October 8, 2025 • 20 mins
Taylor Swift just released a new album and woke fans, aka "Swifties," are crashing out and claiming it has secret alt-right messaging. I break down the bizarre internet meltdowns in this episode of the Brad vs Everyone podcast. Plus, TikTok 'journalists' spread an anti-Trump conspiracy.
Send me a voice note: https://www.speakpipe.com/bradvseveryone
Check out the merch: https://bp-shop.fourthwall.com/
Support My Show: https://linktr.ee/bradpolumbo
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Kyler Saith is handing the conservative agenda on a silver
platter to the masses. She's doing what he wants everyone
else to do is to get married and have white babies.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Some of the Swifties are not coping well, and it's showing.
We're going to break this down plus so much more
in today's episode of The Bad Versus Everyone Podcast, my
daily show where we take on social media trends and
(00:29):
Internet insanity, all from an independent perspective. Up first, we've
got to check in with the Swifties, which is what
Taylor Swift fans call themselves. Now, there are many factions
of Swifties, as I've come to learn, and some of
y'all are totally normal, no shade, no hate, nothing but
love for y'all. Then there's some of the Swifties on
(00:51):
the Internet, on TikTok on Twitter, and they're not okay,
Like they're deeply mentally unwell and they're not coping well.
Given the album that just came out from Taylor Swift,
which I haven't listened to, I've heard people, even a
lot of her fans, don't really like it. I've heard
some of the lyrics are kind of cringey. But what
(01:11):
I have not heard from any stable, normal people is
that it's like some sort of white supremacist, far right
takeover dog whistle of Taylor Swift. But that is what
swifties online are say. This is according to New York
Post columnists in Front of the Show, Ricky Schlatt. Here
is a video of her explaining this phenomenon. Let's take
(01:35):
a look.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
I want to have.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Your white babies, and I actually want our entire neighborhood
to be racially homogious. She went through this entire thing
with chup Right about how she and her families did
not like being called childless cat ladies, and now Taylor
is calling y'all childless cat ladies.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Either the life of a showgirl is one big racist,
homophobic dog whistle, or everyone has lost their absolute minds. Apparently,
singing about your new fiance is endorsing eugenics now, and
the song Canceled is a maga anthem. Bring the Hamlet
character Ophelia a happy ending instead of a tragic one
is an endorsement of the patriarchy. The song ope Late
(02:19):
is a white supremacist anthem for I don't know why,
and it's also homophobic too, and also racist while we're
at it, The question is a dog whistle really a
dog whistle if only the offended party can hear it.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
That is a very good point, because a lot of
these people love to read between the lines and find
like dog whistles and microaggressions. And sometimes it's like, if
you have to reach so hard that you practically deserve
a gold medal for the mental gymnastics you're pulling, then
maybe it's not actually there, Like maybe you're hallucinating, or
maybe you are trying to be a victim. That's what
(02:55):
a lot of this comes down to, terminally online people
with brain run who are just obsessed with finding ways
to be the victim. Now, when we look at the
specific examples of this that Ricky lays out in her
New York Post article about this, it becomes all the
more clear how absurd some of these online meltdowns are.
So her article titled is Taylor Swift's album really full
(03:19):
of white supremacy and homophobia? Or has everyone lost their minds?
Taylor Swift's new album, The Life of a Showgirl is
barely three days old and already wont killjoys are tearing
it apart, finding offensive lyrics where there are none. Overly,
online social media critics of Swift apparently instantaneously decided the
new album is rife with racism and homophobia, as well
(03:40):
as secret messages of support for the patriarchy, eugenics, and
Donald Trump. This was just pausing this form. How funny
this is because she was like explicitly pro Kamala in
the election and has been very openly anti Trump, So
they're just reaching so hard here. Forensic in to put
this in scare quotes for good reason. Investigations have uncovered
(04:04):
dog whistles in the songs, but only walk detectives themselves
are capable of hearing them. Either Swift is a covert
altright influencer or young critics have been taught to see
oppression everywhere, including where it clearly is not. So let's
get into some of these examples. Every track on the album,
which came out on Friday, has already been dissected for
quote offensive content. Swift's track Opalite has been dubbed everything
(04:27):
from high key a white supremacist anthem to low key
giving homophobia and a cryptic declaration that Swift is a
lily white clean queen. Uh oh, what excuse me? Her
song Canceled has been dragged for supposedly being pro MAGA,
despite Swift's consistently democratic political record. I like my Friends,
(04:50):
Canceled is the most tone deaf lyric a white billionaire
with Maga friends could release in this climate. A tweet
with almost one hundred thousand likes reads. I do think
that lyric is a little bit cringe, but it's not
like offensive. I mean, okay, yeah, so like all right,
who likes to hang out with boring people who are
(05:10):
never controversial? I do not particularly anyway, Ricky continues. The
singer has been dragged for maintaining a friendship with Brittany Mahomes,
wife of NFL star Patrick Mahomes, who controversially liked an
Instagram post about the twenty twenty four GOP platform. Swift
endorsed Vice president Kamala Harris, but didn't disavow her friend,
who presumably is conservative. God forbid. The singer demonstreet that
(05:34):
you can be friends across party lines. What a terrible lesson.
