March 2, 2026 • 35 mins
In this episode we look at some of the wild, false, and less-than-helpful comments that people post on social media regarding our content. The goal is to teach and clarify (though occasional teasing will also be permitted). Enjoy the first in a series of videos calling out the haters.
Follow Zach:
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Roe V Wade was not about a conversation with you and your
doctor. Your doctor does not have the
right to determine legality. I was just trying to explain
what I thought were helpful facts.
But again, people, they just putyou in a camp and then they hate
dude, I, I, I who? I cannot imagine that when you
have a fever and you have a dream, what that dream is like,
(00:22):
'cause it is probably wild. Hello, and welcome to another
edition of Ideological, which isa podcast that's kind of like if
Voltaire and Deadpool had a baby.
I'm your host, Zach Lee, and today we're actually going to do
(00:42):
something that is very special. I've decided that every few
months I want to put out an episode where we look at some of
the crazy comments that people make on social media and we
examine them. We use our critical thinking
skills to see if they're good comments where people might be
less than humble, where they might be going astray.
(01:03):
Plus, it's always fun to own thehater.
So that's what we're going to dotoday and other days, which I
think is going to be awesome. So this is really volume one of
a chance to see people's maybe less than helpful comments on
social media for the podcast or whatever it might be.
So let me let me tell you what it it's it's like a little bit.
(01:24):
Have you ever read an Amazon review?
So you decide to go buy something on Amazon and you want
to see what's good about it, what's bad about it?
What have other customers thought about this item?
And people put the wildest comments that have nothing to do
with the item, right? Like it'll be they gave it one
star and I'm like 1 star like this seems like a really great,
I don't know hammer. They're like, well, the package
(01:47):
arrived late and the package wasa little bit damaged.
So the hammer is 1 star and I'm like, Oh dear, That's that's not
the point of this section. People are like, I live in
Arizona and I ordered some sushionline.
And so by the time it got there,it was, I got sick zero stars.
And I'm like, sushi's delicious.Maybe don't order it online if
you live in Arizona and leave itin your mailbox or whatever bag
(02:09):
of gummy bears gets there and itlike melts in the sun and
they're like gummy bears, zero stars.
And I'm like, gummy bears are amazing.
And then you think to yourself, these people and their votes
have the same power that my votehas.
That's wild. OK, so I realized that people do
this with social media comments.And so I think it'll be fun to
(02:30):
do it. So a few a few preliminaries
before we get into some of thesecomments.
One, this is meant to be fun to recap and to teach it.
It's going to use some of the comments people make to maybe
explain further some ideas from different episodes.
Another reason I wanted to do episodes like this.
Listen to this. This is really important.
(02:52):
The tribalism, especially in America, but elsewhere, is out
of control. Nobody can look at an argument.
Nobody can look at a nuance. Nobody can say, well, this is
right, but not this, or why did you come to this conclusion?
Or nobody asks questions. What they do is they try to put
you into their political camp orthe camp that they oppose, left
(03:13):
or right, and then they just go off right.
So if you say something like people shouldn't be murdered and
you say that after the death of Charlie Kirk, they're like, you
are a Nazi and you probably likeTrump and you like all these
other things. I'm like, what?
What is happening here? All I said is murders bad.
I didn't know that murder was supposed to be some sort of like
partisan position like, but people, they're just trying to
(03:34):
say, are you for me or are you against me by do you belong to
my camp? No one's actually dealing with
the issues. And so I hate that tribalism.
I want somebody to make a case. Even if if you're somebody on
the right, don't just call people communists or whatever.
Make an argument, explain what you mean and why and give
nuance. If you're someone on the left,
don't just call people on the right fascist.
(03:54):
Explain why they're, you think they're fascist and give a case,
make an argument, OK, give nuance.
And so I hate how tribal it's become where I, I make a comment
that everyone should agree with and people just freak out
without paying attention to the comment, without watching the
episode. So, so yeah, I think this, this
(04:17):
could be a helpful chance to teach.
Also, I'm not going to mention these people by name.
I'm not here to, to just try to be mean there.
There's a lot of that's not fun.I, I, I, I'll throw in some
jokes. I'll probably make fun of some
people 'cause you know, they they deserve it, but I'm wanting
to do this. I'm wanting to encourage
academic discussion, even with people that you hate, even with
(04:40):
people that have a different position then you might have.
Whatever it is, conversation is the is the answer.
So I'm wanting to promote that and academic humility.
There's a lot of people that comment on a post that maybe
I've read in another language and also studied for 10 years
and it's the first time they think about it.
(05:01):
And so somebody with like an anime and their profile picture
will be like, I think this and I'm like, whoa, what is
happening here? Who are you?
So should be a lot of fun. Now, not all the comments are
bad. Sometimes people have good
comments. They have helpful things to say
and some are more interesting than others.
