions or speak out like this,
and who stand for democracy but will literally nullify the
will will of the people, strip a duly elected representative
of their right to vote and speak just because they
disagree with something they said. Do y'all not see the
hypocrisy here? Seriously? How is that even possible? You don't
have to take my word for it, guys, that this
(12:44):
is a blatant First Amendment violation. The nonpartisan Foundation for
Individual Rights and Expression, the nation's premier free speech organization,
which disclaimer I do a little bit of freelance work for,
said this in a statement. The House Majority Party has
precluded Libby from doing her job and effectively dis franchised
her constituents and running main constitutional provisions that say a
(13:04):
representative cannot be expelled absent a two thirds vote or
recall election. What they mean here is that she has
essentially been removed from office without being removed from office.
In that if you take away a state representative's right
to vote on legislation and speak on the House floor,
you've effectively nullified their job that the people granted them
(13:25):
the power to do. Yet they did this with just,
I believe, a bare majority vote, and the main Constitution
specifically says if you want to remove someone from office,
you need a two thirds vote of the legislature. So
they are flagrantly working around their own states constitution. But
there's also a First Amendment issue here fire rights. These
actions are a clear example of retaliation based on constitutionally
(13:47):
protected speech, an amount to removal of an elected representative
essentially because the House majority disagrees with her views or
how she chose to express them. Sixty nine years ago,
the US Supreme Court held that a state legislature could
not refuse to set a duly elected member because of
his public statements about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court wrote, then,
the manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative
(14:09):
government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to
express their views on issues of policy. This is still
the law under the Constitution. The Main House cannot censor
Libby as it has done. This is exactly right, no
matter what you think of Libby's post, whether you agree
with it or disagree with it, whether you agree with
her on the issue but thinks she maybe should have
censored the student's face or name. It is protected by
(14:31):
the First Amendment unambiguously, and so the government, the state
government here can't punish her for it, and they certainly
can't strip her of her titles and responsibilities that the
people elected her to do, not without violating their own
states constitution and making complete hypocrites of themselves at every
turn from this Democrat party that stands for feminism and
(14:52):
democracy and the rule of law. Until you dare criticize
trans athletes and women's sports in a way that hurts
their fee fees. You know, Oh it's bad. You know,
the Democrats done messed up here, Because even many liberal
media outlets and liberal scholars are calling bias on them
for this. Vox wrote an article titled an anti trans
lawmaker brings a Supreme Court case that she absolutely must win.
(15:15):
Ian Meilheiser, who is a very left wing writer, wrote,
to defend democracy, the courts must rule in favor of
a lawmaker who bullied a high school student. Now, I
think we could quibble with their description of what Libby
did as bullying a high school student. I think it's
more complicated than that, But just set that aside for
a minute. On the main issue here, Vox agrees that
(15:37):
Libby is being wronged and that this is illegal. They write,
some court needs to intervene, regardless of what anyone thinks
about Libby's attack on a high school student. Allowing lawmakers
to strip their colleagues of their ability to vote on
legislation would set an alarming precedent that could be easily
used by authoritarian legislators to stifle dissent. I would argue
that that is exactly what is already happening here, but
(15:59):
sure further rights. Otherwise, any lawmaker who is in the
minority within their legislative body could be targeted by colleagues
who want to silence them and disenfranchise their constituents. I
mean kudos to Vox for like being fair and calling
this out. And it's a good point, right that if
in a blue state you can just strip a duly
elected member of the state representative of the state legislature
(16:21):
of their right to vote because they said something protected
by the First Amendment. But it upset you, well if
you don't think they could do that for everyone, every
blue you know, ultra progressive, ultra woke state lawmaker in
a red state, who says something outrageous or offensive, they can't.
There's no one way without the other. And this shouldn't
(16:41):
be a Pandora's box that progressives and Democrats want to open,
because if they do, and they somehow get away with it,
trust me, it's going to come back to bite y'all.
It absolutely is. Now. Representative Libby is now appealing this
to the Supreme Court, and her lawyers wrote this in
their application to the High Court to stop them Justice.
Representative Libby's thousands of constituents in main House District ninety
(17:05):
are now without a voice or vote for every bill
coming to the House floor for the rest of her
elected term, which runs through twenty twenty six. They are disenfranchised.
Libby and her district had no vote on the state's
eleven billion dollar budget, had no vote on a proposed
constitutional amendment, and will have no vote on hundreds of
more proposed laws, including, most ironically, whether Maine should change
(17:26):
its current policy of requiring girls to compete alongside transgender after.
The Supreme Court needs to stop this madness. It is
flagrantly illegal and obviously unconstitutional, so much so that even
liberal legal analysts can agree, and the Democratic Party, at
least in Maine needs to get a grip. You are
never going to fully intimidate, silence, and crush people into
(17:49):
going along with such a fringe and illogical position, and
the more you try, honestly, the more it will harden
people's resolves to stand up against this absolute mass. So look,
I'm sure I have my disagreements with Libby, and I
would have probably went about it in a different way,
but I stand behind her as a matter of law,
basic democracy, and constitutional order. What Democrats are doing here
(18:13):
is absurd and they need to be stopped. What do
you guys think? Let me know in the comments, because
this story is so crazy. I knew it was bad,
but the more I looked into it, the crazier it got.
Let me know what you think. Please do consider subscribing
if you haven't yet, do hit that like button before
you go, and remember to send me voice notes with
your woke horror stories, with your personal situations and life experiences.
(18:33):
You want my advice on to respond to an upcoming episodes,
remember to check out the merch line linked and description
and up next, we're going to break down the most
unhinged Piers Morgan's segment that I've ever seen, which is
saying something. So the context here this viral story about
this woman that allegedly called a young black child the
N word, and it's broken out into this big culture
(18:55):
war where people are fundraising for this woman for some reason.
I'm not going to get into that whole story itself
on this I want to react to this TV segment
Piers Morgan put together about it. I'm a big fan
of Peers. I think it does a good job. But
sometimes his segment sometimes he invites people that are just
too delulu to even really be reasoned with, and it
turns into kind of a Jerry Springer style show. That
(19:15):
was what this fell into. It's genuinely one of the
craziest things I've ever seen. Take a look at this
first clip.
Speaker 8 (19:20):
Would you use the M word out of interest?
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Yes, you would, I do quite frankly.
Speaker 8 (19:26):
You use the M word quite frankly. Well, why other
than the fact you're a despicable racist? Are you? I?
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Some would say I am a guess, according to the
ad L, I'm a white supremacist. I'm a neo Nazi.
Speaker 8 (19:38):
Yeah, but if you use the N word repeatedly, you
are you are a racism are.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
If that means forwarding?
Speaker 8 (19:45):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (19:46):
You know, helping white people achieve freedom of speech, real
freedom of speech.
Speaker 8 (19:49):
You just said to me you use the N word regularly?
In what context? Do you use it with black people?
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Ah?