I know, it's like, okay, So if they're suggesting that
she is saying by Canceled Friends that she likes to
have some friends who are like mega or conservative or whatever.
So what how is that controversial in any sane world
That they hold the political views of roughly half the
country and she's still friends with them. That just makes
(05:54):
her a normal person, which I guess these hyper online
swifties just can't relate to. And I guess that makes sense.
That part does make sense. Now. In her song wish List,
Swift says she wants to have a couple kids and
get the quote whole block looking like you, So in
terms of her fiance, I guess now Travis Kelcey. But
(06:16):
some went so far as to suggest this is an
allusion to eugenics. One Ticktoker claimed to see a subtext,
which she read as quote, I want to have your
white babies, and I actually want our entire neighborhood to
be racially homogeneous. She continued, Now Taylor's calling y'all childless
(06:39):
cat ladies because she's about to pop out some kids. Sorry. No,
first of all, it is normal for her to want
to have kids with the person she loves and to
have like offspring that looked like that's just normal and
it's not about racism. The other thing here is. She's
not aiming other people for not having kids just because
(07:03):
she's excited about having her own kids. She's not like that.
That's just a total fabrication. She's not calling some everyone
else a childless cat lady just because she wants to
have kids. And it's actually kind of like unfeminist of
these super woke people to suggest that. I thought the
whole point was that you get to choose for yourself,
which is what I think you should get to choose
as a woman, right Like, whatever you if you want
(07:26):
to have lots of kids, if you want to have
no kids, just focus on a career. I think it's
your life. You should do what you want. And I
think that's how Taylor Swift feels too. But to accuse
her of shaming women for not having kids, it's just
detached from reality. Another fan turned critic pointed out, she
is free to put out a song about wanting a
husband and children and a basketball hoop in a house
and a cul de sac, but she has to accept
(07:46):
the context that if she puts that out right now,
it's going to feel like propaganda. Excuse me, what what
does that even mean right now? Because Trump is president,
So if you want children in a house, you're a Republican.
These people own themselves all the time. This is like
when they see like really hot people and commercials and
(08:08):
they're like, this is so right wing coded. Oh gosh. Anyway,
here's how Ricky Schlott sums up this article. Check her
out by the way, her work is great for those
overly analytical individuals. Everything is personal and nothing can be
taken at face value. But most of these adult critics
sound like teenage keyboard warriors who never grew up. This
(08:30):
is nothing new for Swift. Over her now decades long career,
the singer has been accused of releasing racist music videos,
speaking to the lowercase KKK, and being a Nazi icon
and it's all flat out ridiculous. The year's long expedition
to find bigotry where there is non and take offense
where not is intended is a sad reflection on our society.
I agree, though I think I don't know what percentage
(08:55):
of Swifties are this deranged. I would like to think
it's a small percentage, But they just get a lot
of play online and on social media because that is
just how stuff works. Now. I guess where the craziest
and wildest takes go viral, and then the normal people
don't post at all most of the time. So the
incentive structure there is not amazing, and I think that
(09:15):
affects most fan bases, not just Swifties. But yeah, I mean,
when you valorize a victimhood and when you make oppression
a social currency, you then incentivize these young people who
came of age in a culture where that was very
much the dominant norm and a lot of spaces and
in a lot of subcultures. Then you make them want
(09:37):
to be victims, and you make them want to see oppression,
even where there's just a song about wanting to have
kids in a house. Like none of this is surprising
to me in a sense. It is bleak and it
is unhinged, but I guess I'm just not that phased
by it because at this point it's what I expect.