Let me share a few interesting ones before we get into the
specifics. One person said that it was
(05:23):
adorable how my books are all the same height behind me, which
I appreciate that. I mean, it is kind of adorable.
Like some of them are not, but some of them are and it is
adorable. I, I, I often get told how
adorable I am as a six one male with facial hair and let's be
(05:43):
honest, huge muscles. So I appreciate that one.
That one's funny. One guy said that he was edging
to one of my videos, which is hilarious.
I'll take that as a compliment. One man called me the N word,
which is interesting. So you get some interesting
comments. It's it's pretty wheels off.
Some are from bots, some are from real people, but I want to
(06:05):
go over some specific ones here and use them as helpful teaching
opportunity. So we have some fun tivities
today, some activities to look through.
So let's jump in in the episode on the history of sex, which is,
by the way, the most viewed episode that we've done on
ideological because people are pervs.
And by the way, it's a fun episode.
(06:25):
It's very X-rated. I I really just don't hold back
and I just say some facts. There was a clip that the
marketing team for ideological put up where I'm explaining what
in the Ancient Near East, a lot of these different societies,
why they would perform orgies and why they would perform these
(06:46):
group sex acts as a type of worship.
So think about that. That sounds like way more fun
than going to church or something like that was a common
practice in the Ancient Near East thousands of years ago.
This is these are older cultures, but one of things they
would do as part of worship is sleep with each other.
Why? Because it puts you in this
(07:06):
euphoric state. It's like the highest pleasure
you can feel outside of meth. That's a great quote.
By the way. If you just want to clip
something out of context and saysex is the greatest high you can
have outside of meth, I'm going to get some T-shirts with that
made on it. And so I explained that this
this was the case with many of these cultures.
These are fertility rituals, OK?They are having sex, one, in
(07:31):
front of their gods so that the gods will give them babies, but
two, they are trying to turn on the gods.
Remember, their gods are very anthropomorphic.
They think of them as kind of big humans, right?
Like kind of like the Greek gods.
They're really just super powerful humans, but they lust
and they get confused and they don't know things.
That was very common in the ancient Near East.
And so one of the things that they believed, and this is
(07:52):
there's many, many resources that I used to prove this is one
of the reasons that they would do these groups sex acts as an
act of worship is because it waslike pornography for their gods.
It like turned them on and they believe that fertility would
come from that and that's what rainfall was.
OK notice rainfall does what? It makes everything grow.
It's fertile. It is seen as the God's seed if
(08:14):
you want to use a euphemism. And that's just a fact.
Shouldn't be controversial, but people have their thoughts.
My favorite comment is how many times people are like gross.
I used to like the rain. Why didn't you say it was snow
instead of rain? There's some great comments, but
one gentleman who again, I will not name, he kind of looks like
(08:40):
a human thumb. He said they all had sex
together in front of their gods because they wanted to have
babies. Idiot.
I, I, I, I agree with you. I, I said that it was a
fertility thing. They weren't just doing it for
one reason. There were several reasons they
were doing it. Fertility was there, but also
what I said is true. So you know, you know, I just
(09:04):
OK, so that's just some that that's a fun one.
If you want to just go read comments on on Facebook or
TikTok. TikTok is the worst when it
comes to this. There's one to take a look at in
the episode on gun control, which was very controversial,
where I explained, I'm just trying to give you facts.
And that was not my original position.
I used to be anti gun. I became a shooting instructor,
(09:25):
learned all the statistics, whatever.
And I tried to give a fair case for that.
And by the way, that doesn't mean that is or is not my
political position on that. I was just trying to explain
what I thought were helpful facts.
But again, people, they just putyou in a camp and then they
hate. And so let me explain the clip
that people commented on. There was a clip where I explain
(09:46):
that America has the highest percapita gun ownership in the
world, meaning we have more gunsper people than any other
country in the world. If guns and having access to
guns was the the the main or sole thing that produced
violence, like unrighteous violence, mass shootings,
(10:07):
murders, all that kind of stuff,then we should be.
Our homicide rate should be #1 if our per capita gun ownership
is #1 and that's the main issue,it can be an issue.
But if that's the main issue, then we should at least be
towards the top probably #1 because we have the most guns,
(10:28):
we should have the highest per capita murder rate.
And I explained that America ranks 121st in per capita
murders, which means there's 120other countries that have more
guns. I'm sorry, they have less guns.
There's 120 other countries thathave less guns per capita than
we do, yet more murders. Now, if I was off and we were
(10:53):
just #2 and I said we are #1 OK,I can explain your, your hate or
whatever. But again, any comment other
than yes, we should be #1 in percapita murders if we're number
one in per capita gun ownership and the guns are the problem.
But I was proving that there's 120 other countries where they
have more murders and less guns.And people commented thusly.
(11:16):
We give you a few. First of all, they seem to not
understand the math or the numbers.
