April 14, 2025 • 31 mins
Get started on your content journey: https://www.opus.pro/clipanything
Joe Rogan just hosted a debate between Dave Smith and Douglas Murray that's breaking the internet and sharply dividing opinion. I analyze some highlights in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, CNN cheers on a bloodthirsty journalist and we react to a disturbing attack in Pennsylvania.
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):
Have you been to the Crossing Points now when we
last there at all? I've never been, You've never been?
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Well? Am I not allowed to talk about it now?
Speaker 3 (00:08):
A viral debate on the Joe Rogan podcast is breaking
the Internet, but basically everybody is missing a few important things.
We're going to react to. A wild debate on the
Joe Rogan Podcast, a disturbing CNN segment profiling an unhinged journalist,
(00:28):
and an alarming attack in Pennsylvania. All this and so
much more coming up on today's episode of The Brad
Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily show where we take on
the craziest ideas from across the media, the Internet, and
our politics, all from an independent perspective. Up first, like
I mentioned, we've got to talk about the big debate
that just went down on Joe Rogan's show, the mega
(00:49):
popular podcast and YouTube show, The Joe Rogan Experience, between
the author Douglas Murray, who is kind of a classical
conservative intellectual and author, and the comedian podcaster political commentator
Dave Smith, who's popular in his own right and comes
from an explicitly libertarian perspective. They were both on the
(01:09):
Joe Rogan Podcast because they have very different views on
particularly foreign affairs when it comes to Israel, when it
comes to Ukraine, these kinds of issues, and Joe wanted
to have them both on to hash it out and
kind of air both sides of this. And look, I'm
not here to tell you what to think about geopolitics.
I'm hardly an expert on the Israel Palestine conflict or
anything like that. But there's some basic questions in terms
(01:32):
of media literacy and in terms of good faith debate
and just general commentary that I think need to be
pointed out about this debate where some things, particularly on
one side of the debate, simply did not come off
well to me. For example, Douglas Murray opened up right
at the beginning of this conversation by basically attempting to
(01:54):
scold Joe Rogan on his own podcast for his selection
of guests, take a listen.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Can I ask you something? Yes, sir, since the war
in Israel began and since the war in Ukraine began,
you've had quite a lot of people who vary against
both in different ways.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Do you think you've had enough people on who are
supportive of by the war.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I don't know that word enough.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
If that's a good word.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Let's say, let's say enough people who are on the
side of Israel instead of wild critics.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Well, I've had a few.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
I mean, I believe God said is on the side
of Israel. For sure, Jordan is on the side of Israel.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Ye Mike Baker called Hughes.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Yeah, I Holman did it for like twenty minutes. It
wasn't why he was here.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
No, I mean none of them and none of them
is why they're here. You know, it's a good question.
Do you think you've tilted one way me personally?
Speaker 1 (02:50):
No, no, no, just with a guess the guests.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Yeah, probably more tilted towards the idea that perhaps the
way they've done it is barbaric.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
But why do you think that is just out of interest,
just because it interested in your selection to guests, because
you're like the world's number one podcast.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Yeah, it's not. I don't.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
I don't think about it that way. I just think
I'd like to talk to this person.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
But now I've seen some people like pointing this out
or celebrating this, like Douglas Murray owns Joe Rogan. But
to me, it didn't land. Well, it came off almost Karenny,
almost like smarmy, like scolding him like you haven't had
the right guess. It's just it's kind of audacious and inappropriate.
And I like Douglas. I've appreciated a lot of his
(03:35):
work over the years, But to go on someone's show
and then immediately criticize them for their editorial decisions just
comes off wrong to me. It's sets a very rough
start to the conversation and it's not really your place.
I do think there's valid criticisms that Joe Rogan, with
the platform he has, should be more judicious about who
(03:56):
he has on sometimes, or if he's gonna have on
the extreme people that he often has on, he's to
do more fact checking and pushback. I think that's totally valid.
But coming out of the gates swinging on him like
this and trying to like call him out or embarrass
him on his own show instead of using that time
that you are on to offer those arguments that you
think are adequately represented, to me, not a good look,
(04:19):
not cool, and just put the conversation off on a
rough foot. Though I thought Joe was remarkably gracious about it. Personally,
I wouldn't have taken to it as kindly and politely
as he did. But that's the kind of thing that
if you have a relationship with Joe Rogan or someone
like that, talk to him about it privately, send him
an email, send him a message, give him a call,
say hey, I really think you should have more people
(04:39):
on on this other side. You're not doing due service.
And I'm not even saying that's wrong. I'm just saying
the way it came off came off very no platform me. No,
it came off cancel culturey, it came off scoldly, and
to open up the episode like that I think started
the whole thing off on a pretty poor footing, especially
because Douglas was very critical of Joe's guest selection, but
(05:01):
also throughout the episode wasn't one hundred percent certain of
the names of the people he was upset about Joe
having had on his podcast, and admitted that he hadn't
actually consumed very much of their work. So whether it
was Darryl Cooper, the kind of podcast or historical podcaster
who's very controversial and who, to be clear, has tweeted
some things I think are abhorrent and insane when it
(05:23):
comes to Hitler, and other people, but he kept forgetting
his name. This other guy, Ian Carroll, who I don't
know very much about but is apparently a big conspiracy guy,
he like kept forgetting his name. And if you're going
to go on someone's show and immediately criticize them for
the guests they've been having, you should probably have a
pretty at bare minimum, have a sharp command of who
those guests are and what exactly they've said that's so
(05:45):
problematic or that should have been challenged, or that should
have had an alternative, alternative opinion presented, because otherwise it
looks like you didn't do your homework but are still
being all morally righteous and scolding someone, and to me
did not come off well. But now we're going to
get in the real meat of the episode where the
first big clash between Dave Smith and Douglas Murray happened.
(06:06):
And I'll tell you who I thought won this exchange
after this. AI is the future and content creation is
no exception. If you're a creator or you've ever wanted
to get in on the game, well it's never been easier.
Thanks to today's sponsor Opus Clip finding the right moments
from your long form videos to clip for short form
content is really hard, and editing them down into the
(06:26):
perfect reels that can go viral is so much work,
or at least it used to be before I discovered Opus.
Clip Clip Anything is their newest AI powered feature, providing
creators with unmatched control to find and clip the best
moment in our videos. For example, I put one of
my recent videos in and it pulled out a perfect
moment for me to share as a short form video,
edited and analyzed for peak viral impact. Look, if you
(06:49):
want to support TIFFs, if you want to say the
stock market doesn't matter, I disagree with you on both fronts,
but we can have that debate if you're actually holding
those positions. But that's not what people like Benny Johnson
are doing. They're just flip flopping. Clip Anything's time saving
AI capabilities are astounding, from b world generation to reframing
(07:10):
to filler world removal to one click audio enhancement. Get
started on your content journey now, just visit www. Dot Opus,
dot pro, slash clip anything. It's really never been easier. Okay,
so now we'll talk about the next bit of this episode,
the Joe Rogan episode. But they talked about expertise and
how important it is to talk to experts. Take a
(07:30):
listen to this exchange that David and Douglas had on
this question.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
It's like some weird jiu jitsu move. No, I don't
want you say hang on, you know a little bout
this as well. You say, I'm not a historian, but
I'm gonna spend my time talking about history. I'm not
a journalist, but I'm gonna spend my time talking about
this thing. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm
gonna spend my time talking about this thing. It's a
weird move. Yeah, no, you didn't think.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
No, I'm a free American. I can talk about what
I talk about.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
So what is the I notice you can. But all
the point, the point is what are you pushing? What
are you watering?