I don't know, what do you guys think? Let me
(09:58):
know in the comments. Make sure you subscribe. I've hit
the like button, YadA YadA.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
If you're listening on audio podcasts, please take a second
to rate and review the show and consider sharing it
with a friend who might like it. That's the number
one way that audio podcasts grow. But also remember you
can send in your voicemails for my Voicemail Friday episodes
where I react to your woehurer stories, give you advice
on your personal lives, and answer questions that you guys
(10:22):
have for me. The link to send in a voice
note to potentially be featured in an upcoming episode is
in the description. Now, guys, we're going to talk about
I guess I think it's fair to call it a hoax.
Basically that is being promoted on TikTok by so called
TikTok journalists, including my absolute fave under the Desk News,
(10:43):
and they are pushing a story that is just not
based in reality. So I talked about it earlier this week.
But the home of the South Carolina judge was burned
down and she was not in it, but her husband
and other family members were and they were injured escaping
and the blaze was caught on camera, and it was
really horrible stuff, and everybody, a lot of people kind
(11:05):
of worried or assume that this may be another act
of political violence. This was a judge who had ruled
against the Trump administration, who had come in for very
harsh criticism from Trump and his allies. But I commented
on this and said, we don't know. Calm down, don't
jump to conclusions, and if it's political violence, that's terrible,
(11:26):
and regardless, we should all tone down the rhetoric. But
we don't know. And there's a good there's a forty
eight hour rule that I've heard people talk about and
I try to generally take myself, which is to not
jump to big, strong conclusions about a tragedy as it's
breaking and as it's unfolding, and to kind of wait
and see. And we've kind of gotten a lesson in
(11:48):
why you're doing that, but also how people just take
a stance and then cling to it and deny the
facts when it comes to their ideology or their tribe
or pushing one side of the story. Gotten that from
the likes of Under the Desk News, the TikTok journalist.
I think at this point she's more of a political
commentator and the activist. I don't really think she's doing journalism,
(12:11):
but anyway, she put out a video very heavily, heavily
heavily suggesting that this was a targeted arson attack that
received over a million views. Take a listen to that video.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
Now Sunday night, and you're really not going to believe
this one. At the end of August, Trump's Department of
Justice was trying to get South Carolina's voter data. The
data they were seeking would have included South Carolina's voter
registration list, including sensitive information like the last four digits
of people's social Security numbers or their full driver's license numbers.
A group of people from South Carolina suited the Trump administration,
alleging that this would infringe upon their privacy, and Judge
(12:42):
Diane Goodstein issued a temporary restraining order to halt the
process of South Carolina handing over voter data to the
federal government, saying that she thinks there is a likelihood
that immediate and irreparable damage could come to people if
their personal information was released. Judge Goudstein is considered a
liberal judge, and she is married to a longtime Democratic politician.
The Trump administration was obviously very mad this. He called
up his friend, the Republican governor of South Carolina, and
(13:03):
the Republican governor went to a Republican judge he appointed,
and that guy ended up reversing the decision. So as
of four days ago, the Department of Justice is able
to access South Carolina voter data. And then yesterday Judge
Goodstein's house exploded. It's being investigated for follow play. Her
house exploded into fire. She was not home at the time,
she was out walking her dogs, but three other members
of her family were home, including her husband, who had
(13:25):
to jump out of a window to escape the flames.
He is being treated in the hospital right now. And
the house burned completely to the ground. That's pretty weird
right now.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
I think it was irresponsible to post this and to
make this suggestion when it wasn't known. We didn't know
whether it was arson or not. I think you should
be much more careful in the insinuations you're making about
such inflammatory topics before you actually know the facts. But
now we have preliminary findings and conclusions from state law
(13:56):
enforcement that very much do not suggest this. So here
is the Associated Press. South Carolina's top law official says
no arson evidence so far in fire that destroyed judge's home.
State agents have so far found no evidence that a
fire that destroyed a judge's home on a South Carolina
island was intentionally set the state's top law enforcement officials,
said Monday, the Saturday blaze nearly burned to the ground.
(14:19):
The house listed in property records as owned by Circuit
Judge Diane Goodstein on a remote part of a De
Stoe Island. Authorities said investigation is still active and ongoing,
and agents will issue a report when they're finished and
determine the cause. State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel
said in a statement, at this time, there is no
evidence to indicate the fire was intentionally set sled agents
(14:41):
have preliminarily found there is no evidence to support a
pre fire explosion, he said. Keel's agency almost never releases
statements while investigations are ongoing beyond the basic facts, but
the last sentence of his statement on Monday indicated what
he made an exception quote. I urge our citizens, elected officials,
and members of the press to exercise good judgment and
(15:01):
not share information that has not been verified, wrote Keel,
who has led the state police since two thousand and
eleven and has been in law enforcement for forty six years.