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Yes, if if it's appropriate?
Speaker 8 (19:58):
When would it be appropriate people? Would it be appropriate anytime?
Speaker 1 (20:03):
I feel like it?
Speaker 8 (20:04):
So you're just you're un a shamed racist.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Correct?
Speaker 8 (20:07):
Well do you understand that makes you despicable human being?
Speaker 1 (20:10):
I guess so. I don't really care.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
So the first time I saw this and I heard
her just go correct, it sent me. I laughed out loud.
I'm like, what is going on? Who is this crazy person?
Because there's so much to unpack here. But look, if
you find yourself defending the action of calling a five
year old a racial slur in anger, you've lost the
plot that is obviously evil and immoral. Setting aside and
(20:33):
he broader debate. And when she said, yeah, I used
the N word, I thought she was going to say
something like more defensible, like yeah, I should be able
to sing along to songs in the car, not like yeah,
I call black people the N word in anger with
the hard R like, oh, that is diabolical, miss, I mean,
that is openly racist, and it's not okay to treat
your fellow Americans and your fellow citizens that way. Something
(20:55):
is really wrong with you. I mean, to be honest,
this girl's probably just doing it for attention online. She's
kind of made that her whole shick on Twitter. But
it also bothered me to hear her do this under
the masquerade of standing up for white people's freedom of speech,
because listen, it's kind of a separate question. Obviously, you know,
saying mean things or racial slurs is free speech. It's
protected by the First Amendment. And I will defend even
(21:18):
hateful and odious speech in a legal context because I
do believe in freedom of speech almost absolutely. But just
because you can say something doesn't mean you should say something,
and doesn't mean people can't get offended and upset. And
just because like legally, you're allowed to do all sorts
of horrible things, doesn't mean you should. If you're a
kind or serious or empathetic person at all. So invoking
(21:40):
freedom of speech as to why you call people slurs
is just nonsensical. And this woman made some similarly nonsensical
points in the rest of this interview.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Take a listen, well, shame on white people for allowing
themselves to be just systematically discriminated against in the United States.
This is our country, this is.
Speaker 8 (21:59):
A a kind that should your country.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Because I'm white in my well.
Speaker 8 (22:04):
People in American history. Is that you're saying that they've
all just landed in America invading you, your white country?
Is is that your position?
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Well, I mean they were brought here technically, they.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
Were brought here technically, might be the understatement of the
twenty first century. They were brought here in mass as
slaves against their will. That's actually pretty horrible and just
just missing like, well, they were brought here technically, wild,
absolutely wild. And I do have to say I am
absolutely willing and ready and able to criticize policies that
(22:39):
are discriminatory against white people in the name of DEI
have talked a lot about affirmative action, these kinds of things,
and there is a real anti white sentiment in some
pockets of American life, especially like online hyperwoke circles. But
I always roll my eyes at people who want to
seriously act like white people are oppressed in modern America.
(23:00):
They're not. Not on net not on balance. You can
walk out into the world and just the world is
your oyster. As a white person. Still you may occasionally
face some sort of adversity or discrimination in like a
dei context in corporate America or higher education or whatever.
But spare me this victim script. White people are not oppressed. Okay,
we are still in the freest and most prosperous large
(23:20):
scale human civilization to ever exists. Well, there's still very
much your oyster, and ninety nine percent at the time
the people you encounter, unless you're like on the campus
of Harvard or something, are not going to discriminate against
you because you're white. It's just a victim script that
reminds me of woke people when they act like, oh
woe is me as a white person in twenty twenty five.
I'm not saying there's no issues. I talk about them
(23:42):
on the show, But spare me this Rosa Park's imitation. Okay,
give me a break. And America is not our country
as white people. This is a very stupid and bizarre argument.
The same way that I disagree with like woke leftist
progressives when they argue that white people today owe some
sort of debt or have some sort of guilt for
slavery or things our ancestors did. I also I think
(24:03):
that's evil, right, because it has nothing to do with me.
I never chose that, I was never involved in that.
It's also actually evil to do the opposite thing, in
the opposite direction, where you say, well, we owe this
country because of our ancestors, or were entitled to more
than other people because of what our ancestors did or
were involved with, rather than their ancestors. Actually, ancestral guilt
(24:24):
or ancestral credit is illogical and evil because it's totally
beyond people's control. It involves no choice or action on
their part, and no moral failing or moral good. It's
just a happenstance of what came before them that there
are not responsible for. So treating them differently because of
it is illogical and is immoral, And it's also like
just not even internally consistent. White people were here. Well,
(24:48):
actually know from hundreds and hundreds of years ago. There
have been people of different races here, like African American
people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves. So by
that logic, it's just as much their country as ours.
Their ancestors were involved in building it in many important ways.
And a whole lot of white people's ancestors came here
like one generation go or two generations ago, whereas some
other minorities of different racial backgrounds, their ancestors have been
(25:10):
here for three or four decades. So even if you
were going to play the ancestral game, which I think
is stupid and wrong, to be very clear, I think
anybody who's born here is an American period, and we
don't have some Americans who are more American than others,
or it's really our country because their family tree goes
back further. I think that's stupid and dumb. But even
if you were going to play that game, you still
(25:30):
can't make it a white and black thing in this
like white pride kind of way without being totally absurd
and nonsensical and yes racist. Now, I do have to
say that this moment at the end of this panel
was the best part. It was just so unhinged in
so many ways. It was just chef's kiss of our
du lulu epidemic in society, all wrapped up in one.
(25:51):
Take a listen to this clique.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
I want to live in a country where people are
allowed to say what they want unashamedly.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
And you can.
Speaker 6 (25:58):
You will go.
Speaker 8 (25:58):
I'm saying, I'm not gone, gone say the N word. Gone.
Speaker 7 (26:03):
No, no, no, no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 9 (26:05):
I don't want you to invite this woman to say
a racially harmful terment on me because I'm only I'm
the only one here, so if she says it, I'm
the victim of it. So please don't invite her for
ratings to call me the D word, because that's basically
what it's going to be.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
There's a bunch of white people up here.
Speaker 9 (26:19):
You and what one uncle Tom on the on the
left ear and ask for her to say the end
work while I'm here as ridiculous. You would not sit
here with a Jewish person and say, please use a
Jewish slur in front.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Of the Jewish.
Speaker 9 (26:29):
It's ridiculous, honest, say you don't have any bad in
tip Piers.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
I understand what you're trying.
Speaker 9 (26:32):
To do, and I don't want to invite a racial
harm to.
Speaker 8 (26:36):
Me, I hate and I accept that. I will leave
it there.
Speaker 4 (26:40):
So everything about this is just didn't say, it's just
unhinged from Myron Gaines, the al right, red pilled dude
holding up a flag that says the N word for
some reason, like dude has just lost the plot. He'll
just do anything for attention. I guess then to Lily here,
who tweets the N word all the time, suddenly not
being quite so keen to say with her chest on
(27:00):
TV though she was cut off, maybe she would have.