Again, if we have if, if, if you're trying to make the case
that guns are the primary problem when it comes to gun
violence, not people or culture or government guns, then if
we're number one in per capita gun ownership, we should be also
number one in per capita murders.
One person said there are also 74 countries with less murders.
(11:42):
Meaning like Zach, you idiot, we're not 120, we're number 75.
And I'm like, again, to, to refute my position, we have to
be #1 So again, I, I mean, math,math is tough.
But there are also 74 countries with less murders. the US is not
supposed to be compared with Haiti.
We should be looking to Western Europe where the murder rate is
(12:02):
an order of magnitude lower. Before I posted this I said
please before you comment check out the episode I addressed this
that in places in Western Europelike the UK, per capita the
violent crime rate is 4 times ashigh as the US even though gun
ownership is severely restricted.
Another guy said same thing. I like how he cherry picked a 12
(12:24):
year old study. I googled this and according to
EU NS 2023 numbers, the US is 66th.
That's still my point. Let let me grant it to you.
Let's pretend that the America that that the Americas what is
what is this like am I an explorer?
Let's pretend that America is number 66 in per capita murders,
(12:45):
though we're number one in per capita gun ownership.
Do you do you do you see how do you see how my point is still
overwhelmingly correct? So I mean, I don't want to be
mean, but go like look in a mirror if you want to see the
problem because you're, you'll be looking at the problem.
(13:06):
All of the countries ahead are second or third world and most
have guns. Shocking that this guy is full
of it. I'm going to address that in
just a second as I show you these four comments.
So that's, that's people saying,hey, we're not #121 we're
anything other than one. And I'm like, for you to refute
my position, we have to be #1 But there's something else they
keep bringing up. Zach, why are you mentioning
(13:28):
other countries? Why not just first world
countries? So let me give you 4 comments
that happened in a row on the same thing.
Listen to this. How do we rank amongst developed
democracies? That's one guy, another person
who has a dog in their profile picture and no face.
Yet among the advanced industrialized nations, we rank
first higher than many third world nations too.
(13:48):
Another guy says where do we rank with school shootings?
That's again because he didn't listen to the episode.
We've talked about how three of the worst six school shootings
have actually happened in the UK.
And you also, I'm sorry, in Europe, not not just the UK in
the in Europe and also you can'tjust consider school shootings.
You have to consider overall murders, rapes, violent crime,
etcetera. But and then another person,
where do we rank among first world countries?
(14:10):
Hint, we're in first with #2 farbehind.
So here's what they're saying. Pay attention to this because
this is fantastic, Zach. You're not separating developed
and modern nations from third world countries.
Oh, you mean that there's something other than guns that
(14:31):
are contributing to these statistics?
You, you mean something like howwell a nation is doing, its
politics, its values, its culture, the rights that they
have or don't have? I 100% agree with you.
There is a reason why developed nations have less gun violence
than nations that are not developed, and it doesn't have
to do with guns, which is exactly my point.
(14:53):
Thank you so much for agreeing. Thank you for sharing, Sharing
that when you say that a countryis underdeveloped, you're saying
there are factors. Because what they're saying is
they're like, well, yeah, there's a bunch of countries
more violent than America, and they don't have as much guns.
But they have other problems like politics and what kind of
people are in power and what values the people are taught and
(15:15):
what the home life is like. And I'm like 100% if you
separate developed countries from non developed countries
when it comes to this statistic,you absolutely make my point,
which is there are things that contribute to gun violence that
does not have to do with the gun.
It has to do with the person andwith the culture.
OK, sometimes I feel like this. I, I was one time listening to
(15:39):
an interview where a distinguished professor, a
humanities professor was being recognized.
And the interviewer said, you know, you're a distinguished
professor, you have written over20 books.
You're you've published a lot ofarticles, You're a well known
name. But something weird happens
anytime you teach like at a college, right?
(16:03):
There's all he's he said, isn't it the case that there's always
like some freshman that is brandnew to this, that just wants to
sit in class and teach you something?
Like you have all this study andall this erudition and all this
knowledge and some kid who's a freshman in college who's what,
1819 comes into the class with aswagger and a lack of humility
(16:24):
and they're trying to just own you and teach you something
because does that ever happened?What do you do?
And he goes, oh, it happens all the time.
I just say to that student, I'm a great man.
Who are you? I think about that quote often
when I read the haters online. Let's get to the next one.
I did an episode on the differences between Democrats
(16:44):
and Republicans and by the way, was very fair and very biased.
I just gave the history and thenthe differences on the sides.
I didn't come down on a side. I'm just here to educate.
I don't want you to believe whatI believe.
I want you to wrestle. I want you to get upset.
I want you to change some of your opinions.
I want you to talk to others with whom you disagree.