Speaker 2 (08:07):
What am I pushing? Liberty, free markets, peace, prosperity, not
getting in another stupid catastrophic war, which we're on the
precipice of right now. That's what I'm pushing.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
I'm still slightly bemused about this move from I'm an
expert on this, and I have used to I'm a comedian.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
I've never claimed to be an expert on anything.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
This is the problem, Joe. I mean, if somebody.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
You have to claim to be an expert on something
to have an opinion.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
You don't have to be. You don't have to be.
I'm not a historian, but I'm pumping out history, but
I'm talking all the time about it.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
But you're not even talking about specifically on what he
just said.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
No, I'm saying, this is my point about this. You
say I'm not an expert.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
So what's the solution to not talk about it?
Speaker 1 (08:53):
No, it's to have more experts around.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
So I'm sorry. Well, I like and respect Douglas Murray.
This argument again just did not hit at all with me.
This listen to the experts, trust the experts thing. People
aren't so interested in that because we've seen the expert
class mislead us about everything from COVID to transgender science
and beyond. The expert class has become highly politicized. And
(09:19):
there absolutely is a place to listen to and discuss
topics with experts. But that's because experts offer, or at
least they're supposed to, strong arguments rooted in rigorous facts,
not just because they're experts. It's a fallacy to suggest
that someone's more or less correct just on the basis
of whether they're an expert or not. Credentials don't mean
(09:42):
that you're correct. Experts have been terribly wrong about all
sorts of things, and on the issue they're discussing, both
the Ukraine Russia conflict, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Israel's
war against Gaza, the whole conflict with Hamas those things.
You can find incredibly qualified experts with long cvs that
come down on either extreme or somewhere in the middle.
(10:03):
It's not as simple as well. The experts are all
on one side, and regardless whatever point Dave is making
about the conflicts, or Joe is making, or other guests
is either wrong or right on its merits. It's not
wrong just because they're not experts, and also, at least
in Dave's case, he doesn't claim to be. That's the
other thing I've really appreciated over the years a lot
of Douglas Murray's writing and his books and his essays.
(10:27):
But Douglas isn't an expert. He's an author and a writer,
and a tremendously talented one. However, I believe he has
like a bachelor's degree in English. He writes books about immigration,
about free speech, about all sorts of complicated expert issues
about Israel. And he's not an expert and he doesn't
need to be. But by his own logic, he shouldn't
(10:47):
have written those books. I guess because he's not an expert.
I just to me This argument also fell flat completely.
There's one final moment from this viral podcast interview in
Exchange that is getting clipped up and shared everywhere where.
It comes to a conversation about Gaza, where Douglas asks
Dave Smith a pretty pointed question. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Have you been to the Crossing Points?
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Now?
Speaker 1 (11:09):
When were you last there?
Speaker 2 (11:10):
At all? I've never been, You've never been? Well? Am
I not allowed to talk about it? Now? I've never
been to? Have you ever been to Nazi Germany? Are
you allowed to have feelings about them?
Speaker 1 (11:19):
You can't time travel, but you can't travel?
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Okay? But so what? So what's the point? Like?
Speaker 1 (11:23):
No, I find that lots of.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
People have been there and agree with me, and lots
of people have been there and agree with you. You're
going to spend a year.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
And a half talking about a place you should at
least do the courtesy of visiting it.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
All right, I just think this is a non argument. Okay, No,
I think it's a non argument.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
But if you're a well you have to go and
touch the ground.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I think you have to see.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
I think it's a good idea to see stuff, particularly
if you spend a career talking about something. Yes, I
have a journalistic rule of trying never to talk about
a country, even in passing, unless I've at least been there.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Okay, it's not normal.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
It's a normal thing to do. You're talking about Hang on,
you're talking about crossing points, and not only of you
never been to a crossing point in either Egypt or
in Israel, but you've never even been to the region.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Okay, Again, it's a non arguments.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
It's not a non ars it is. It's not a
non argument if you're insisting that you're an expert of
some kind, or not claiming you're an expert, but still
talking about it about the provisions going into Gaza or not.
If you've never seen any of this going on.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
So you're not amazing about things that you've read about.
You can only speak about things that you've seen with
your own eyes.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
You can talk about what you want, as you're proving.
But that is a different matter from spending an awfully
long amount of time talking about an issue in a
region you haven't even had the courtesy to visit, whilst
developing all of these views about it.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Yeah, so here I have to agree with Dave again
that this isn't really an argument Dave was making. And
I watched the full episode, not just these clips. I
sat through all three hours of it, though I think
I was on one and a half speed, so not
whole three hours. But still, Dave was making a series
of arguments and claims about the blockade or embargo that
(13:11):
Israel has had on the Gaza Strip, which is a
thing though the facts of exactly how it works are disputed,
and you can make an argument about like maybe it's necessary,
maybe it's justified, or maybe it's not. But Dave was
making a claim about a series of facts. That claim
is either true or false, and whether he's been there
or not doesn't make a difference. There's people who support
the blockade who've been there and are from there or
(13:33):
have visited on all sorts of times, and there's people
who are vehemently opposed to the blockade. Who've lived their
whole lives there or visited it, or our scholars of
the region. Again, it's kind of just a non argument
having been there. Well, it's good to have been there,
don't get me wrong. It's like a bonus point in
your experience if you can add some facts or some details,
but it doesn't make you win the argument. And again,
(13:56):
like on any complicated issue, there's going to be people
with firsthand experience on it on either side, so doesn't
answer the debate or solve any actual allegation that Dave raised. Also,
Dave has spoken about the conflict before October seventh, so
but obviously there's been more debate and more coverage about
it since then. And he's a political commentator, so he's
(14:16):
talked a lot about what's in the news, which is
that subject a lot more. But there's kind of actually
a pretty good reason that he hasn't been there in
the year and a half since October seven, the brutal,
bloody conflict and war. Now Douglas has been able to
go there as part of I think typically like Israel
affiliated tours and media tours, and that's great, but again,
(14:38):
it's just not really an argument, and I think Douglas
is supremely talented as a writer and as a thinker,
but I'm not sure he was really prepared for this interview,
and given how viral it went, I don't think I
know smart people on either side of this conflict. I
really do. I don't think this was a good representation
or outing for Douglas or his side of the argument. Dave,
(15:00):
I mean, made some points I don't fully agree with
or I'm not sure about. I definitely think he came
off better across the full three hours. And so if
this is an issue close to your heart, or if
you're an advocate on this, I would take a couple
lessons from it. One, if you're going to critique people,
be familiar with their work at the bare minimum and
their names completely. And two, don't just appeal to expertise.