I do think whatever you're willing to say behind a keyboard,
you should be willing to say into a camera. I
don't think there's anything wrong with what Piers did, trying
to put her on the spot, trying to really test
her to her limits. And look, Mark Lamont Hill, black
professor that you heard from here. I understand that this
is a word that has a lot of terrible historical
connotation and is very upsetting to people. But I guess
(27:22):
I can't understand this reaction from him, like, how could
you ask her to say it in front of me
that will cause me deep profound harm. I mean, it
is just a word. I guess the only thing I
can do is put it in my shoes that if
I was on a television panel and somebody said the
f slur about gay people or said something really nasty
about gay people, I would chime in and challenge them
and disagree with them and call them out. I wouldn't
(27:43):
be emotionally harmed. I wouldn't. It's not like my ears
don't need to be sheltered from me in words and
in hateful sentiments that do exist out there. But maybe
that's just me, Like, maybe I just have thick skin
and I'm very internally secure in my sense of self,
So just somebody saying a slur wouldn't send me into
kind of an apoplectic rage and frenzy like this. But
(28:03):
you know, I don't know. Obviously, there's a very complicated
history of race in America. I understand why people feel
very strongly about that word in this context. But his
reaction did seem over the top to me, And the
idea that he would be caused some harm by some
idiot saying something stupid on the same zoom call as him,
I'm deeply skeptical of that, to say the very least.
(28:24):
But one interesting thing, because I even when I do
these short like clips, I watch the whole segment. I
do watch it on two X, but I watched the
whole segment and Mark lemont Hill is like a very
left wing, very radical guy. They made him seem like
the same and normal one except for my friend Ricky
Schlott from The New York Post, who is the furthest
right woman on the panel, who spoke pure facts and
(28:45):
common sense. And unfortunately no Jululu, so I didn't include
her in this, but she was like the lone voice
of sanity. I co sign everything. She's wonderful. But what
a wild segment. And it wasn't the only wild thing
on Piers's show this week. He also into viewed Yay
formerly known as Kanye West. You know, the rapper and
music star who's gone cuckoo for Cocoa Pops and Shocker.
(29:08):
It went terribly. Here's the first clip from this and warning, guys,
Kanye has officially lost it.
Speaker 8 (29:14):
I watched what you put out on X. You got
thirty two million followers, so you're one of the most
followed people.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
See wait now, look, look look at look right now.
Speaker 10 (29:23):
You're not going to take You're not going to take
inches off my dick, bro, like, how many followers do
I have?
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Well?
Speaker 8 (29:30):
How many is it?
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I think you could do the study. You got a
whole staff over there.
Speaker 8 (29:34):
I thought he was thirty ten million. How many is it?
You obviously know?
Speaker 3 (29:37):
I mean no, I mean, don't don't help them out.
Speaker 8 (29:40):
You know they I'm telling thirty three million now, So congratulations,
you're slightly big, bigger following than I thought.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
No, congratulations, your information is correct.
Speaker 10 (29:50):
You're not just some you know dude trying to sub
You know, I'm a gift bro, you know. I mean,
why why do all you people in media act like
you have played my songs at your weddings or graduations
or at funerals.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
And when your child was born?
Speaker 10 (30:05):
You know, you take somebody that's living like a Lenen
h Michael Jackson, and you just take all this time
to just like that nuance right there. It's it's idiotic.
It just shows the hate that you put out for
people that put love. There's so much love and respect.
Speaker 8 (30:23):
What are you talking about? I haven't said anything.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
What do you talk about? It's thirty okay?
Speaker 10 (30:28):
Now you're not taking accountability or responsibil you know, of
course I need to no, no, sir, this is what
you get for now. We can we can circle back
when you can count.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
Okay, yay, I guess I should call him, but you know,
Kanye West is how he was most famously known. This
is not helping you beat the narcissism egomaniac allegations, babe.
It is simply not to throw a tantrum and walk
out of an interview because somebody said you had thirty
(31:07):
two million followers instead of thirty three million followers is
just such an absurd and pedantic little nitpick to pick that.
You come off as incredibly arrogant, and it's just like, oh, wow, congrats,
you're so big and so important. He's obviously not. The
very framing of this was him talking about how big
your platform is, and then he's going to challenge you
(31:28):
on how you use it, and you're like quibbling with
you forgot my latest million followers. It's just incredibly incredibly
off putting, an arrogant and to storm out of an
interview because of it. I mean, to bring it up
at all makes you look kind of childish and silly,
but to then storm out of an interview of it
is just childish immature snowflake behavior frankly, and I'm sorry,
(31:50):
but to say with a straight face in twenty twenty
five that Yay is just putting out love is absurd.
He is tweeting and posting insanely hateful things about Jewish people,
and then is apparently too scared to sit for an
actual interview being pressed or challenged on any of it
because he made up a silly excuse to throw a
tantrum and quit before any real substantive questions could be asked.
(32:12):
And I think that is deeply revealing. I had to
agree with Peers what he wrote when he shared this
clip on x He simply wrote a massive dick period.
The other thing about this, though, for me, is that
it shows it's just another reminder how stupid the kind
of woke argument of is of no platforming. Don't platform
bad or controversial people. Actually, sometimes platforming them is exactly
(32:35):
how you give them the sunlight and the spotlight they
need to destroy themselves to reveal to the public how
de lulu they actually are. So sometimes platforming people in
a critical and skeptical context can actually be exactly what
is necessary and what is needed. And I put this
crazy Kanye segment or Yay segment into that category for sure?
(32:57):
What did you guys think? Have you seen this going viral?
Let me know what you think in the comments. Up next,
more insanity from the world of higher education, because this
professor canceled an exam and told the students to go
protest Trump instead. Yes, seriously, The Washington Freebeacon reports that
a University of Chicago's stats professor canceled a midterm Thursday
(33:18):
and called on his students to join an anti Trump
protest instead. Now the Free Beacon has the email that
the professor sent out, and boy, it is quite something.