And for marketing purposes, the marketing company put a clip up
(17:05):
on where I explained what the issue was with abortion and Roe
V Wade. OK, let me be very, very clear
what that issue was about. The issue was not about
abortion. Roe V Wade did not make abortion
legal or illegal, and it's reversal did not make it legal
or illegal. The the issue was always about
(17:25):
whether or not it was a states rights issue or it was a
constitutional right. So when Roe V Wade first
happened, what they said was that you had a constitutional
right to abortion and therefore it was legal and states could
not outlaw it. And then when Roe V.
Wade was revoked, they said, actually, that's not, there's
nothing in the Constitution about abortion that is going to
(17:47):
be a states rights issue. And the states get to determine
if it's going to be legal or illegal.
That's what it's about. It's about is abortion in the
Constitution, not if you like it, not if you think it's a
women's right issue, not if you think that it's some religious
issue and none of that. And that's all I said.
Hey, listen, regardless of your view on abortion, this is what
that was about. That's objectively true.
(18:07):
When I say Roe V. Wade said this and then they
said not this. That's a fact.
And yet people, people be people.
And so let's look at this here. One person who has a bottle as
their picture says we need less big government.
Roe V Wade made abortion a conversation between you and
(18:28):
your doctor. Removing it made the
government's oversight on our bodies larger.
Republicans are pro big government.
Again, I I'm not commenting on Republicans or Democrats.
Again, you'll see people's tribalism where they they want
to put you in a box and so they can just dismiss you instead of
dealing with an argument. Roe V Wade was not about a
(18:50):
conversation with you and your doctor.
Your doctor does not have the right to determine legality,
what the state will consider as legal life or not legal life.
That's a philosophical question.The issue was about whether or
not it was constitutional or not.
Before Roe V Wade, there were places where abortion was
already legal. So you already had a
(19:11):
conversation with your doctor. Again, it was about, is it, is
it mentioned explication in the Constitution or should it be
left up to the states as the Constitution says that's what it
was about. Somebody else who is a man with
pink hair says it absolutely wasabout abortion.
Roe was a stepping stone, the first big obstacle preventing
(19:32):
abortion bans. The Constitution guarantees a
right to privacy, which should absolutely include medical
privacy. The debate in the whole
pro-life, pro-choice thing is whether or not that fetus or
baby is a human. If it's a human, medical privacy
(19:53):
goes out the window. You don't have a right to murder
somebody as long as a doctor's there.
If the baby is not a human, thenyou do.
And so whether or not it is a human is not about your privacy.
That is about a bigger standard.It's an ontological question.
What is it that makes someone a human?
Is it when they're viable? Because babies are not viable
(20:13):
out of the womb for a long time.Adults are not viable without.
Grocery stores and hospitals andthese kind of things.
Is it about heartbeat? Is it about before that dreams
mind? Is it about just when the human
has all the parts to be a human?Is it at conception when they
have all the DNA or is it later than that?
That's the question. It's not about you have a right
(20:34):
to privacy from the government and so therefore you can murder
somebody behind closed doors if it's or if it's not murder.
I'm not. Again, I'm just saying that the
issue with the the Roe V. Wade thing was about states
rights and constitutional rights, not what people thought
it was about. Here's one I really enjoy.
(20:55):
I had a clip where I simply saidthat we should stop name calling
and deal with the issues behind the name.
And by the way, I critiqued bothsides.
I said, if you're on the right, do not just call somebody a
libtard or a communist. You have to make a case what
what do you think about what they're doing that's communistic
or socialistic? Like what?
What is it? Why do you disagree with them?
(21:18):
Do you why do you disagree with that position?
Why do you think your position'sright?
And then on the left, I was like, if you disagree with
somebody, don't just call them afascist or a Nazi.
Explain what you think that they're doing is Nazi like
behavior, but the name calling is unhelpful because you just
use it to do again do tribalism dismiss people instead of
explaining and talking about theactual issues.
(21:40):
And so I was like, don't name call talk about the issues
comment in the below give me some thoughts.
One person said, I fear if maybethe other side stopped being
fascists and Nazis, we wouldn't have need to call them fascists
and Nazis that I mean, that's, that's that's the thing.
I'm not saying they are or not. I'm saying make a case for why
(22:03):
you think whatever your other side is is a Nazi.
Like explain what Nazis are, explain what values they hold
and don't hold. Explain how powerful the
government is within those systems, whatever.
And then make a case. But I like, I was like, don't
just name call them. They're like, well, we wouldn't
call them Nazis unless they wereNazis.
And you're like, Oh dear, Oh dear.
OK next a guy said and he has a picture of a mouse looking
(22:27):
through cheese as the profile picture.
So if you kill a Nazi, who's spewing propaganda?
Again I'm I'm just reading it the way it's written.
If you kill a Nazi who's spewingpropaganda to convert others to
Nazism, now he is innocent and you are the Nazi.