(15:24):
It's not a winning argument. It really never has been
a logically sound argument, but after the last few years
it's less compelling than ever. And finally, just stick to
arguing points on their merits rather than appeals to personal experience.
This is something that is almost like a woke tactic, like, well,
my experience my truth. It's actually not relevant really to
a big picture debate one individual's experiences or perceptions. But
(15:48):
what do you guys think? Have you seen this episode
or just commentary about it, or have you not heard
about it at all? I want to hear from you, guys,
set your opinions about the conflict aside, Just what did
you think of these exchanges and this debate and this episode.
I found it really interesting and I'd love to see
more conversations like this between people with diametrically opposed points
of views on subjects on in person talking to each other,
(16:11):
hashing it out. And hopefully we'll have more of that
on Joe Rogan and on other platforms soon. So let
me know what you think in the comments, and please
do consider hitting that like button if you haven't yet,
and do consider subscribing as well. Up next, we've got
to talk about a genuinely unhinged CNN segment featuring the
far left radical journalist activist Taylor Lorenz, where CNN uncritically
(16:35):
parroted her fangirling and absurd endorsement of alleged murderer Luigi Manchioni,
all while claiming there's really only right wing extremism in America.
Take a listen to this first clip.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Hilarious to see these millionaire media pundits on TV clutching
their pearls about someone standing a murderer when this is
the United States of America. As if we don't lionize criminals,
as if we don't have you know, we don't stand
murderers of all sorts, and we give them Netflix shows.
There's a huge disconnect between the narratives and angles of
(17:11):
mainstream media pushes and what the American public feels. And
you see that in moments like this, And I can
tell you I saw the biggest audience growth that I've
ever seen because people were like, Oh, somebody, some journalists
is actually speaking to the anger that we feel.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Umm.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Is it clutching pearls to find it morally reprehensible when
somebody allegedly executes someone in cold blood in the street
because they have a moral or philosophical objection to their work.
No criminal charges, no trial, nothing of the sort. Is
it clutching pearls to be against that? Because if so guilty,
I'm clutching my pearls. I think that is bad. And
(17:52):
something tells me that if some right wing lunatic murdered
the CEO of Planned parenthood because he thought her work
was harmful and terrible, which, of course I would think
is evil and don't ever do anything of the sort.
Taylor Lorenz and her ILK would feel very differently about
the events that transpired there, And I'm sorry, but I
(18:13):
just think it's totally untrue to argue that nobody's tried
to understand the anger that people feel about our healthcare system. Yes,
I think they have a lot. People have very valid
frustrations and complaints and issues with the healthcare system, and
that is valid. Supporting murder is not. But I think
there absolutely has been a widespread reckoning with how come
(18:34):
people are so upset and hateful towards health insurance? Oh well,
people are being harmed by the current system. I don't
think anybody really denies that it's the logical lead to
then being gleeful and endorsing murder, which Taylor absolutely does
from her social media posts and her public commentary, although
sometimes she'll add a qualifier like I don't support it,
but yeah, it gave me joy, or some sort of
(18:56):
statement like that. So Taylor, it's not that we don't
understand people's anger, we're just not willing to therefore endorse
acts of evil like you basically are and personally, I
don't know about y'all. This is just me here. I
don't think I would brag about it if I had
massively grown my audience and made myself a lot of
money by jumping in on a death cult. That's just me.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
That's just me.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
You do you, Taylor, Kudos for honesty and transparency, I suppose.
But this next part is actually the most disturbing bit
of this entire clip. Take a listen.
Speaker 6 (19:28):
Who's got our outside coursh in New York.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
So you're gonna see women, especially that feel like, oh
my god, right, Like, here's this man who who's revolutionary,
who's famous, who's handsome, who's young, who's smart, He's a
person that seems this like this morally good man, which
is hard to find.
Speaker 6 (19:50):
Yeah, I just realized women will literally dat an assassin
before they swipe right on me.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
That's that's where we're.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
Not the cackling and basic agreement. Where is the pushback?
Where is the journalism from this Donnie guy on CNN?
It's really something how he just nods along with this
absurd statement or Taylor Lorenz sort of speaking for women
but clearly she agrees with this in my view based
on her other commentary and public posts, saying that the
(20:19):
alleged murderer here is a morally good man. No, he
might be physically attractive. I'm not denying that, to be clear,
but he is not a morally good man. Morally good
people don't. Allegedly he deserves the Dame Court like anyone else.
Murder people in cold blood, track them down and assassinate them.
That is an immoral thing to do, a very immoral
(20:42):
thing to do if you believe human life is a
right and is sanchro sacked, which I do and I
think most people of good faith do. And of course
it's in a moral acting part because it accomplished absolutely nothing,
just murdering someone and traumatizing a family and causing suffering,
while achieving no reform what soever in this company's practices
(21:02):
or in the industry, if anything, just making them look
more sympathetic. So even from a purely utilitarian point of view,
still not moral. And again your response to this unhinged statement,
I'm not against interviewing crazier controversial people, but you got
to push back is to laugh about your Tinder problems really,
that's CNN journalism. Wow. Now, of course, Taylor is responding
(21:23):
to all the controversy and backlash from her comment by
taking accountability. Apologize, just kidding, I almost got you there
by gaslighting us absurdly, she wrote on Blue Sky. Of course,
Fox News, New York Post, Mediaite and big right wing
influencers are manufacturing another fresh round of fake outrage about me,
because what they really want is to deplatform me. These
(21:45):
people call up brands I work with in places I
write and take my quotes out of context and try
to get them to fire me. She continued in another post,
I sincerely hope that people see these fake campaigns for
what they are. The right wing media, these influencers, etc.
Their goal to generate outrage and channel that outreach for
political ends. This is just gamer gate, over and over again.
Please don't fall for it. So it's a tad ironic
(22:09):
to see someone like Taylor Lorenz, who has cheered on
cancel culture and participated in it endlessly in her years
as a woke journalist at the New York Times and
Washington Post now cry woe is me? I'm a victim
cancel culture. But to be clear, I won't be calling
up any brands or I won't be trying to get
her band on any platform. I'm just criticizing her ideas
(22:30):
and that I think she is clearly clearly making arguments
and statements that are psychotic and immoral, and unfortunately reaching
large audiences with that message and storing up disturbed and
potentially crazy people to do more acts of violence. Possibly
is a real possibility from her work. And what I
will not stand for is this claim that her remarks
are out of context or that how could anyone accuse
(22:52):
me of supporting this killer. She's literally posted like gleeful
celebrations about the murder she's done interview after interview where
she says that she felt joy when it happened. So
spare me. No one's taking you out of context by
just accurately citing what you said. So okay, I mean, listen,
listen to this clip of her where she said something
very similar. But oh, she's just being taken out of context.
Speaker 7 (23:14):
This issue of Brian Thompson, one of the top healthcare
executives in the country, I'm just curious why your first
reaction would be to his cold blooded execution, And people
wonder why we want these executives dead, and then you
later commented with people were giving a lot of blowback.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I'm not alone.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
You said healthcare executive down with party balloons. Was on
an ex post that you commented on. Why would you
be in such a celebratory mood about the execution of
another human being? Aren't you supposed to be on the
caring sharing left, where you know you believe in the
sanctity of life.