Midterm canceled, dear students. The country is an emergency. The
Trump administration is kidnapping people off the street, deporting them
to foreign prisons, jailing and threatening to deport students who
(33:38):
demonstrated and support of Palestinians, ignoring Supreme Court decisions, attacking
higher education institutions, dismantling environmental protections, dismantling the research on
climate change and on health, arbitrarily canceling visas of foreign students,
and on and on and on. So today, thousands across
the country are demonstrating in a national Day of action
as a small contribution to this day of action. I'm
(33:59):
canceling the midterm and calling you if you are able
to join the Chicago demonstration announced here. It will begin
at eleven am in Union Park, marching against this dangerous
authoritarian administration of the utmost importance. He continues, I know
you have studied hard for the exam, so I will
post the exam as a homework to be handed in
(34:20):
on Tuesday, May sixth. Your final grade will be based
on a rewighing of the homework, quizzes and final project. Bruh,
you have got to be kidding me. As far as
I'm concerned, he should be fired for this. I know
I probably won't, probably as ten yure or whatever, YadA
YadA yah. But when you literally refuse to do your job,
when you take a piss all over these students paying
(34:42):
thousands of dollars to take your class and substitute your
kind of unhinged and alarmist political takes and political agenda
onto it instead of doing your job, I mean that
is gross misconduct in your professional capacity as a professor,
and it is insulting to your students. I would be
livid if that was me in his class. To be clear,
(35:03):
I think this professor has ever right to his opinions
to hate Trump as much as he wants to attend
these protests on his own time, do whatever, speak out
against Trump. But when it crosses over into using your
authority and power as a professor to push an agenda
on people like this, I think is inappropriate. But then
especially to neglect and totally compromise your actual academic responsibilities
(35:24):
of your job in pursuit of that agenda. To me,
it's absolutely unacceptable. But one thing I can't say is
that it's particularly surprising given the state of modern academia today.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
All right, guys, that'll be it for this episode of
the Red Versus Everyone podcast. Thank you all so much
for tuning in. Please do make sure you're subscribed. If
you aren't yet, do it that like button before you go.
(35:45):
Remember this, send me some voice notes and check out
the merch and we'll talk again real soon.
I will not be allowed to vote.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I will not be allowed to represent their interests because
of exercising my first Amendment.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
Right.
Speaker 4 (00:07):
Just when you thought the trans debate couldn't get more unhinged,
democrats in one state take things in a dystopian new direction.
We're going to break this down, plus the craziest Peers
Morgan segment I've ever seen, and more Shenanigan's in higher
(00:28):
education and so much more on today's episode of The
Brad Versus Everyone podcast, my daily show where we take
on the craziest ideas from across the Internet, our media,
and our politics, all from an independent perspective. Up first,
we got to talk about Maine, the dark blue New
England state that has interestingly become kind of a hot
spot for the transgender athlete wars. This hotly contested ongoing
(00:52):
debate over whether trans women and trans girls who are
biologically male should be allowed to compete in women's in girls' sports,
even though many people think that's unfair, think they have
a biological advantage. I share that view. That's the debate
that's heating up, and it's particularly focused on Maine because
their Democratic governor spoke out against President Trump's attempt to
(01:12):
prohibit this practice and promised to resist it. Plus, in Maine,
they have some high profile high school transgender athletes who
are winning and destroying the competition in girls' sports. Here's
Fox News recording on the latest example of that.
Speaker 5 (01:28):
Now that the fight for fairness in women's sports reaching
a flashpoint yet again in the state of Maine, another
transgender athlete winning more girl track events is the governor
faces off against the Trump administration of its refusal to
bar trans athletes from competing against women.
Speaker 6 (01:44):
I understand this athlete.
Speaker 5 (01:45):
When the eight hundred and the sixteen hundred meter races,
had this individual run with the men, the finish would
have been twelfth place in the sixteen.
Speaker 6 (01:56):
Hundredth and eighth in the eight hundred meter. I ask you,
how's this fair?
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Now? This practice of allowing people born biologically male to
compete in women's in girls' sports is incredibly unpopular because
it's just not reasonable to most people, even ones who
want respect and dignity for all people, trans or not,
and even many people in blue states like in Maine,
where this is not a popular program, even though it
is supported by most of the elected Democrats in that party.
(02:24):
Here's some interesting polling on this question.
Speaker 7 (02:27):
Over one thousand Manors were recently surveyed. For this poll.
Sixty four percent of Mayners say transgender athletes should not
participate in women's sports, in twenty nine percent say the opposite,
that they should be able to compete.
Speaker 4 (02:41):
So, given that even in a largely blue state like Maine,
this isn't a popular position, it's not exactly shocking that
Republican lawmakers in Maine would be against it. Even in
blue states where most people do agree with this, you're
going to have some Conservatives and Republicans who aren't on board,
But in this case, the Republicans speaking out are actually
represents the majority of people in May. Yet, the crackdown
(03:03):
facing one female lawmaker, State Representative Laurel Libby, has become
truly unhinged and dystopian in the way that her Democratic
colleagues have struck out against her and censored her and
silenced her in a pretty flagrant violation of the US
Constitution and a total one to eighty on all their
(03:24):
supposed values about feminism and supporting democracy just for speaking
out on this issue in a way that they disapproved of.
The extremely short version of this story is that Libby
made a Facebook post, which we'll get into the details,
calling out a high school athlete who transitioned to be
a trans girl and then dominated a track and field
competition for Democratic colleagues in the state House not only
(03:47):
censured her, like condemned her, but stripped her of her
right to speak on the floor and vote on legislation,
all because of this Facebook post. Now she finds herself
in this really, really insane situation. Listen to how she
described the current state of affairs in a Fox News interview.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
You're not only banned from speaking on the state House
in Maine, you're banned from voting.
Speaker 6 (04:11):
Because you won't apologize.
Speaker 5 (04:14):
And I don't think you've changed your position as of now,
so they've still got you locked up, don't they.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Yeah, it's been more than two months. Bill, Actually that
my constituents have not had a voice and vote in
the legislature. Two months of every time that there's a
role call vote, including on the Equal Rights Amendment, which
addresses this issue, among others, I was not allowed to vote.
So my constituents are being harmed every time that we
(04:43):
have session. We have session in a little bit today
and I will not be allowed to vote. I will
not be allowed to represent their interests because of exercising
my First Amendment rights.
Speaker 6 (04:54):
So you can't speak, you can't vote.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
I mean, next stop sale in Massachusetts, I do believe right,
So stay away from that town.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
So we're going to get into the details of all
of this, and I'm gonna explain why it's so incredibly hypocritical,
and it actually gets way worse. It's way worse than
you even know. And we're going to get into it
after this. The trans debate is getting insane.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
My pronouns aren't preferred, they are mandatory.
Speaker 4 (05:17):
The only way to figure out what's actually going on
is with ground News, and amazing service that I've used
for years and used to prepare this. Ground News gathers
news from all across the world in one place, so
you could see what both sides are saying make up
your own mind. It also shows you everything you need
to know about a source's ownership, bias, and factuality. Take
(05:37):
the recent UK Supreme Court decision, for example. Using ground News,
you can see how outlets on the left are spinning it.
The Independent wrote Supreme Court ruling just the latest curb
on trans rights worldwide LUSS. You can see how right
wing media discovering the story the Daily Wire wrote UK
Supreme Court rules trans identifying men are not women. That's
(05:58):
quite the differences news. You can get a neutral summary
of every story, see how both sides are framing it,
see who's covering the story at all and who isn't,
and most importantly, use your critical thinking skills to make
up your mind for yourself. You can get the same
plan that I use, which is the Vantage subscription. If
you sign up through my link ground dot News, slash
Brad or scan the QR code on screen, get forty
(06:20):
percent off unlimited access, which comes out to about five
dollars a month. This exclusive discount is available now through
this link. So act now to break your media bubble
and keep your critical thinking skills sharp. So I think
it's important to go over the full context here, starting
with the Facebook post that Laura la Be made that
got her in so much trouble in the first place.