You seem to be deflecting. Hitler started with sharing his
(22:47):
opinion. So you're saying America was the
Nazi's oppressor for silencing his rhetoric?
Make it make sense. Lol OK there's a lot there, none
of it good. A bit confusing that that
there's there's something here about.
He's basically saying they againhe's assuming that somebody's a
(23:11):
Nazi without proving that explaining what a Nazi is.
Any of that. And then he said Hitler started
with sharing his opinion. Basically, this is a, this is a
post against freedom of speech. Hey, we can't just let people
share their opinion. Hitler did that and look what
happened. All right.
And, and now we're oppressing them because we shut down their
opinion of the Nazis. What is happening?
And I'm like, dude, I, I, I whoo, I cannot imagine that when
(23:37):
you have a fever and you have a dream, what that dream is like,
because it is probably wild. The issue is not ever sharing
your opinion. Sharing your opinion is what the
what the 1st Amendment's for. It's it's freedom of speech.
It is the right to share things that offend people, not just
things that don't offend people.You can say whatever you want.
This is America. You cannot take away other
(23:59):
people's freedoms. You cannot act on all your
beliefs. They might be illegal, right?
But you have the right to think them and say them.
And we've got an episode on whatexactly the First Amendment
means where I interview a First Amendment attorney to talk about
all that. But to say that we need to shut
down freedom of speech or people's opinions because Hitler
(24:20):
started by sharing his opinions,that that ironically is what the
Nazis do when they shut down people from sharing their
opinions. Next, in the episode on the
death of Charlie Kirk, let me bevery clear what I did and did
not say. First of all, I didn't know much
about I I, I'd heard of him, butI'd never actually watched
(24:40):
anything by CC Kirk before his death.
After he died, I looked it up because it was a big cultural
thing. And by the way, everyone
condemned the murder. Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders on
the like, left and right condemned the murder.
So if you're one of those peoplethat are like, yeah, that's
good. He had it coming.
Like there was a lot of those kind of comments.
(25:01):
You're like the crazy, weird, creepy fringe because even the
far left says, Nope, we still are going to say murder's bad,
regardless of whether or not youlike what somebody said.
And so in that episode, I didn'tdefend Charlie or his views.
I don't agree with him on some things.
I agree with him on other things.
Again, it depends on the issue. All I said was, hey, don't shut
(25:26):
down freedom of speech. Like if you disagree with
somebody, beat them in an intelligent debate.
Do not take a rifle and shoot them through the neck because
you're mad because you don't like what they're saying.
That is actual suppression. That is actual oppression.
That is not allowing somebody tohave their freedom of thought or
speech because you don't like itand you're trying to be this
(25:47):
preacher, moral high ground person.
Stop that. And so all I explained is that,
you know, he you, you might hateall his views.
He shouldn't have been murdered.And he's also not a Nazi.
Again, that's the thing. He got shot at a free speech
rally. Like, let me read these comments
(26:08):
and then I let me read a comment.
And I want to explain something that could be helpful for
people. One person said, no, you're an
actual Nazi if you support Nazi ideals like Charlie Kirk did.
Think back to the 1940s and think of the average American GI
that's going over to fight the Nazis.
(26:28):
OK, that guy is an American and he's a capitalist and he is
going to fight the Nazis. He's going to fight fascism in
Europe. Ready.
Pay attention to this is really important.
This guy that's going to fight the Nazis in the 40s from
America holds almost the exact same positions as Charlie Kirk
(26:52):
on every issue. Again, I'm not saying I'm a
Charlie Kirk fan. I don't like that he just
debated undergrads instead of professors.
I thought some of his stuff was pedantic.
I I thought the lack of education sometimes showed.
But I I support people's freedomto say whatever they want.
He can't be a Nazi. He held all the views that we
(27:12):
held fighting the Nazis. Your granddad or great granddad
or whatever that fought the fought the Nazis held Charlie
Kirk's view on transgenderism, held Charlie Kirk's view on
homosexuality, held Charlie Kirk's view on freedom of
speech, held Charlie Kirk's viewon the roles of men and women,
held Charlie Kirk's view probably on religion.
Most of them were Protestants. So calling him a Nazi is
idiotic. It's asinine.
(27:33):
OK, Additionally, let's talk about what Nazis are 'cause that
is the phrase fascist and Nazism.
And so that gets thrown around alot.
So let's discuss what that is. Nazis were National Socialists.
So notice there's a right wing element and a left wing element,
an anti capitalistic and anti freedom of speech element.
The right wing element is the nationalism, OK.
(27:55):
Whereas those on the left are more communistic, more global.
They want it to take over this, you know, someone like Marx
wants to see, you know, communism all over the world.
It's more of a global movement. The socialism though, is
left-leaning. Why?
Because it's big government, it's strong government power.
It's shutting down freedom of speech, which again, Charlie
(28:16):
Kirk is promoting freedom of speech.