So now that we have these nonpartisan, career, lifetime law
enforcement officials coming out and saying that the investigation is
not finalized, but there's no reason to believe this was arson.
There was no reason to believe this was a targeted
(15:23):
political attack. Thankfully, TikTok journalists and creators like under the
Desk News have updated their takes and they've come out
and informed their audiences about what's really Yeah, just kidding, yeah,
Like listen, here is the update video that Under the
Desk News. None of this information was presented in detail
(15:45):
after the million plus view of video in any sort
of follow up, But here is the one sort of
update that this person did post. Take a look.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
Local police and the Republican governor of South Carolina made
a statement today saying that they have not seen any
foul play in the fire that burned a local judges
house to the ground. They also said there's no reason
for the FBI of South Carolina to get involved in
the investigation, and also said you should probably not be
trusting information you hear on social media about this case.
So definitely don't go to my page and watch the
(16:14):
viral video that lays out all of the events that
took place up to that woman's house being on fire.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
So it is pretty clear to me that this woman
is suggesting it was still arson from this upday video
and clinging to this despite having no evidence other than
the fact that the judge was involved in controversies, which
doesn't prove an arson attack. Hundreds of judges have been
involved in political disputes so far in the Trump administration
and didn't have their homes burned down, and fires do
(16:41):
happen a lot more than arson actually, anyway, I just
think that's irresponsible and reckless. And then she's also framing
the oh well, Republican governor and it's state law enforcement.
These are not political people, right that are saying that
there's no arson here. These are professionals. Now, maybe they're
(17:04):
lying and there's some deep state conspiracy here to cover
this up, but I don't believe that, and you've presented
no evidence of it. And I just think when you
have this many people turning to you, you have a
responsibility to be more careful and more cautious with the
claims you're advancing. Especially in this moment where American politics
is on such a knife edge and where people are
at each other's throats and people maybe inspired to do
(17:27):
crazy things, we should all be trying to take the
temperature down and stick to the backs, not like constantly
inflame everything, portray everything as the worst possible scenario, even
when there's no actual reason to believe that that's what happened.
I think that is really reckless and a reprehensible way
to use a massive platform. But I mean, probably make
(17:49):
some money from it, probably good for engagement. Just not
really ethical or sound, I guess. But other people, I
mean under the desk news at least didn't come out
and just assert as fact that this was arson. Other
people are just repeating this ad nauseum and using it
to spread panic and alarmism. Here is another left wing
TikToker doing exactly that.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
So a judge's house being blown up because they voted
no against the Trump regime was not on my bingo card.
And this is why I get so irritated when people
hyper focus on the twenty twenty eight, twenty twenty eight election, Babe,
the current rate that we're going at right now today,
I don't think we're going to have one. Yeah, judges'
house is being blown up because they voted no against
(18:32):
our current president. And you think in three and a
half years we're going to have enough left so that
we can have an election huh.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
So this one is especially wild to me because not
only are you asserting this thing for which we have
no evidence and inflaming people and riling them up, you're
then using it to suggest there will not be an election,
and again there's no evidence for that as well. From
allowed midterm elections to continue in his last presidency, and
of course I think that will still happen today. Of
(19:02):
course I do believe that it will, and if it didn't,
that would be terrible and that insane thing, but like
that's not a thing so far. So again, you're just
riling people up and scaring them. This is my problem
with a lot of these and you see this absolutely.
You see this with the right wing political commentators and
influencers as well. When you're going beyond the facts to
(19:24):
scare people in ways that are not warranted by the
reality of the situation, you are creating a dangerous political environment.
You are playing into their worst fears and scaring people
in ways that they can go and then do crazy things.
You've seen that time and time again, and I just
think it is shameful. I think it's irresponsible, and that
(19:47):
we've got to figure out a better way to approach
this information ecosystem than what we're doing now, because fake
or misleading stuff is just constantly going viral and then
the fact checks and the ration voices get a tiny
fraction of the fuse. But other than that, everything is
going amazing. What do you guys think? Have you seen
(20:09):
all these people claiming without evidence and despite everything the
nonpartisan law enforcement is saying that this was an arsenal
attack on your social media timeline? Let me know in
the comments and with that, guys, that'll be it for
this episode of the Bread Versus Everyone Podcast. Thanks so
much for tuning in. Do you remember to rate and
review us if you haven't yet On audio podcasts, send
(20:30):
in your voice notes, subscribe like da yah, and we'll
talk agains
Kyler Saith is handing the conservative agenda on a silver
platter to the masses. She's doing what he wants everyone
else to do is to get married and have white babies.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Some of the Swifties are not coping well, and it's showing.