(06:40):
On February seventeenth, she attached this photo of two different
images spliced together of track and field podiums of the
award winners, and one is three boys on the left
side and then on the right side is two girls
and one trans girl. I guess is how this person identifies.
She attached the followup statement to this image. Update we've
(07:02):
learned that just one year ago John was competing in
boy's pole vault. That's when he had his fifth place finish.
So all of this transpired in the last year with
the full blessing of the Main Principles Association. Two years ago,
John tied for fifth place in boy's pole vault tonight, Katie,
which she wrote in quotes one first place in the
girl's main State Class B championship. That's it. She just
(07:26):
attached this image and this description of events, all of which,
to be clear, was publicly reported on in local news
outlets and was publicly available in information, but she did
amplify it with her platform as a local representative. With
the following criticism, and notably, she did not blur out
the face of this athlete or blur out identifiable information
(07:49):
on their jersey and such, and that's where some of
the criticism came in. And while Libby certainly didn't deserve
everything that came next, I think it is actually potentially
fair to argue that because this person is a minor
she could have covered their face and covered the name
of their school, but that was part of the criticism,
and then some they took it to an absolutely astronomical level.
(08:10):
Libby's Democratic colleagues and Lockstep introduced a resolution censuring her
and stripping her of her basic function and duties of
voting and speaking on the floor as a duly elected
state representative. And this central resolution is one of the
most insane documents I've seen in some time. So this
resolution just describes the facts of what Libby did that
(08:31):
I just went over, and then criticizes the fact that
quote accompanying the pictures. Representative Libby posted a statement criticizing
the participation of transgender students in high school sports. Fact
check to be clear, she's saying in women's sports. She's
not saying they can't participate in sports. Back to the
resolution here. They also complain that Representative Libby's post has
received national attention that she has amplified by appearing on
(08:55):
national television and radio broadcast to discuss, which she is
totally allowed to do, by the way, Whereas a recent
study from the Williams Institute at UCLA found that transgender
people are over four times more likely to be victims
of violence, and whereas numerous replies to Representative Libby's posts
suggested that harm should come to the young athlete. So
(09:16):
obviously we don't want harm to come to anyone, and
violence happening to any people or any group of people
at disproportionate rates is a bad thing. But Libby never
called for violence against anyone. Nothing in that post suggested
anything of the sort. And just because some group is
disproportionately likely to be subject to violence doesn't mean you
can't criticize them or therefore aren't allowed to have opinions
(09:36):
about issues related to that group just because some other
people out there sometimes commit violence, that's a complete non
sequitor and a disingenuous way to try to shut down
an argument. In the same way, Libby is not responsible
for what a few random crazy people wrote in her
comments section. I mean, that's just not fair. She can't
control what other people say, and any time you speak
on a large platform, there'll be some crazy people who
(09:59):
see it. By the same logic, if Democratic members of
this state legislature had criticized Trump and a couple people
in the comments suggest they want violence staffin at Trump,
they should be censured. Obviously, that not like you're only
responsible for your words, and she didn't encourage violence, so
she's not responsible for that. But this is what they
wrote in this document that they used to strip her
of her democratically granted powers as an elected official. Whereas
(10:22):
Representative Libby's post named the miner and used photos of
the miner without that miner's consent in an effort to
advance her political agenda, and whereas, when it was brought
to our attention that her posts may endanger the miner,
Representative Libby refused to take down the post and instead
continued to bring media attention to the miner. And whereas
it is a basic tenet of politics and good moral
character that children should not be targeted by adult politicians,
(10:43):
especially when that targeting could result in serious harm. And
whereas the school district, as a result of Representative Libby's actions,
has had to increase security at the school, causing unnecessary
stress and disruption to other students, parents, teachers, and school
support staff in the entire community. And it goes on.
So they don't really actually provide any evidence that she
has somehow made this person unsafe. But I want everyone
(11:06):
to be safe. I don't want harm to come to anyone.
But she is not responsible for the actions of others.
And you are allowed to criticize people, and you are
allowed to whether you think it's right or not, whether
you think you should do.
Speaker 3 (11:16):
It or not.
Speaker 4 (11:17):
You are allowed to post images of someone, especially when
those images are coming from newspapers and public social media
posts and are publicly available without their consent. That's like
a thing people do all the time. Maybe I do
think you could argue she should have maybe blurred the
photo of the name of the person, of the face
of the person, of the school they go to, but
and still made her point. But it was publicly available information.
(11:38):
She does have a right to share it. That speech
is protected by the First Amendment. And yet they are
formally punishing her as the state government here for doing it.
They also, and this is one of the craziest parts,
tried to force her to apologize. The resolution says that
Representative Laurel D. Libby must accept full responsibility for the
incident and publicly apologize to the House and to the
(12:01):
people of the state of Maine. So, yeah, no, you
can't do that. You can't coerce someone into apologizing you
can't force them to take down their First Amendment protected speech.
Everything about this is unconstitutional, a blatant violation of the
First Amendment, and deeply, deeply hypocritical from the party that
says they're the feminists who want women in politics, but
(12:23):
just not women with these opinions or speak out like this,
and who stand for democracy but will literally nullify the
will will of the people, strip a duly elected representative
of their right to vote and speak just because they
disagree with something they said. Do y'all not see the
hypocrisy here? Seriously? How is that even possible? You don't
have to take my word for it, guys, that this
(12:44):
is a blatant First Amendment violation. The nonpartisan Foundation for
Individual Rights and Expression, the nation's premier free speech organization,
which disclaimer I do a little bit of freelance work for,
said this in a statement. The House Majority Party has
precluded Libby from doing her job and effectively dis franchised
her constituents and running main constitutional provisions that say a
(13:04):
representative cannot be expelled absent a two thirds vote or
recall election. What they mean here is that she has
essentially been removed from office without being removed from office.