Speaker 5 (23:53):
I do believe in the sanctity of life, and I
think that's why I felt along with so many other Americans. Unfortunately.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Yeah, so the woman who said a murder gave her
joy is now accusing people of taking her out of
context by accusing her of supporting that murderer, like spare
me just because you occasionally at the end of your
long unhinged rants throwing up of course it's not good
to shoot people in the street, but and then go
on this long rant. I'm not buying that people should
(24:21):
maybe include that in their criticism of you. But you're
not being taied out, taken out of context. It's not
all a hitchob And to whatever extent you're getting canceled
or this kind of backlash to you, well, I mean,
you played yourself. You played this stupid game for years
and now you're winning stupid prizes by getting it done
back to you. So I won't be playing the world's
tiniest violin for you, Taylor, and I hope that you
(24:42):
wake up and see the light, because it's demonic everything
you're doing, everything you're pushing and others in the Luigi
death cult. I understand the frustrations and Hawaii people are
upset and hurt by the US healthcare system, but this
is not the way. And just one more word on CNN,
this guy Donnie O'Sullivan is just doing a terrible job
with this coverage. There's no other way to say. It's
(25:04):
totally unfair and unbalanced, and he's making absurd claims like this.
Speaker 6 (25:10):
What we're looking at here is, obviously, you know, when
it comes to extremism in this country, I mean, the
issue very much so is on the right, on the
far right, from you know, from Charlottesville to January sixth,
there isn't exactly an equivalent on the left in this moment.
And as you can see there as part of our dock,
(25:30):
we actually were outside the DC jail on Inauguration night
when of course, Trump began pardoning a lot of people
who took part in the January sixth riot, and people
began to be released.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Yeah, this is an insane thing to claim that extremism
is largely or mostly a right wing phenomenon in modern America. Dude,
do you not watch the news? Do you not turn
on the internet? Do not see all the people fire
bombing Tesla's, vandalizing innocent people's cars in the streets because
they're mad at Elon Musk and Trump? Did you miss
(26:04):
the whole thing where Trump was targeted by assassination attempts
repeatedly and many people celebrated it or were sad it
was unsuccessful. Did you miss the recent polling that we
covered on this show that said a majority or near
majority of left of center Americans think assassinations of Trump
or Elon can be at least partially justified. Did you
(26:25):
miss all the widespread violence and death and looting and
destruction that happened during twenty twenty and this part of
the BLM movement, Like look, right wing extremism is a
problem too. I condemned January sixth then, and I condemn
it now. It was a violent attack dozens of police
officers were injured. Some of you guys in the comments
get upset when I say this, but you can look
(26:45):
it up. It's a fact, there's footage. And yes, there
are other instances of right wing and far right extremism,
and I find them all contemptible. I've been very clear
about this political violence problem on any side. But do
not sit there and say, oh, it's just a right
wing problem. That's obviously not true. It's happening all around us, particularly,
I would say, at this current moment, on the far left,
(27:06):
because the right is in power. But regardless, like this
is just a totally dishonest way to analyze it. And
I think it's remarkable that this was just aired and
presented as fact and unchallenged on CNN. I can't say
I'm particularly surprised, but somehow I'm still disappointed. What do
you guys think? Let me know in the comments. Okay,
up next, one final topic we got a touch on.
(27:28):
There's been a really disturbing attack on a democratic governor.
Take a listen to this local news reporting.
Speaker 8 (27:34):
Scene of destruction scorch wreckage in the Pennsylvania governor's mansion
after an arson attack.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
This type of violence is not okay.
Speaker 8 (27:45):
I are forced Governor Shapiro and his family to rush
out of the mansion in the middle of the night,
just hours after a passover celebration. Good Evening, Amaziza Schuler.
State police say they have a suspect in custody tonight.
Here's what we know about how it happened. Authorities say
the arson is scaled a seven foot fence to get
into the property as trooper searched for him. He then
(28:08):
broke into the mansion and then quickly set fire to
the state dining room with what police called the homemade
insidiary device. State police also say following the breach, a
security review is underway. The suspect under arrest is thirty
eight year old Cody Balmer. His last known residence was
in Harrisburg. He's charged with attempted murder, arson, and terrorism.
(28:33):
Our Alisha Roberts has more now outside the Governor's mansion.
Speaker 9 (28:38):
Security remains tight here around the Governor's mansion after the
suspect breached the perimeter. State police are describing this as
a targeted attack, saying Balmer had a methodical plan where
he was in and out of the Governor's residence in
less than a minute.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
Last night, we experienced an attack not just on our family,
but on the entire commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
I was horrified to see this, and I'm so glad
the governor and his family are Okay. I'm not going
to get into all the speculations about motivations or who
this was that attack the governor, or why. We don't
really have all the facts yet, so I'll wait, but
I'll just say I don't care whether you're a Democrat,
you're a Republican independent, I don't care whether you're a
non binary or a Christian Conservative or anything in between.
(29:24):
Political violence is wrong, and it is never okay to
take matters into your own hands and try to harm someone,
let alone their family, just because you disagree with the
work they're doing or their political movement. Again, that's a
Pandora's box that once you open, it will come for
the people you like as well. I really agreed with
this tweet from a professor I follow named Carl. He tweeted,
(29:46):
murdering an insurance executive is evil. Trying to assassinate President
Trump is evil. Trying to burn Governor Shapiro and his
family is evil. We must all agree on these basic
moral values. I agree with him. I really it is
sad to me that a solid chunk of the country
can't agree on these basic things. I also appreciated this
tweet from Democrat Tajerari. This is why public praising of
(30:08):
LUIGIAMANNGIONI should not be okay. We cannot live in a
civilized democracy if we think the way to solve political
disputes is through murder. I completely agree, and I was
glad to see many Republicans like JD. Vance and Ted
Cruz immediately come out and denounce this. That's the bare minimum,
like the absolute moral minimum, but at least they didn't
fail that. This can't be tolerated in our society. If
(30:31):
you find yourself making excuses for or cheering for some
active political violence because you hate the person being targeted,
or remember even that person is probably not entirely evil
as a human. Most people are not all good or
all bad, and they have families and loved ones, and regardless,
even if you don't care about that, you can't have
it only one way. You can't just say, well, it's
(30:53):
fine when we go after the bad guys with vigilante violence.
But they can't do that to the people I like,
they will, So decide, Are you like me? Do you
want to live in a civilized society where we settle
things with ballots not bullets, or do you want this chaos,
this Third World style civil unrest where people try to
take out their political opponents. I know what I want,
(31:13):
but everybody else we're going to need to decide because
this can't continue without things getting out of control. What
do you guys think? Let me know in the comments.
All right, everybody, that's it for this episode of the
Bread Versus Everyone podcast. Thank you so much for tuning in.
Please do make sure you're subscribed if you aren't yet,
and do consider hitting that like button if you enjoy
today's episode. Thanks again to opus Clip for sponsoring today's video,
(31:36):
and we'll talk again real soon.
Have you been to the Crossing Points now when we
last there at all? I've never been, You've never been?
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Well? Am I not allowed to talk about it now?