We're going to break this down plus so much more
in today's episode of The Bad Versus Everyone Podcast, my
daily show where we take on social media trends and
(00:29):
Internet insanity, all from an independent perspective. Up first, we've
got to check in with the Swifties, which is what
Taylor Swift fans call themselves. Now, there are many factions
of Swifties, as I've come to learn, and some of
y'all are totally normal, no shade, no hate, nothing but
love for y'all. Then there's some of the Swifties on
(00:51):
the Internet, on TikTok on Twitter, and they're not okay,
Like they're deeply mentally unwell and they're not coping well.
Given the album that just came out from Taylor Swift,
which I haven't listened to, I've heard people, even a
lot of her fans, don't really like it. I've heard
some of the lyrics are kind of cringey. But what
(01:11):
I have not heard from any stable, normal people is
that it's like some sort of white supremacist, far right
takeover dog whistle of Taylor Swift. But that is what
swifties online are say. This is according to New York
Post columnists in Front of the Show, Ricky Schlatt. Here
is a video of her explaining this phenomenon. Let's take
(01:35):
a look.
Speaker 3 (01:35):
I want to have.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Your white babies, and I actually want our entire neighborhood
to be racially homogious. She went through this entire thing
with chup Right about how she and her families did
not like being called childless cat ladies, and now Taylor
is calling y'all childless cat ladies.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
Either the life of a showgirl is one big racist,
homophobic dog whistle, or everyone has lost their absolute minds. Apparently,
singing about your new fiance is endorsing eugenics now, and
the song Canceled is a maga anthem. Bring the Hamlet
character Ophelia a happy ending instead of a tragic one
is an endorsement of the patriarchy. The song ope Late
(02:19):
is a white supremacist anthem for I don't know why,
and it's also homophobic too, and also racist while we're
at it, The question is a dog whistle really a
dog whistle if only the offended party can hear it.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
That is a very good point, because a lot of
these people love to read between the lines and find
like dog whistles and microaggressions. And sometimes it's like, if
you have to reach so hard that you practically deserve
a gold medal for the mental gymnastics you're pulling, then
maybe it's not actually there, Like maybe you're hallucinating, or
maybe you are trying to be a victim. That's what
(02:55):
a lot of this comes down to, terminally online people
with brain run who are just obsessed with finding ways
to be the victim. Now, when we look at the
specific examples of this that Ricky lays out in her
New York Post article about this, it becomes all the
more clear how absurd some of these online meltdowns are.
So her article titled is Taylor Swift's album really full
(03:19):
of white supremacy and homophobia? Or has everyone lost their minds?
Taylor Swift's new album, The Life of a Showgirl is
barely three days old and already wont killjoys are tearing
it apart, finding offensive lyrics where there are none. Overly,
online social media critics of Swift apparently instantaneously decided the
new album is rife with racism and homophobia, as well
(03:40):
as secret messages of support for the patriarchy, eugenics, and
Donald Trump. This was just pausing this form. How funny
this is because she was like explicitly pro Kamala in
the election and has been very openly anti Trump, So
they're just reaching so hard here. Forensic in to put
this in scare quotes for good reason. Investigations have uncovered
(04:04):
dog whistles in the songs, but only walk detectives themselves
are capable of hearing them. Either Swift is a covert
altright influencer or young critics have been taught to see
oppression everywhere, including where it clearly is not. So let's
get into some of these examples. Every track on the album,
which came out on Friday, has already been dissected for
quote offensive content. Swift's track Opalite has been dubbed everything
(04:27):
from high key a white supremacist anthem to low key
giving homophobia and a cryptic declaration that Swift is a
lily white clean queen. Uh oh, what excuse me? Her
song Canceled has been dragged for supposedly being pro MAGA,
despite Swift's consistently democratic political record. I like my Friends,
(04:50):
Canceled is the most tone deaf lyric a white billionaire
with Maga friends could release in this climate. A tweet
with almost one hundred thousand likes reads. I do think
that lyric is a little bit cringe, but it's not
like offensive. I mean, okay, yeah, so like all right,
who likes to hang out with boring people who are
(05:10):
never controversial? I do not particularly anyway, Ricky continues. The
singer has been dragged for maintaining a friendship with Brittany Mahomes,
wife of NFL star Patrick Mahomes, who controversially liked an
Instagram post about the twenty twenty four GOP platform. Swift
endorsed Vice president Kamala Harris, but didn't disavow her friend,
who presumably is conservative. God forbid. The singer demonstreet that
(05:34):
you can be friends across party lines. What a terrible lesson.