In that if you take away a state representative's right
to vote on legislation and speak on the House floor,
you've effectively nullified their job that the people granted them
(13:25):
the power to do. Yet they did this with just,
I believe, a bare majority vote, and the main Constitution
specifically says if you want to remove someone from office,
you need a two thirds vote of the legislature. So
they are flagrantly working around their own states constitution. But
there's also a First Amendment issue here fire rights. These
actions are a clear example of retaliation based on constitutionally
(13:47):
protected speech, an amount to removal of an elected representative
essentially because the House majority disagrees with her views or
how she chose to express them. Sixty nine years ago,
the US Supreme Court held that a state legislature could
not refuse to set a duly elected member because of
his public statements about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court wrote, then,
the manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative
(14:09):
government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to
express their views on issues of policy. This is still
the law under the Constitution. The Main House cannot censor
Libby as it has done. This is exactly right, no
matter what you think of Libby's post, whether you agree
with it or disagree with it, whether you agree with
her on the issue but thinks she maybe should have
censored the student's face or name. It is protected by
(14:31):
the First Amendment unambiguously, and so the government, the state
government here can't punish her for it, and they certainly
can't strip her of her titles and responsibilities that the
people elected her to do, not without violating their own
states constitution and making complete hypocrites of themselves at every
turn from this Democrat party that stands for feminism and
(14:52):
democracy and the rule of law. Until you dare criticize
trans athletes and women's sports in a way that hurts
their fee fees. You know, Oh it's bad. You know,
the Democrats done messed up here, Because even many liberal
media outlets and liberal scholars are calling bias on them
for this. Vox wrote an article titled an anti trans
lawmaker brings a Supreme Court case that she absolutely must win.
(15:15):
Ian Meilheiser, who is a very left wing writer, wrote,
to defend democracy, the courts must rule in favor of
a lawmaker who bullied a high school student. Now, I
think we could quibble with their description of what Libby
did as bullying a high school student. I think it's
more complicated than that, But just set that aside for
a minute. On the main issue here, Vox agrees that
(15:37):
Libby is being wronged and that this is illegal. They write,
some court needs to intervene, regardless of what anyone thinks
about Libby's attack on a high school student. Allowing lawmakers
to strip their colleagues of their ability to vote on
legislation would set an alarming precedent that could be easily
used by authoritarian legislators to stifle dissent. I would argue
that that is exactly what is already happening here, but
(15:59):
sure further rights. Otherwise, any lawmaker who is in the
minority within their legislative body could be targeted by colleagues
who want to silence them and disenfranchise their constituents. I
mean kudos to Vox for like being fair and calling
this out. And it's a good point, right that if
in a blue state you can just strip a duly
elected member of the state representative of the state legislature
(16:21):
of their right to vote because they said something protected
by the First Amendment. But it upset you, well if
you don't think they could do that for everyone, every
blue you know, ultra progressive, ultra woke state lawmaker in
a red state, who says something outrageous or offensive, they can't.
There's no one way without the other. And this shouldn't
(16:41):
be a Pandora's box that progressives and Democrats want to open,
because if they do, and they somehow get away with it,
trust me, it's going to come back to bite y'all.
It absolutely is. Now. Representative Libby is now appealing this
to the Supreme Court, and her lawyers wrote this in
their application to the High Court to stop them Justice.
Representative Libby's thousands of constituents in main House District ninety
(17:05):
are now without a voice or vote for every bill
coming to the House floor for the rest of her
elected term, which runs through twenty twenty six. They are disenfranchised.
Libby and her district had no vote on the state's
eleven billion dollar budget, had no vote on a proposed
constitutional amendment, and will have no vote on hundreds of
more proposed laws, including, most ironically, whether Maine should change
(17:26):
its current policy of requiring girls to compete alongside transgender after.
The Supreme Court needs to stop this madness. It is
flagrantly illegal and obviously unconstitutional, so much so that even
liberal legal analysts can agree, and the Democratic Party, at
least in Maine needs to get a grip. You are
never going to fully intimidate, silence, and crush people into
(17:49):
going along with such a fringe and illogical position, and
the more you try, honestly, the more it will harden
people's resolves to stand up against this absolute mass. So look,
I'm sure I have my disagreements with Libby, and I
would have probably went about it in a different way,
but I stand behind her as a matter of law,
basic democracy, and constitutional order. What Democrats are doing here
(18:13):
is absurd and they need to be stopped. What do
you guys think? Let me know in the comments, because
this story is so crazy. I knew it was bad,
but the more I looked into it, the crazier it got.
Let me know what you think. Please do consider subscribing
if you haven't yet, do hit that like button before
you go, and remember to send me voice notes with
your woke horror stories, with your personal situations and life experiences.
(18:33):
You want my advice on to respond to an upcoming episodes,
remember to check out the merch line linked and description
and up next, we're going to break down the most
unhinged Piers Morgan's segment that I've ever seen, which is
saying something. So the context here this viral story about
this woman that allegedly called a young black child the
N word, and it's broken out into this big culture
(18:55):
war where people are fundraising for this woman for some reason.
I'm not going to get into that whole story itself
on this I want to react to this TV segment
Piers Morgan put together about it. I'm a big fan
of Peers. I think it does a good job. But
sometimes his segment sometimes he invites people that are just
too delulu to even really be reasoned with, and it
turns into kind of a Jerry Springer style show. That
(19:15):
was what this fell into. It's genuinely one of the
craziest things I've ever seen. Take a look at this
first clip.
Speaker 8 (19:20):
Would you use the M word out of interest?
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Yes, you would, I do quite frankly.
Speaker 8 (19:26):
You use the M word quite frankly. Well, why other
than the fact you're a despicable racist? Are you? I?
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Some would say I am a guess, according to the
ad L, I'm a white supremacist. I'm a neo Nazi.
Speaker 8 (19:38):
Yeah, but if you use the N word repeatedly, you
are you are a racism are.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
If that means forwarding?
Speaker 8 (19:45):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (19:46):
You know, helping white people achieve freedom of speech, real
freedom of speech.
Speaker 8 (19:49):
You just said to me you use the N word regularly?
In what context? Do you use it with black people?
Speaker 3 (19:56):
Ah?
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Yes, if if it's appropriate?
Speaker 8 (19:58):
When would it be appropriate people? Would it be appropriate anytime?
Speaker 1 (20:03):
I feel like it?
Speaker 8 (20:04):
So you're just you're un a shamed racist.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Correct?
Speaker 8 (20:07):
Well do you understand that makes you despicable human being?
Speaker 1 (20:10):
I guess so. I don't really care.
Speaker 4 (20:12):
So the first time I saw this and I heard
her just go correct, it sent me. I laughed out loud.
I'm like, what is going on? Who is this crazy person?
Because there's so much to unpack here. But look, if
you find yourself defending the action of calling a five
year old a racial slur in anger, you've lost the
plot that is obviously evil and immoral. Setting aside and
(20:33):
he broader debate. And when she said, yeah, I used
the N word, I thought she was going to say
something like more defensible, like yeah, I should be able
to sing along to songs in the car, not like yeah,
I call black people the N word in anger with
the hard R like, oh, that is diabolical, miss, I mean,
that is openly racist, and it's not okay to treat
your fellow Americans and your fellow citizens that way. Something
(20:55):
is really wrong with you. I mean, to be honest,
this girl's probably just doing it for attention online. She's
kind of made that her whole shick on Twitter. But
it also bothered me to hear her do this under
the masquerade of standing up for white people's freedom of speech,
because listen, it's kind of a separate question. Obviously, you know,
saying mean things or racial slurs is free speech. It's
protected by the First Amendment. And I will defend even
(21:18):
hateful and odious speech in a legal context because I
do believe in freedom of speech almost absolutely. But just
because you can say something doesn't mean you should say something,
and doesn't mean people can't get offended and upset. And
just because like legally, you're allowed to do all sorts
of horrible things, doesn't mean you should. If you're a
kind or serious or empathetic person at all. So invoking
(21:40):
freedom of speech as to why you call people slurs
is just nonsensical. And this woman made some similarly nonsensical
points in the rest of this interview.