Speaker 3 (00:08):
A viral debate on the Joe Rogan podcast is breaking
the Internet, but basically everybody is missing a few important things.
We're going to react to. A wild debate on the
Joe Rogan Podcast, a disturbing CNN segment profiling an unhinged journalist,
(00:28):
and an alarming attack in Pennsylvania. All this and so
much more coming up on today's episode of The Brad
Versus Everyone Podcast, my daily show where we take on
the craziest ideas from across the media, the Internet, and
our politics, all from an independent perspective. Up first, like
I mentioned, we've got to talk about the big debate
that just went down on Joe Rogan's show, the mega
(00:49):
popular podcast and YouTube show, The Joe Rogan Experience, between
the author Douglas Murray, who is kind of a classical
conservative intellectual and author, and the comedian podcaster political commentator
Dave Smith, who's popular in his own right and comes
from an explicitly libertarian perspective. They were both on the
(01:09):
Joe Rogan Podcast because they have very different views on
particularly foreign affairs when it comes to Israel, when it
comes to Ukraine, these kinds of issues, and Joe wanted
to have them both on to hash it out and
kind of air both sides of this. And look, I'm
not here to tell you what to think about geopolitics.
I'm hardly an expert on the Israel Palestine conflict or
anything like that. But there's some basic questions in terms
(01:32):
of media literacy and in terms of good faith debate
and just general commentary that I think need to be
pointed out about this debate where some things, particularly on
one side of the debate, simply did not come off
well to me. For example, Douglas Murray opened up right
at the beginning of this conversation by basically attempting to
(01:54):
scold Joe Rogan on his own podcast for his selection
of guests, take a listen.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Can I ask you something? Yes, sir, since the war
in Israel began and since the war in Ukraine began,
you've had quite a lot of people who vary against
both in different ways.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Yes.
Speaker 1 (02:11):
Do you think you've had enough people on who are
supportive of by the war.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
I don't know that word enough.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
If that's a good word.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Let's say, let's say enough people who are on the
side of Israel instead of wild critics.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Well, I've had a few.
Speaker 4 (02:28):
I mean, I believe God said is on the side
of Israel. For sure, Jordan is on the side of Israel.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Ye Mike Baker called Hughes.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Yeah, I Holman did it for like twenty minutes. It
wasn't why he was here.
Speaker 4 (02:40):
No, I mean none of them and none of them
is why they're here. You know, it's a good question.
Do you think you've tilted one way me personally?
Speaker 1 (02:50):
No, no, no, just with a guess the guests.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Yeah, probably more tilted towards the idea that perhaps the
way they've done it is barbaric.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
But why do you think that is just out of interest,
just because it interested in your selection to guests, because
you're like the world's number one podcast.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Yeah, it's not. I don't.
Speaker 4 (03:10):
I don't think about it that way. I just think
I'd like to talk to this person.
Speaker 3 (03:14):
But now I've seen some people like pointing this out
or celebrating this, like Douglas Murray owns Joe Rogan. But
to me, it didn't land. Well, it came off almost Karenny,
almost like smarmy, like scolding him like you haven't had
the right guess. It's just it's kind of audacious and inappropriate.
And I like Douglas. I've appreciated a lot of his
(03:35):
work over the years, But to go on someone's show
and then immediately criticize them for their editorial decisions just
comes off wrong to me. It's sets a very rough
start to the conversation and it's not really your place.
I do think there's valid criticisms that Joe Rogan, with
the platform he has, should be more judicious about who
(03:56):
he has on sometimes, or if he's gonna have on
the extreme people that he often has on, he's to
do more fact checking and pushback. I think that's totally valid.
But coming out of the gates swinging on him like
this and trying to like call him out or embarrass
him on his own show instead of using that time
that you are on to offer those arguments that you
think are adequately represented, to me, not a good look,
(04:19):
not cool, and just put the conversation off on a
rough foot. Though I thought Joe was remarkably gracious about it. Personally,
I wouldn't have taken to it as kindly and politely
as he did. But that's the kind of thing that
if you have a relationship with Joe Rogan or someone
like that, talk to him about it privately, send him
an email, send him a message, give him a call,
say hey, I really think you should have more people
(04:39):
on on this other side. You're not doing due service.
And I'm not even saying that's wrong. I'm just saying
the way it came off came off very no platform me. No,
it came off cancel culturey, it came off scoldly, and
to open up the episode like that I think started
the whole thing off on a pretty poor footing, especially
because Douglas was very critical of Joe's guest selection, but
(05:01):
also throughout the episode wasn't one hundred percent certain of
the names of the people he was upset about Joe
having had on his podcast, and admitted that he hadn't
actually consumed very much of their work. So whether it
was Darryl Cooper, the kind of podcast or historical podcaster
who's very controversial and who, to be clear, has tweeted
some things I think are abhorrent and insane when it
(05:23):
comes to Hitler, and other people, but he kept forgetting
his name. This other guy, Ian Carroll, who I don't
know very much about but is apparently a big conspiracy guy,
he like kept forgetting his name. And if you're going
to go on someone's show and immediately criticize them for
the guests they've been having, you should probably have a
pretty at bare minimum, have a sharp command of who
those guests are and what exactly they've said that's so
(05:45):
problematic or that should have been challenged, or that should
have had an alternative, alternative opinion presented, because otherwise it
looks like you didn't do your homework but are still
being all morally righteous and scolding someone, and to me
did not come off well. But now we're going to
get in the real meat of the episode where the
first big clash between Dave Smith and Douglas Murray happened.
(06:06):
And I'll tell you who I thought won this exchange
after this. AI is the future and content creation is
no exception. If you're a creator or you've ever wanted
to get in on the game, well it's never been easier.
Thanks to today's sponsor Opus Clip finding the right moments
from your long form videos to clip for short form
content is really hard, and editing them down into the
(06:26):
perfect reels that can go viral is so much work,
or at least it used to be before I discovered Opus.
Clip Clip Anything is their newest AI powered feature, providing
creators with unmatched control to find and clip the best
moment in our videos. For example, I put one of
my recent videos in and it pulled out a perfect
moment for me to share as a short form video,
edited and analyzed for peak viral impact. Look, if you
(06:49):
want to support TIFFs, if you want to say the
stock market doesn't matter, I disagree with you on both fronts,
but we can have that debate if you're actually holding
those positions. But that's not what people like Benny Johnson
are doing. They're just flip flopping. Clip Anything's time saving
AI capabilities are astounding, from b world generation to reframing
(07:10):
to filler world removal to one click audio enhancement. Get
started on your content journey now, just visit www. Dot Opus,
dot pro, slash clip anything. It's really never been easier. Okay,
so now we'll talk about the next bit of this episode,
the Joe Rogan episode. But they talked about expertise and
how important it is to talk to experts. Take a
(07:30):
listen to this exchange that David and Douglas had on
this question.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
It's like some weird jiu jitsu move. No, I don't
want you say hang on, you know a little bout
this as well. You say, I'm not a historian, but
I'm gonna spend my time talking about history. I'm not
a journalist, but I'm gonna spend my time talking about
this thing. I'm not an expert on this, but I'm
gonna spend my time talking about this thing. It's a
weird move. Yeah, no, you didn't think.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
No, I'm a free American. I can talk about what
I talk about.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
So what is the I notice you can. But all
the point, the point is what are you pushing? What
are you watering?