He got shot at a free speech rally.
The Nazis took away people's guns.
Again, a socialistic move so that the people couldn't fight
back. They limited what they could
say. They limited what they could
print. They limited what they could
preach about in Nazi, you know, in German churches.
(28:37):
The question is, you've got a right wing and a a left wing
element. OK, Nazis are bad.
Let me just throw that out there.
Nazis are bad. Also, Communists are bad.
Communists murdered way more people than Nazis, but that
doesn't make one worse just because more people were
murdered that murdered. They're both bad.
Do you know why? Because they don't allow
dissent. The Communists don't allow you
(29:00):
to dissent, and the fascists andthe Nazis don't allow you to
dissent. Charlie Kirk is all about people
dissenting. Say whatever you want, think
whatever you want. Let's have a discussion that is
all about dissent. That is the opposite of Nazism.
That is the opposite of communism.
So it's this weird things happening right now.
We're left and right are fighting each other because
they're both saying you're trying to take away our
(29:21):
freedoms. When somebody tries to stop the
right to dissent, they cancel, they fire, they silence, they
blacklist you, they do whatever that is Nazi behavior or
communist behavior. I realize those are not the
same, but there is an element that they have that is the same,
which is they do not allow dissent.
(29:41):
They do not allow opposition. OK, so the person shooting
Charlie Kirk, though he would not be in the camp of Nazi, is
doing an act that is more Nazi suppressing somebody's voice
that he doesn't like then Charlie Kirk is by expressing
his opinions and then being niceto people and not doing anything
about it. He's not murdering people.
He's not saying he disagrees with something and then he goes
(30:03):
and like oppresses those people by oppressing like fight them,
shoot them. He's just expressing his opinion
which is based on his political or religious or whatever
beliefs. Again, I don't know still a ton
about who he is, but I just wantpeople to talk about what the
real issue is instead of just throwing things out there.
Another person said in the same episode in the comments.
(30:24):
Making fun of a dead person doesn't make you a Nazi.
Masked men kidnapping people offthe streets and shoving them in
unmarked vehicles is though. English aside, what I I assume
that this is probably a, a comment about illegal
immigration or something. The government has always taken
(30:46):
criminals or people that are notcitizens and had the right to
arrest them. The the SWAT team does that
currently in unmarked vans for criminals.
Criminals are not citizens. Criminals don't have the same
rights. Criminals get, you know, have to
deal with legal things, if that's what you're saying.
I, I don't know what that has todo with the Charlie Kirk
(31:06):
shooting. And I don't know if you know the
difference between a law abidingcitizen and a criminal that is
not even a citizen. Oh gosh, these people, these
silly people. Let's, let's, let's end with
this one. Here's a good one.
I had a clip where I mentioned, and this is in the Jon Stuart
(31:26):
Mill episode. It is a, it is an undervalued
episode. It is super underrated.
It's really good and really helpful.
I think John Stuart Mill's viewsthat he gives in his works.
I mean, might just fix everything wrong in politics.
It's that good, his on liberty, his utilitarian stuff that that
it might just fix all of politics.
(31:47):
And there's a clip where I explained one of the things that
is really important to him is that you don't want just pure
democracy because you want to make sure that people have
rights regardless of what the majority wants.
You can have what's called a tyranny of the majority, right?
The example that I gave is slavery, when you just want a
pure democracy and you just say whatever the most people want is
(32:09):
what we should have. Well, that happened during
slavery. There was more people that
wanted slavery, so the rights ofpeople who were enslaved were
overshadowed. That's a bad thing.
I would rather say there's certain rights that no one can
take away and it doesn't matter what the majority wants.
The majority a lot of times are super stupid.
And so you don't want the majority.
(32:30):
You want rights protected, but you want the people to have a
voice, which is done through a representational government,
which is why the US is a Democratic Republic.
There's elements of both. OK, so I basically just said,
hey, you don't want just pure democracy.
Remember, there's there's rightsand other things to keep in
mind. And so many people said this is
such a straw man. Nobody wants a pure democracy.
(32:51):
Nobody says that, nobody thinks that way.
Zach, you don't understand, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Few things. One, this wasn't even my view.
This was John Stuart Mill's view.
So get mad at him. Again, pay attention to the
episode before you comment. And also though I'm right and a
lot of people want this, here's here's my favorite comment on
(33:11):
this. Shouldn't be considered a
democracy, meaning America. We shouldn't be considered a
democracy when we let the Electoral College pick the
winner even though the winner lost.
Zach, nobody actually holds to apure democracy.
Yeah. Every time there's an election
and someone wins the Electoral College and not the popular
vote, people say what this person just said.
(33:32):
Well, pure democracy. They didn't win the numbers.
And you're like, yeah, because rights.
We don't want to over shadow rights.