Speaker 1 (21:50):
Take a listen, well, shame on white people for allowing
themselves to be just systematically discriminated against in the United States.
This is our country, this is.
Speaker 8 (21:59):
A a kind that should your country.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Because I'm white in my well.
Speaker 8 (22:04):
People in American history. Is that you're saying that they've
all just landed in America invading you, your white country?
Is is that your position?
Speaker 1 (22:13):
Well, I mean they were brought here technically, they.
Speaker 4 (22:17):
Were brought here technically, might be the understatement of the
twenty first century. They were brought here in mass as
slaves against their will. That's actually pretty horrible and just
just missing like, well, they were brought here technically, wild,
absolutely wild. And I do have to say I am
absolutely willing and ready and able to criticize policies that
(22:39):
are discriminatory against white people in the name of DEI
have talked a lot about affirmative action, these kinds of things,
and there is a real anti white sentiment in some
pockets of American life, especially like online hyperwoke circles. But
I always roll my eyes at people who want to
seriously act like white people are oppressed in modern America.
(23:00):
They're not. Not on net not on balance. You can
walk out into the world and just the world is
your oyster. As a white person. Still you may occasionally
face some sort of adversity or discrimination in like a
dei context in corporate America or higher education or whatever.
But spare me this victim script. White people are not oppressed. Okay,
we are still in the freest and most prosperous large
(23:20):
scale human civilization to ever exists. Well, there's still very
much your oyster, and ninety nine percent at the time
the people you encounter, unless you're like on the campus
of Harvard or something, are not going to discriminate against
you because you're white. It's just a victim script that
reminds me of woke people when they act like, oh
woe is me as a white person in twenty twenty five.
I'm not saying there's no issues. I talk about them
(23:42):
on the show, But spare me this Rosa Park's imitation. Okay,
give me a break. And America is not our country
as white people. This is a very stupid and bizarre argument.
The same way that I disagree with like woke leftist
progressives when they argue that white people today owe some
sort of debt or have some sort of guilt for
slavery or things our ancestors did. I also I think
(24:03):
that's evil, right, because it has nothing to do with me.
I never chose that, I was never involved in that.
It's also actually evil to do the opposite thing, in
the opposite direction, where you say, well, we owe this
country because of our ancestors, or were entitled to more
than other people because of what our ancestors did or
were involved with, rather than their ancestors. Actually, ancestral guilt
(24:24):
or ancestral credit is illogical and evil because it's totally
beyond people's control. It involves no choice or action on
their part, and no moral failing or moral good. It's
just a happenstance of what came before them that there
are not responsible for. So treating them differently because of
it is illogical and is immoral, And it's also like
just not even internally consistent. White people were here. Well,
(24:48):
actually know from hundreds and hundreds of years ago. There
have been people of different races here, like African American
people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves. So by
that logic, it's just as much their country as ours.
Their ancestors were involved in building it in many important ways.
And a whole lot of white people's ancestors came here
like one generation go or two generations ago, whereas some
other minorities of different racial backgrounds, their ancestors have been
(25:10):
here for three or four decades. So even if you
were going to play the ancestral game, which I think
is stupid and wrong, to be very clear, I think
anybody who's born here is an American period, and we
don't have some Americans who are more American than others,
or it's really our country because their family tree goes
back further. I think that's stupid and dumb. But even
if you were going to play that game, you still
(25:30):
can't make it a white and black thing in this
like white pride kind of way without being totally absurd
and nonsensical and yes racist. Now, I do have to
say that this moment at the end of this panel
was the best part. It was just so unhinged in
so many ways. It was just chef's kiss of our
du lulu epidemic in society, all wrapped up in one.
(25:51):
Take a listen to this clique.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
I want to live in a country where people are
allowed to say what they want unashamedly.
Speaker 3 (25:57):
And you can.
Speaker 6 (25:58):
You will go.
Speaker 8 (25:58):
I'm saying, I'm not gone, gone say the N word. Gone.
Speaker 7 (26:03):
No, no, no, no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 9 (26:05):
I don't want you to invite this woman to say
a racially harmful terment on me because I'm only I'm
the only one here, so if she says it, I'm
the victim of it. So please don't invite her for
ratings to call me the D word, because that's basically
what it's going to be.
Speaker 4 (26:17):
There's a bunch of white people up here.
Speaker 9 (26:19):
You and what one uncle Tom on the on the
left ear and ask for her to say the end
work while I'm here as ridiculous. You would not sit
here with a Jewish person and say, please use a
Jewish slur in front.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
Of the Jewish.
Speaker 9 (26:29):
It's ridiculous, honest, say you don't have any bad in
tip Piers.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
I understand what you're trying.
Speaker 9 (26:32):
To do, and I don't want to invite a racial
harm to.
Speaker 8 (26:36):
Me, I hate and I accept that. I will leave
it there.
Speaker 4 (26:40):
So everything about this is just didn't say, it's just
unhinged from Myron Gaines, the al right, red pilled dude
holding up a flag that says the N word for
some reason, like dude has just lost the plot. He'll
just do anything for attention. I guess then to Lily here,
who tweets the N word all the time, suddenly not
being quite so keen to say with her chest on
(27:00):
TV though she was cut off, maybe she would have.
I do think whatever you're willing to say behind a keyboard,
you should be willing to say into a camera. I
don't think there's anything wrong with what Piers did, trying
to put her on the spot, trying to really test
her to her limits. And look, Mark Lamont Hill, black
professor that you heard from here. I understand that this
is a word that has a lot of terrible historical
connotation and is very upsetting to people. But I guess
(27:22):
I can't understand this reaction from him, like, how could
you ask her to say it in front of me
that will cause me deep profound harm. I mean, it
is just a word. I guess the only thing I
can do is put it in my shoes that if
I was on a television panel and somebody said the
f slur about gay people or said something really nasty
about gay people, I would chime in and challenge them
and disagree with them and call them out. I wouldn't
(27:43):
be emotionally harmed. I wouldn't. It's not like my ears
don't need to be sheltered from me in words and
in hateful sentiments that do exist out there. But maybe
that's just me, Like, maybe I just have thick skin
and I'm very internally secure in my sense of self,
So just somebody saying a slur wouldn't send me into
kind of an apoplectic rage and frenzy like this. But
(28:03):
you know, I don't know. Obviously, there's a very complicated
history of race in America. I understand why people feel
very strongly about that word in this context. But his
reaction did seem over the top to me, And the
idea that he would be caused some harm by some
idiot saying something stupid on the same zoom call as him,
I'm deeply skeptical of that, to say the very least.