Speaker 2 (08:07):
What am I pushing? Liberty, free markets, peace, prosperity, not
getting in another stupid catastrophic war, which we're on the
precipice of right now. That's what I'm pushing.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
I'm still slightly bemused about this move from I'm an
expert on this, and I have used to I'm a comedian.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
I've never claimed to be an expert on anything.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
This is the problem, Joe. I mean, if somebody.
Speaker 4 (08:31):
You have to claim to be an expert on something
to have an opinion.
Speaker 1 (08:34):
You don't have to be. You don't have to be.
I'm not a historian, but I'm pumping out history, but
I'm talking all the time about it.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
But you're not even talking about specifically on what he
just said.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
No, I'm saying, this is my point about this. You
say I'm not an expert.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
So what's the solution to not talk about it?
Speaker 1 (08:53):
No, it's to have more experts around.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
So I'm sorry. Well, I like and respect Douglas Murray.
This argument again just did not hit at all with me.
This listen to the experts, trust the experts thing. People
aren't so interested in that because we've seen the expert
class mislead us about everything from COVID to transgender science
and beyond. The expert class has become highly politicized. And
(09:19):
there absolutely is a place to listen to and discuss
topics with experts. But that's because experts offer, or at
least they're supposed to, strong arguments rooted in rigorous facts,
not just because they're experts. It's a fallacy to suggest
that someone's more or less correct just on the basis
of whether they're an expert or not. Credentials don't mean
(09:42):
that you're correct. Experts have been terribly wrong about all
sorts of things, and on the issue they're discussing, both
the Ukraine Russia conflict, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Israel's
war against Gaza, the whole conflict with Hamas those things.
You can find incredibly qualified experts with long cvs that
come down on either extreme or somewhere in the middle.
(10:03):
It's not as simple as well. The experts are all
on one side, and regardless whatever point Dave is making
about the conflicts, or Joe is making, or other guests
is either wrong or right on its merits. It's not
wrong just because they're not experts, and also, at least
in Dave's case, he doesn't claim to be. That's the
other thing I've really appreciated over the years a lot
of Douglas Murray's writing and his books and his essays.
(10:27):
But Douglas isn't an expert. He's an author and a writer,
and a tremendously talented one. However, I believe he has
like a bachelor's degree in English. He writes books about immigration,
about free speech, about all sorts of complicated expert issues
about Israel. And he's not an expert and he doesn't
need to be. But by his own logic, he shouldn't
(10:47):
have written those books. I guess because he's not an expert.
I just to me This argument also fell flat completely.
There's one final moment from this viral podcast interview in
Exchange that is getting clipped up and shared everywhere where.
It comes to a conversation about Gaza, where Douglas asks
Dave Smith a pretty pointed question. Take a listen to this.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Have you been to the Crossing Points?
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Now?
Speaker 1 (11:09):
When were you last there?
Speaker 2 (11:10):
At all? I've never been, You've never been? Well? Am
I not allowed to talk about it? Now? I've never
been to? Have you ever been to Nazi Germany? Are
you allowed to have feelings about them?
Speaker 1 (11:19):
You can't time travel, but you can't travel?
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Okay? But so what? So what's the point? Like?
Speaker 1 (11:23):
No, I find that lots of.
Speaker 2 (11:25):
People have been there and agree with me, and lots
of people have been there and agree with you. You're
going to spend a year.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
And a half talking about a place you should at
least do the courtesy of visiting it.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
All right, I just think this is a non argument. Okay, No,
I think it's a non argument.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
But if you're a well you have to go and
touch the ground.
Speaker 2 (11:40):
I think you have to see.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
I think it's a good idea to see stuff, particularly
if you spend a career talking about something. Yes, I
have a journalistic rule of trying never to talk about
a country, even in passing, unless I've at least been there.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Okay, it's not normal.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
It's a normal thing to do. You're talking about Hang on,
you're talking about crossing points, and not only of you
never been to a crossing point in either Egypt or
in Israel, but you've never even been to the region.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
Okay, Again, it's a non arguments.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
It's not a non ars it is. It's not a
non argument if you're insisting that you're an expert of
some kind, or not claiming you're an expert, but still
talking about it about the provisions going into Gaza or not.
If you've never seen any of this going on.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
So you're not amazing about things that you've read about.
You can only speak about things that you've seen with
your own eyes.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
You can talk about what you want, as you're proving.
But that is a different matter from spending an awfully
long amount of time talking about an issue in a
region you haven't even had the courtesy to visit, whilst
developing all of these views about it.
Speaker 3 (12:51):
Yeah, so here I have to agree with Dave again
that this isn't really an argument Dave was making. And
I watched the full episode, not just these clips. I
sat through all three hours of it, though I think
I was on one and a half speed, so not
whole three hours. But still, Dave was making a series
of arguments and claims about the blockade or embargo that
(13:11):
Israel has had on the Gaza Strip, which is a
thing though the facts of exactly how it works are disputed,
and you can make an argument about like maybe it's necessary,
maybe it's justified, or maybe it's not. But Dave was
making a claim about a series of facts. That claim
is either true or false, and whether he's been there
or not doesn't make a difference. There's people who support
the blockade who've been there and are from there or
(13:33):
have visited on all sorts of times, and there's people
who are vehemently opposed to the blockade. Who've lived their
whole lives there or visited it, or our scholars of
the region. Again, it's kind of just a non argument
having been there. Well, it's good to have been there,
don't get me wrong. It's like a bonus point in
your experience if you can add some facts or some details,
but it doesn't make you win the argument. And again,
(13:56):
like on any complicated issue, there's going to be people
with firsthand experience on it on either side, so doesn't
answer the debate or solve any actual allegation that Dave raised. Also,
Dave has spoken about the conflict before October seventh, so
but obviously there's been more debate and more coverage about
it since then. And he's a political commentator, so he's
(14:16):
talked a lot about what's in the news, which is
that subject a lot more. But there's kind of actually
a pretty good reason that he hasn't been there in
the year and a half since October seven, the brutal,
bloody conflict and war. Now Douglas has been able to
go there as part of I think typically like Israel
affiliated tours and media tours, and that's great, but again,
(14:38):
it's just not really an argument, and I think Douglas
is supremely talented as a writer and as a thinker,
but I'm not sure he was really prepared for this interview,
and given how viral it went, I don't think I
know smart people on either side of this conflict. I
really do. I don't think this was a good representation
or outing for Douglas or his side of the argument. Dave,
(15:00):
I mean, made some points I don't fully agree with
or I'm not sure about. I definitely think he came
off better across the full three hours. And so if
this is an issue close to your heart, or if
you're an advocate on this, I would take a couple
lessons from it. One, if you're going to critique people,
be familiar with their work at the bare minimum and
their names completely. And two, don't just appeal to expertise.
(15:24):
It's not a winning argument. It really never has been
a logically sound argument, but after the last few years
it's less compelling than ever. And finally, just stick to
arguing points on their merits rather than appeals to personal experience.