I know, it's like, okay, So if they're suggesting that
she is saying by Canceled Friends that she likes to
have some friends who are like mega or conservative or whatever.
So what how is that controversial in any sane world
That they hold the political views of roughly half the
country and she's still friends with them. That just makes
(05:54):
her a normal person, which I guess these hyper online
swifties just can't relate to. And I guess that makes sense.
That part does make sense. Now. In her song wish List,
Swift says she wants to have a couple kids and
get the quote whole block looking like you, So in
terms of her fiance, I guess now Travis Kelcey. But
(06:16):
some went so far as to suggest this is an
allusion to eugenics. One Ticktoker claimed to see a subtext,
which she read as quote, I want to have your
white babies, and I actually want our entire neighborhood to
be racially homogeneous. She continued, Now Taylor's calling y'all childless
(06:39):
cat ladies because she's about to pop out some kids. Sorry. No,
first of all, it is normal for her to want
to have kids with the person she loves and to
have like offspring that looked like that's just normal and
it's not about racism. The other thing here is. She's
not aiming other people for not having kids just because
(07:03):
she's excited about having her own kids. She's not like that.
That's just a total fabrication. She's not calling some everyone
else a childless cat lady just because she wants to
have kids. And it's actually kind of like unfeminist of
these super woke people to suggest that. I thought the
whole point was that you get to choose for yourself,
which is what I think you should get to choose
as a woman, right Like, whatever you if you want
(07:26):
to have lots of kids, if you want to have
no kids, just focus on a career. I think it's
your life. You should do what you want. And I
think that's how Taylor Swift feels too. But to accuse
her of shaming women for not having kids, it's just
detached from reality. Another fan turned critic pointed out, she
is free to put out a song about wanting a
husband and children and a basketball hoop in a house
and a cul de sac, but she has to accept
(07:46):
the context that if she puts that out right now,
it's going to feel like propaganda. Excuse me, what what
does that even mean right now? Because Trump is president,
So if you want children in a house, you're a Republican.
These people own themselves all the time. This is like
when they see like really hot people and commercials and
(08:08):
they're like, this is so right wing coded. Oh gosh. Anyway,
here's how Ricky Schlott sums up this article. Check her
out by the way, her work is great for those
overly analytical individuals. Everything is personal and nothing can be
taken at face value. But most of these adult critics
sound like teenage keyboard warriors who never grew up. This
(08:30):
is nothing new for Swift. Over her now decades long career,
the singer has been accused of releasing racist music videos,
speaking to the lowercase KKK, and being a Nazi icon
and it's all flat out ridiculous. The year's long expedition
to find bigotry where there is non and take offense
where not is intended is a sad reflection on our society.
I agree, though I think I don't know what percentage
(08:55):
of Swifties are this deranged. I would like to think
it's a small percentage, But they just get a lot
of play online and on social media because that is
just how stuff works. Now. I guess where the craziest
and wildest takes go viral, and then the normal people
don't post at all most of the time. So the
incentive structure there is not amazing, and I think that
(09:15):
affects most fan bases, not just Swifties. But yeah, I mean,
when you valorize a victimhood and when you make oppression
a social currency, you then incentivize these young people who
came of age in a culture where that was very
much the dominant norm and a lot of spaces and
in a lot of subcultures. Then you make them want
(09:37):
to be victims, and you make them want to see oppression,
even where there's just a song about wanting to have
kids in a house. Like none of this is surprising
to me in a sense. It is bleak and it
is unhinged, but I guess I'm just not that phased
by it because at this point it's what I expect.
I don't know, what do you guys think? Let me
(09:58):
know in the comments. Make sure you subscribe. I've hit
the like button, YadA YadA.
Speaker 4 (10:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
If you're listening on audio podcasts, please take a second
to rate and review the show and consider sharing it
with a friend who might like it. That's the number
one way that audio podcasts grow. But also remember you
can send in your voicemails for my Voicemail Friday episodes
where I react to your woehurer stories, give you advice
on your personal lives, and answer questions that you guys
(10:22):
have for me. The link to send in a voice
note to potentially be featured in an upcoming episode is
in the description. Now, guys, we're going to talk about
I guess I think it's fair to call it a hoax.