(28:24):
But one interesting thing, because I even when I do
these short like clips, I watch the whole segment. I
do watch it on two X, but I watched the
whole segment and Mark lemont Hill is like a very
left wing, very radical guy. They made him seem like
the same and normal one except for my friend Ricky
Schlott from The New York Post, who is the furthest
right woman on the panel, who spoke pure facts and
(28:45):
common sense. And unfortunately no Jululu, so I didn't include
her in this, but she was like the lone voice
of sanity. I co sign everything. She's wonderful. But what
a wild segment. And it wasn't the only wild thing
on Piers's show this week. He also into viewed Yay
formerly known as Kanye West. You know, the rapper and
music star who's gone cuckoo for Cocoa Pops and Shocker.
(29:08):
It went terribly. Here's the first clip from this and warning, guys,
Kanye has officially lost it.
Speaker 8 (29:14):
I watched what you put out on X. You got
thirty two million followers, so you're one of the most
followed people.
Speaker 3 (29:20):
See wait now, look, look look at look right now.
Speaker 10 (29:23):
You're not going to take You're not going to take
inches off my dick, bro, like, how many followers do
I have?
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Well?
Speaker 8 (29:30):
How many is it?
Speaker 3 (29:31):
I think you could do the study. You got a
whole staff over there.
Speaker 8 (29:34):
I thought he was thirty ten million. How many is it?
You obviously know?
Speaker 3 (29:37):
I mean no, I mean, don't don't help them out.
Speaker 8 (29:40):
You know they I'm telling thirty three million now, So congratulations,
you're slightly big, bigger following than I thought.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
No, congratulations, your information is correct.
Speaker 10 (29:50):
You're not just some you know dude trying to sub
You know, I'm a gift bro, you know. I mean,
why why do all you people in media act like
you have played my songs at your weddings or graduations
or at funerals.
Speaker 3 (30:04):
And when your child was born?
Speaker 10 (30:05):
You know, you take somebody that's living like a Lenen
h Michael Jackson, and you just take all this time
to just like that nuance right there. It's it's idiotic.
It just shows the hate that you put out for
people that put love. There's so much love and respect.
Speaker 8 (30:23):
What are you talking about? I haven't said anything.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
What do you talk about? It's thirty okay?
Speaker 10 (30:28):
Now you're not taking accountability or responsibil you know, of
course I need to no, no, sir, this is what
you get for now. We can we can circle back
when you can count.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
Okay, yay, I guess I should call him, but you know,
Kanye West is how he was most famously known. This
is not helping you beat the narcissism egomaniac allegations, babe.
It is simply not to throw a tantrum and walk
out of an interview because somebody said you had thirty
(31:07):
two million followers instead of thirty three million followers is
just such an absurd and pedantic little nitpick to pick that.
You come off as incredibly arrogant, and it's just like, oh, wow, congrats,
you're so big and so important. He's obviously not. The
very framing of this was him talking about how big
your platform is, and then he's going to challenge you
(31:28):
on how you use it, and you're like quibbling with
you forgot my latest million followers. It's just incredibly incredibly
off putting, an arrogant and to storm out of an
interview because of it. I mean, to bring it up
at all makes you look kind of childish and silly,
but to then storm out of an interview of it
is just childish immature snowflake behavior frankly, and I'm sorry,
(31:50):
but to say with a straight face in twenty twenty
five that Yay is just putting out love is absurd.
He is tweeting and posting insanely hateful things about Jewish people,
and then is apparently too scared to sit for an
actual interview being pressed or challenged on any of it
because he made up a silly excuse to throw a
tantrum and quit before any real substantive questions could be asked.
(32:12):
And I think that is deeply revealing. I had to
agree with Peers what he wrote when he shared this
clip on x He simply wrote a massive dick period.
The other thing about this, though, for me, is that
it shows it's just another reminder how stupid the kind
of woke argument of is of no platforming. Don't platform
bad or controversial people. Actually, sometimes platforming them is exactly
(32:35):
how you give them the sunlight and the spotlight they
need to destroy themselves to reveal to the public how
de lulu they actually are. So sometimes platforming people in
a critical and skeptical context can actually be exactly what
is necessary and what is needed. And I put this
crazy Kanye segment or Yay segment into that category for sure?
(32:57):
What did you guys think? Have you seen this going viral?
Let me know what you think in the comments. Up next,
more insanity from the world of higher education, because this
professor canceled an exam and told the students to go
protest Trump instead. Yes, seriously, The Washington Freebeacon reports that
a University of Chicago's stats professor canceled a midterm Thursday
(33:18):
and called on his students to join an anti Trump
protest instead. Now the Free Beacon has the email that
the professor sent out, and boy, it is quite something.
Midterm canceled, dear students. The country is an emergency. The
Trump administration is kidnapping people off the street, deporting them
to foreign prisons, jailing and threatening to deport students who
(33:38):
demonstrated and support of Palestinians, ignoring Supreme Court decisions, attacking
higher education institutions, dismantling environmental protections, dismantling the research on
climate change and on health, arbitrarily canceling visas of foreign students,
and on and on and on. So today, thousands across
the country are demonstrating in a national Day of action
as a small contribution to this day of action. I'm
(33:59):
canceling the midterm and calling you if you are able
to join the Chicago demonstration announced here. It will begin
at eleven am in Union Park, marching against this dangerous
authoritarian administration of the utmost importance. He continues, I know
you have studied hard for the exam, so I will
post the exam as a homework to be handed in
(34:20):
on Tuesday, May sixth. Your final grade will be based
on a rewighing of the homework, quizzes and final project. Bruh,
you have got to be kidding me. As far as
I'm concerned, he should be fired for this. I know
I probably won't, probably as ten yure or whatever, YadA
YadA yah. But when you literally refuse to do your job,
when you take a piss all over these students paying
(34:42):
thousands of dollars to take your class and substitute your
kind of unhinged and alarmist political takes and political agenda
onto it instead of doing your job, I mean that
is gross misconduct in your professional capacity as a professor,
and it is insulting to your students. I would be
livid if that was me in his class. To be clear,
(35:03):
I think this professor has ever right to his opinions
to hate Trump as much as he wants to attend
these protests on his own time, do whatever, speak out
against Trump. But when it crosses over into using your
authority and power as a professor to push an agenda
on people like this, I think is inappropriate. But then
especially to neglect and totally compromise your actual academic responsibilities
(35:24):
of your job in pursuit of that agenda. To me,
it's absolutely unacceptable. But one thing I can't say is
that it's particularly surprising given the state of modern academia today.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments.
All right, guys, that'll be it for this episode of
the Red Versus Everyone podcast. Thank you all so much
for tuning in. Please do make sure you're subscribed. If
you aren't yet, do it that like button before you go.
(35:45):
Remember this, send me some voice notes and check out
the merch and we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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
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.