People need rights. It's very important.
States needs right to protect people's rights.
Very important. But I like the phrase that we
let the Electoral College pick the winner even though the
winner lost. Well, the winner is who the
Electoral College picks. So there you go.
(33:54):
That's just a few. Now there will be other
episodes. I'll wait every few months.
Then I'll do 1 based on the comments.
It'll be fantastic. I hope that you find this fun.
Don't get mad at me again. I don't care what side, what I
love about our show and why you should subscribe and and share
it with other people and smash that like button and you know,
(34:16):
re re re gram repost re re talk is that it's a true free speech
platform. I have my biases.
I have my presuppositions. They might not be right.
I'm happy to talk about different issues from different
sides. And that's why I interview
different kinds of people and I teach one lesson on this and I
teach 1:00 on the other side or whatever it might be.
(34:39):
That's what I want. I want you to disagree.
I want you to have a conversation.
Get the, the level to which emotion effects you when you
hear an argument is the level towhich you are an idiot.
A in an intelligent an, an intellectual, a, a strong mind
is able to hear something with which they disagree, maybe on an
(35:01):
issue that they really care about.
And they don't become emotional at all.
It's an academic exercise. They don't start yelling and
cursing and getting mad and, youknow, trying to do ad hominem
attacks instead of dealing with the argument.
They, they think, oh, OK, that'sOK.
So help me understand this, Whatabout this?
And you have a civil conversation.
All the other stuff is what children do.
(35:22):
So thanks for joining us on thisfirst kind of wild comments, not
so helpful post Owning the Haters online.
Hope you enjoyed it and we will see you next time.
Roe V Wade was not about a conversation with you and your
doctor. Your doctor does not have the
right to determine legality. I was just trying to explain
what I thought were helpful facts.
But again, people, they just putyou in a camp and then they hate
dude, I, I, I who? I cannot imagine that when you
have a fever and you have a dream, what that dream is like,
(00:22):
'cause it is probably wild. Hello, and welcome to another
edition of Ideological, which isa podcast that's kind of like if
Voltaire and Deadpool had a baby.
I'm your host, Zach Lee, and today we're actually going to do
(00:42):
something that is very special. I've decided that every few
months I want to put out an episode where we look at some of
the crazy comments that people make on social media and we
examine them. We use our critical thinking
skills to see if they're good comments where people might be
less than humble, where they might be going astray.
(01:03):
Plus, it's always fun to own thehater.
So that's what we're going to dotoday and other days, which I
think is going to be awesome. So this is really volume one of
a chance to see people's maybe less than helpful comments on
social media for the podcast or whatever it might be.
So let me let me tell you what it it's it's like a little bit.
(01:24):
Have you ever read an Amazon review?
So you decide to go buy something on Amazon and you want
to see what's good about it, what's bad about it?
What have other customers thought about this item?
And people put the wildest comments that have nothing to do
with the item, right? Like it'll be they gave it one
star and I'm like 1 star like this seems like a really great,
I don't know hammer. They're like, well, the package
(01:47):
arrived late and the package wasa little bit damaged.
So the hammer is 1 star and I'm like, Oh dear, That's that's not
the point of this section. People are like, I live in
Arizona and I ordered some sushionline.
And so by the time it got there,it was, I got sick zero stars.
And I'm like, sushi's delicious.Maybe don't order it online if
you live in Arizona and leave itin your mailbox or whatever bag
(02:09):
of gummy bears gets there and itlike melts in the sun and
they're like gummy bears, zero stars.
And I'm like, gummy bears are amazing.
And then you think to yourself, these people and their votes
have the same power that my votehas.
That's wild. OK, so I realized that people do
this with social media comments.And so I think it'll be fun to
(02:30):
do it. So a few a few preliminaries
before we get into some of thesecomments.
One, this is meant to be fun to recap and to teach it.
It's going to use some of the comments people make to maybe
explain further some ideas from different episodes.
Another reason I wanted to do episodes like this.
Listen to this. This is really important.
(02:52):
The tribalism, especially in America, but elsewhere, is out
of control. Nobody can look at an argument.
Nobody can look at a nuance. Nobody can say, well, this is
right, but not this, or why did you come to this conclusion?
Or nobody asks questions. What they do is they try to put
you into their political camp orthe camp that they oppose, left
(03:13):
or right, and then they just go off right.
So if you say something like people shouldn't be murdered and
you say that after the death of Charlie Kirk, they're like, you
are a Nazi and you probably likeTrump and you like all these
other things. I'm like, what?
What is happening here? All I said is murders bad.
I didn't know that murder was supposed to be some sort of like
partisan position like, but people, they're just trying to
(03:34):
say, are you for me or are you against me by do you belong to
my camp? No one's actually dealing with
the issues. And so I hate that tribalism.
I want somebody to make a case. Even if if you're somebody on
the right, don't just call people communists or whatever.