This is something that is almost like a woke tactic, like, well,
my experience my truth. It's actually not relevant really to
a big picture debate one individual's experiences or perceptions. But
(15:48):
what do you guys think? Have you seen this episode
or just commentary about it, or have you not heard
about it at all? I want to hear from you, guys,
set your opinions about the conflict aside, Just what did
you think of these exchanges and this debate and this episode.
I found it really interesting and I'd love to see
more conversations like this between people with diametrically opposed points
of views on subjects on in person talking to each other,
(16:11):
hashing it out. And hopefully we'll have more of that
on Joe Rogan and on other platforms soon. So let
me know what you think in the comments, and please
do consider hitting that like button if you haven't yet,
and do consider subscribing as well. Up next, we've got
to talk about a genuinely unhinged CNN segment featuring the
far left radical journalist activist Taylor Lorenz, where CNN uncritically
(16:35):
parroted her fangirling and absurd endorsement of alleged murderer Luigi Manchioni,
all while claiming there's really only right wing extremism in America.
Take a listen to this first clip.
Speaker 5 (16:49):
Hilarious to see these millionaire media pundits on TV clutching
their pearls about someone standing a murderer when this is
the United States of America. As if we don't lionize criminals,
as if we don't have you know, we don't stand
murderers of all sorts, and we give them Netflix shows.
There's a huge disconnect between the narratives and angles of
(17:11):
mainstream media pushes and what the American public feels. And
you see that in moments like this, And I can
tell you I saw the biggest audience growth that I've
ever seen because people were like, Oh, somebody, some journalists
is actually speaking to the anger that we feel.
Speaker 1 (17:28):
Umm.
Speaker 3 (17:29):
Is it clutching pearls to find it morally reprehensible when
somebody allegedly executes someone in cold blood in the street
because they have a moral or philosophical objection to their work.
No criminal charges, no trial, nothing of the sort. Is
it clutching pearls to be against that? Because if so guilty,
I'm clutching my pearls. I think that is bad. And
(17:52):
something tells me that if some right wing lunatic murdered
the CEO of Planned parenthood because he thought her work
was harmful and terrible, which, of course I would think
is evil and don't ever do anything of the sort.
Taylor Lorenz and her ILK would feel very differently about
the events that transpired there, And I'm sorry, but I
(18:13):
just think it's totally untrue to argue that nobody's tried
to understand the anger that people feel about our healthcare system. Yes,
I think they have a lot. People have very valid
frustrations and complaints and issues with the healthcare system, and
that is valid. Supporting murder is not. But I think
there absolutely has been a widespread reckoning with how come
(18:34):
people are so upset and hateful towards health insurance? Oh well,
people are being harmed by the current system. I don't
think anybody really denies that it's the logical lead to
then being gleeful and endorsing murder, which Taylor absolutely does
from her social media posts and her public commentary, although
sometimes she'll add a qualifier like I don't support it,
but yeah, it gave me joy, or some sort of
(18:56):
statement like that. So Taylor, it's not that we don't
understand people's anger, we're just not willing to therefore endorse
acts of evil like you basically are and personally, I
don't know about y'all. This is just me here. I
don't think I would brag about it if I had
massively grown my audience and made myself a lot of
money by jumping in on a death cult. That's just me.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
That's just me.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
You do you, Taylor, Kudos for honesty and transparency, I suppose.
But this next part is actually the most disturbing bit
of this entire clip. Take a listen.
Speaker 6 (19:28):
Who's got our outside coursh in New York.
Speaker 5 (19:31):
So you're gonna see women, especially that feel like, oh
my god, right, Like, here's this man who who's revolutionary,
who's famous, who's handsome, who's young, who's smart, He's a
person that seems this like this morally good man, which
is hard to find.
Speaker 6 (19:50):
Yeah, I just realized women will literally dat an assassin
before they swipe right on me.
Speaker 4 (19:55):
That's that's where we're.
Speaker 3 (19:58):
Not the cackling and basic agreement. Where is the pushback?
Where is the journalism from this Donnie guy on CNN?
It's really something how he just nods along with this
absurd statement or Taylor Lorenz sort of speaking for women
but clearly she agrees with this in my view based
on her other commentary and public posts, saying that the
(20:19):
alleged murderer here is a morally good man. No, he
might be physically attractive. I'm not denying that, to be clear,
but he is not a morally good man. Morally good
people don't. Allegedly he deserves the Dame Court like anyone else.
Murder people in cold blood, track them down and assassinate them.
That is an immoral thing to do, a very immoral
(20:42):
thing to do if you believe human life is a
right and is sanchro sacked, which I do and I
think most people of good faith do. And of course
it's in a moral acting part because it accomplished absolutely nothing,
just murdering someone and traumatizing a family and causing suffering,
while achieving no reform what soever in this company's practices
(21:02):
or in the industry, if anything, just making them look
more sympathetic. So even from a purely utilitarian point of view,
still not moral. And again your response to this unhinged statement,
I'm not against interviewing crazier controversial people, but you got
to push back is to laugh about your Tinder problems really,
that's CNN journalism. Wow. Now, of course, Taylor is responding
(21:23):
to all the controversy and backlash from her comment by
taking accountability. Apologize, just kidding, I almost got you there
by gaslighting us absurdly, she wrote on Blue Sky. Of course,
Fox News, New York Post, Mediaite and big right wing
influencers are manufacturing another fresh round of fake outrage about me,
because what they really want is to deplatform me. These
(21:45):
people call up brands I work with in places I
write and take my quotes out of context and try
to get them to fire me. She continued in another post,
I sincerely hope that people see these fake campaigns for
what they are. The right wing media, these influencers, etc.
Their goal to generate outrage and channel that outreach for
political ends. This is just gamer gate, over and over again.
Please don't fall for it. So it's a tad ironic
(22:09):
to see someone like Taylor Lorenz, who has cheered on
cancel culture and participated in it endlessly in her years
as a woke journalist at the New York Times and
Washington Post now cry woe is me? I'm a victim
cancel culture. But to be clear, I won't be calling
up any brands or I won't be trying to get
her band on any platform. I'm just criticizing her ideas
(22:30):
and that I think she is clearly clearly making arguments
and statements that are psychotic and immoral, and unfortunately reaching
large audiences with that message and storing up disturbed and
potentially crazy people to do more acts of violence. Possibly
is a real possibility from her work. And what I
will not stand for is this claim that her remarks
are out of context or that how could anyone accuse
(22:52):
me of supporting this killer. She's literally posted like gleeful
celebrations about the murder she's done interview after interview where
she says that she felt joy when it happened. So
spare me. No one's taking you out of context by
just accurately citing what you said. So okay, I mean, listen,
listen to this clip of her where she said something
very similar. But oh, she's just being taken out of context.
Speaker 7 (23:14):
This issue of Brian Thompson, one of the top healthcare
executives in the country, I'm just curious why your first
reaction would be to his cold blooded execution, And people
wonder why we want these executives dead, and then you
later commented with people were giving a lot of blowback.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
I'm not alone.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
You said healthcare executive down with party balloons. Was on
an ex post that you commented on. Why would you
be in such a celebratory mood about the execution of
another human being? Aren't you supposed to be on the
caring sharing left, where you know you believe in the
sanctity of life.