Basically that is being promoted on TikTok by so called
TikTok journalists, including my absolute fave under the Desk News,
(10:43):
and they are pushing a story that is just not
based in reality. So I talked about it earlier this week.
But the home of the South Carolina judge was burned
down and she was not in it, but her husband
and other family members were and they were injured escaping
and the blaze was caught on camera, and it was
really horrible stuff, and everybody, a lot of people kind
(11:05):
of worried or assume that this may be another act
of political violence. This was a judge who had ruled
against the Trump administration, who had come in for very
harsh criticism from Trump and his allies. But I commented
on this and said, we don't know. Calm down, don't
jump to conclusions, and if it's political violence, that's terrible,
(11:26):
and regardless, we should all tone down the rhetoric. But
we don't know. And there's a good there's a forty
eight hour rule that I've heard people talk about and
I try to generally take myself, which is to not
jump to big, strong conclusions about a tragedy as it's
breaking and as it's unfolding, and to kind of wait
and see. And we've kind of gotten a lesson in
(11:48):
why you're doing that, but also how people just take
a stance and then cling to it and deny the
facts when it comes to their ideology or their tribe
or pushing one side of the story. Gotten that from
the likes of Under the Desk News, the TikTok journalist.
I think at this point she's more of a political
commentator and the activist. I don't really think she's doing journalism,
(12:11):
but anyway, she put out a video very heavily, heavily
heavily suggesting that this was a targeted arson attack that
received over a million views. Take a listen to that video.
Speaker 5 (12:21):
Now Sunday night, and you're really not going to believe
this one. At the end of August, Trump's Department of
Justice was trying to get South Carolina's voter data. The
data they were seeking would have included South Carolina's voter
registration list, including sensitive information like the last four digits
of people's social Security numbers or their full driver's license numbers.
A group of people from South Carolina suited the Trump administration,
alleging that this would infringe upon their privacy, and Judge
(12:42):
Diane Goodstein issued a temporary restraining order to halt the
process of South Carolina handing over voter data to the
federal government, saying that she thinks there is a likelihood
that immediate and irreparable damage could come to people if
their personal information was released. Judge Goudstein is considered a
liberal judge, and she is married to a longtime Democratic politician.
The Trump administration was obviously very mad this. He called
up his friend, the Republican governor of South Carolina, and
(13:03):
the Republican governor went to a Republican judge he appointed,
and that guy ended up reversing the decision. So as
of four days ago, the Department of Justice is able
to access South Carolina voter data. And then yesterday Judge
Goodstein's house exploded. It's being investigated for follow play. Her
house exploded into fire. She was not home at the time,
she was out walking her dogs, but three other members
of her family were home, including her husband, who had
(13:25):
to jump out of a window to escape the flames.
He is being treated in the hospital right now. And
the house burned completely to the ground. That's pretty weird
right now.
Speaker 2 (13:33):
I think it was irresponsible to post this and to
make this suggestion when it wasn't known. We didn't know
whether it was arson or not. I think you should
be much more careful in the insinuations you're making about
such inflammatory topics before you actually know the facts. But
now we have preliminary findings and conclusions from state law
(13:56):
enforcement that very much do not suggest this. So here
is the Associated Press. South Carolina's top law official says
no arson evidence so far in fire that destroyed judge's home.
State agents have so far found no evidence that a
fire that destroyed a judge's home on a South Carolina
island was intentionally set the state's top law enforcement officials,
said Monday, the Saturday blaze nearly burned to the ground.
(14:19):
The house listed in property records as owned by Circuit
Judge Diane Goodstein on a remote part of a De
Stoe Island. Authorities said investigation is still active and ongoing,
and agents will issue a report when they're finished and
determine the cause. State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel
said in a statement, at this time, there is no
evidence to indicate the fire was intentionally set sled agents
(14:41):
have preliminarily found there is no evidence to support a
pre fire explosion, he said. Keel's agency almost never releases
statements while investigations are ongoing beyond the basic facts, but
the last sentence of his statement on Monday indicated what
he made an exception quote. I urge our citizens, elected officials,
and members of the press to exercise good judgment and
(15:01):
not share information that has not been verified, wrote Keel,
who has led the state police since two thousand and
eleven and has been in law enforcement for forty six years.