Speaker 5 (23:53):
I do believe in the sanctity of life, and I
think that's why I felt along with so many other Americans. Unfortunately.
Speaker 3 (24:01):
Yeah, so the woman who said a murder gave her
joy is now accusing people of taking her out of
context by accusing her of supporting that murderer, like spare
me just because you occasionally at the end of your
long unhinged rants throwing up of course it's not good
to shoot people in the street, but and then go
on this long rant. I'm not buying that people should
(24:21):
maybe include that in their criticism of you. But you're
not being taied out, taken out of context. It's not
all a hitchob And to whatever extent you're getting canceled
or this kind of backlash to you, well, I mean,
you played yourself. You played this stupid game for years
and now you're winning stupid prizes by getting it done
back to you. So I won't be playing the world's
tiniest violin for you, Taylor, and I hope that you
(24:42):
wake up and see the light, because it's demonic everything
you're doing, everything you're pushing and others in the Luigi
death cult. I understand the frustrations and Hawaii people are
upset and hurt by the US healthcare system, but this
is not the way. And just one more word on CNN,
this guy Donnie O'Sullivan is just doing a terrible job
with this coverage. There's no other way to say. It's
(25:04):
totally unfair and unbalanced, and he's making absurd claims like this.
Speaker 6 (25:10):
What we're looking at here is, obviously, you know, when
it comes to extremism in this country, I mean, the
issue very much so is on the right, on the
far right, from you know, from Charlottesville to January sixth,
there isn't exactly an equivalent on the left in this moment.
And as you can see there as part of our dock,
(25:30):
we actually were outside the DC jail on Inauguration night
when of course, Trump began pardoning a lot of people
who took part in the January sixth riot, and people
began to be released.
Speaker 3 (25:43):
Yeah, this is an insane thing to claim that extremism
is largely or mostly a right wing phenomenon in modern America. Dude,
do you not watch the news? Do you not turn
on the internet? Do not see all the people fire
bombing Tesla's, vandalizing innocent people's cars in the streets because
they're mad at Elon Musk and Trump? Did you miss
(26:04):
the whole thing where Trump was targeted by assassination attempts
repeatedly and many people celebrated it or were sad it
was unsuccessful. Did you miss the recent polling that we
covered on this show that said a majority or near
majority of left of center Americans think assassinations of Trump
or Elon can be at least partially justified. Did you
(26:25):
miss all the widespread violence and death and looting and
destruction that happened during twenty twenty and this part of
the BLM movement, Like look, right wing extremism is a
problem too. I condemned January sixth then, and I condemn
it now. It was a violent attack dozens of police
officers were injured. Some of you guys in the comments
get upset when I say this, but you can look
(26:45):
it up. It's a fact, there's footage. And yes, there
are other instances of right wing and far right extremism,
and I find them all contemptible. I've been very clear
about this political violence problem on any side. But do
not sit there and say, oh, it's just a right
wing problem. That's obviously not true. It's happening all around us, particularly,
I would say, at this current moment, on the far left,
(27:06):
because the right is in power. But regardless, like this
is just a totally dishonest way to analyze it. And
I think it's remarkable that this was just aired and
presented as fact and unchallenged on CNN. I can't say
I'm particularly surprised, but somehow I'm still disappointed. What do
you guys think? Let me know in the comments. Okay,
up next, one final topic we got a touch on.
(27:28):
There's been a really disturbing attack on a democratic governor.
Take a listen to this local news reporting.
Speaker 8 (27:34):
Scene of destruction scorch wreckage in the Pennsylvania governor's mansion
after an arson attack.
Speaker 2 (27:41):
This type of violence is not okay.
Speaker 8 (27:45):
I are forced Governor Shapiro and his family to rush
out of the mansion in the middle of the night,
just hours after a passover celebration. Good Evening, Amaziza Schuler.
State police say they have a suspect in custody tonight.
Here's what we know about how it happened. Authorities say
the arson is scaled a seven foot fence to get
into the property as trooper searched for him. He then
(28:08):
broke into the mansion and then quickly set fire to
the state dining room with what police called the homemade
insidiary device. State police also say following the breach, a
security review is underway. The suspect under arrest is thirty
eight year old Cody Balmer. His last known residence was
in Harrisburg. He's charged with attempted murder, arson, and terrorism.
(28:33):
Our Alisha Roberts has more now outside the Governor's mansion.
Speaker 9 (28:38):
Security remains tight here around the Governor's mansion after the
suspect breached the perimeter. State police are describing this as
a targeted attack, saying Balmer had a methodical plan where
he was in and out of the Governor's residence in
less than a minute.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
Last night, we experienced an attack not just on our family,
but on the entire commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
I was horrified to see this, and I'm so glad
the governor and his family are Okay. I'm not going
to get into all the speculations about motivations or who
this was that attack the governor, or why. We don't
really have all the facts yet, so I'll wait, but
I'll just say I don't care whether you're a Democrat,
you're a Republican independent, I don't care whether you're a
non binary or a Christian Conservative or anything in between.
(29:24):
Political violence is wrong, and it is never okay to
take matters into your own hands and try to harm someone,
let alone their family, just because you disagree with the
work they're doing or their political movement. Again, that's a
Pandora's box that once you open, it will come for
the people you like as well. I really agreed with
this tweet from a professor I follow named Carl. He tweeted,
(29:46):
murdering an insurance executive is evil. Trying to assassinate President
Trump is evil. Trying to burn Governor Shapiro and his
family is evil. We must all agree on these basic
moral values. I agree with him. I really it is
sad to me that a solid chunk of the country
can't agree on these basic things. I also appreciated this
tweet from Democrat Tajerari. This is why public praising of
(30:08):
LUIGIAMANNGIONI should not be okay. We cannot live in a
civilized democracy if we think the way to solve political
disputes is through murder. I completely agree, and I was
glad to see many Republicans like JD. Vance and Ted
Cruz immediately come out and denounce this. That's the bare minimum,
like the absolute moral minimum, but at least they didn't
fail that. This can't be tolerated in our society. If
(30:31):
you find yourself making excuses for or cheering for some
active political violence because you hate the person being targeted,
or remember even that person is probably not entirely evil
as a human. Most people are not all good or
all bad, and they have families and loved ones, and regardless,
even if you don't care about that, you can't have
it only one way. You can't just say, well, it's
(30:53):
fine when we go after the bad guys with vigilante violence.
But they can't do that to the people I like,
they will, So decide, Are you like me? Do you
want to live in a civilized society where we settle
things with ballots not bullets, or do you want this chaos,
this Third World style civil unrest where people try to
take out their political opponents. I know what I want,
(31:13):
but everybody else we're going to need to decide because
this can't continue without things getting out of control. What
do you guys think? Let me know in the comments.
All right, everybody, that's it for this episode of the
Bread Versus Everyone podcast. Thank you so much for tuning in.
Please do make sure you're subscribed if you aren't yet,
and do consider hitting that like button if you enjoy
today's episode. Thanks again to opus Clip for sponsoring today's video,
(31:36):
and we'll talk again real soon.
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com