So now that we have these nonpartisan, career, lifetime law
enforcement officials coming out and saying that the investigation is
not finalized, but there's no reason to believe this was arson.
There was no reason to believe this was a targeted
(15:23):
political attack. Thankfully, TikTok journalists and creators like under the
Desk News have updated their takes and they've come out
and informed their audiences about what's really Yeah, just kidding, yeah,
Like listen, here is the update video that Under the
Desk News. None of this information was presented in detail
(15:45):
after the million plus view of video in any sort
of follow up, But here is the one sort of
update that this person did post. Take a look.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
Local police and the Republican governor of South Carolina made
a statement today saying that they have not seen any
foul play in the fire that burned a local judges
house to the ground. They also said there's no reason
for the FBI of South Carolina to get involved in
the investigation, and also said you should probably not be
trusting information you hear on social media about this case.
So definitely don't go to my page and watch the
(16:14):
viral video that lays out all of the events that
took place up to that woman's house being on fire.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
So it is pretty clear to me that this woman
is suggesting it was still arson from this upday video
and clinging to this despite having no evidence other than
the fact that the judge was involved in controversies, which
doesn't prove an arson attack. Hundreds of judges have been
involved in political disputes so far in the Trump administration
and didn't have their homes burned down, and fires do
(16:41):
happen a lot more than arson actually, anyway, I just
think that's irresponsible and reckless. And then she's also framing
the oh well, Republican governor and it's state law enforcement.
These are not political people, right that are saying that
there's no arson here. These are professionals. Now, maybe they're
(17:04):
lying and there's some deep state conspiracy here to cover
this up, but I don't believe that, and you've presented
no evidence of it. And I just think when you
have this many people turning to you, you have a
responsibility to be more careful and more cautious with the
claims you're advancing. Especially in this moment where American politics
is on such a knife edge and where people are
at each other's throats and people maybe inspired to do
(17:27):
crazy things, we should all be trying to take the
temperature down and stick to the backs, not like constantly
inflame everything, portray everything as the worst possible scenario, even
when there's no actual reason to believe that that's what happened.
I think that is really reckless and a reprehensible way
to use a massive platform. But I mean, probably make
(17:49):
some money from it, probably good for engagement. Just not
really ethical or sound, I guess. But other people, I
mean under the desk news at least didn't come out
and just assert as fact that this was arson. Other
people are just repeating this ad nauseum and using it
to spread panic and alarmism. Here is another left wing
TikToker doing exactly that.
Speaker 3 (18:10):
So a judge's house being blown up because they voted
no against the Trump regime was not on my bingo card.
And this is why I get so irritated when people
hyper focus on the twenty twenty eight, twenty twenty eight election, Babe,
the current rate that we're going at right now today,
I don't think we're going to have one. Yeah, judges'
house is being blown up because they voted no against
(18:32):
our current president. And you think in three and a
half years we're going to have enough left so that
we can have an election huh.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
So this one is especially wild to me because not
only are you asserting this thing for which we have
no evidence and inflaming people and riling them up, you're
then using it to suggest there will not be an election,
and again there's no evidence for that as well. From
allowed midterm elections to continue in his last presidency, and
of course I think that will still happen today. Of
(19:02):
course I do believe that it will, and if it didn't,
that would be terrible and that insane thing, but like
that's not a thing so far. So again, you're just
riling people up and scaring them. This is my problem
with a lot of these and you see this absolutely.
You see this with the right wing political commentators and
influencers as well. When you're going beyond the facts to
(19:24):
scare people in ways that are not warranted by the
reality of the situation, you are creating a dangerous political environment.
You are playing into their worst fears and scaring people
in ways that they can go and then do crazy things.
You've seen that time and time again, and I just
think it is shameful. I think it's irresponsible, and that
(19:47):
we've got to figure out a better way to approach
this information ecosystem than what we're doing now, because fake
or misleading stuff is just constantly going viral and then
the fact checks and the ration voices get a tiny
fraction of the fuse. But other than that, everything is
going amazing. What do you guys think? Have you seen
(20:09):
all these people claiming without evidence and despite everything the
nonpartisan law enforcement is saying that this was an arsenal
attack on your social media timeline? Let me know in
the comments and with that, guys, that'll be it for
this episode of the Bread Versus Everyone Podcast. Thanks so
much for tuning in. Do you remember to rate and
review us if you haven't yet On audio podcasts, send
(20:30):
in your voice notes, subscribe like da yah, and we'll
talk agains
Popular Podcasts
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.