Make an argument, explain what you mean and why and give
nuance. If you're someone on the left,
don't just call people on the right fascist.
(03:54):
Explain why they're, you think they're fascist and give a case,
make an argument, OK, give nuance.
And so I hate how tribal it's become where I, I make a comment
that everyone should agree with and people just freak out
without paying attention to the comment, without watching the
episode. So, so yeah, I think this, this
(04:17):
could be a helpful chance to teach.
Also, I'm not going to mention these people by name.
I'm not here to, to just try to be mean there.
There's a lot of that's not fun.I, I, I, I'll throw in some
jokes. I'll probably make fun of some
people 'cause you know, they they deserve it, but I'm wanting
to do this. I'm wanting to encourage
academic discussion, even with people that you hate, even with
(04:40):
people that have a different position then you might have.
Whatever it is, conversation is the is the answer.
So I'm wanting to promote that and academic humility.
There's a lot of people that comment on a post that maybe
I've read in another language and also studied for 10 years
and it's the first time they think about it.
(05:01):
And so somebody with like an anime and their profile picture
will be like, I think this and I'm like, whoa, what is
happening here? Who are you?
So should be a lot of fun. Now, not all the comments are
bad. Sometimes people have good
comments. They have helpful things to say
and some are more interesting than others.
Let me share a few interesting ones before we get into the
specifics. One person said that it was
(05:23):
adorable how my books are all the same height behind me, which
I appreciate that. I mean, it is kind of adorable.
Like some of them are not, but some of them are and it is
adorable. I, I, I often get told how
adorable I am as a six one male with facial hair and let's be
(05:43):
honest, huge muscles. So I appreciate that one.
That one's funny. One guy said that he was edging
to one of my videos, which is hilarious.
I'll take that as a compliment. One man called me the N word,
which is interesting. So you get some interesting
comments. It's it's pretty wheels off.
Some are from bots, some are from real people, but I want to
(06:05):
go over some specific ones here and use them as helpful teaching
opportunity. So we have some fun tivities
today, some activities to look through.
So let's jump in in the episode on the history of sex, which is,
by the way, the most viewed episode that we've done on
ideological because people are pervs.
And by the way, it's a fun episode.
(06:25):
It's very X-rated. I I really just don't hold back
and I just say some facts. There was a clip that the
marketing team for ideological put up where I'm explaining what
in the Ancient Near East, a lot of these different societies,
why they would perform orgies and why they would perform these
(06:46):
group sex acts as a type of worship.
So think about that. That sounds like way more fun
than going to church or something like that was a common
practice in the Ancient Near East thousands of years ago.
This is these are older cultures, but one of things they
would do as part of worship is sleep with each other.
Why? Because it puts you in this
(07:06):
euphoric state. It's like the highest pleasure
you can feel outside of meth. That's a great quote.
By the way. If you just want to clip
something out of context and saysex is the greatest high you can
have outside of meth, I'm going to get some T-shirts with that
made on it. And so I explained that this
this was the case with many of these cultures.
These are fertility rituals, OK?They are having sex, one, in
(07:31):
front of their gods so that the gods will give them babies, but
two, they are trying to turn on the gods.
Remember, their gods are very anthropomorphic.
They think of them as kind of big humans, right?
Like kind of like the Greek gods.
They're really just super powerful humans, but they lust
and they get confused and they don't know things.
That was very common in the ancient Near East.
And so one of the things that they believed, and this is
(07:52):
there's many, many resources that I used to prove this is one
of the reasons that they would do these groups sex acts as an
act of worship is because it waslike pornography for their gods.
It like turned them on and they believe that fertility would
come from that and that's what rainfall was.
OK notice rainfall does what? It makes everything grow.
It's fertile. It is seen as the God's seed if
(08:14):
you want to use a euphemism. And that's just a fact.
Shouldn't be controversial, but people have their thoughts.
My favorite comment is how many times people are like gross.
I used to like the rain. Why didn't you say it was snow
instead of rain? There's some great comments, but
one gentleman who again, I will not name, he kind of looks like
(08:40):
a human thumb. He said they all had sex
together in front of their gods because they wanted to have
babies. Idiot.
I, I, I, I agree with you. I, I said that it was a
fertility thing. They weren't just doing it for
one reason. There were several reasons they
were doing it. Fertility was there, but also
what I said is true. So you know, you know, I just
(09:04):
OK, so that's just some that that's a fun one.
If you want to just go read comments on on Facebook or
TikTok. TikTok is the worst when it
comes to this. There's one to take a look at in
the episode on gun control, which was very controversial,
where I explained, I'm just trying to give you facts.
And that was not my original position.
I used to be anti gun. I became a shooting instructor,
(09:25):
learned all the statistics, whatever.
And I tried to give a fair case for that.
And by the way, that doesn't mean that is or is not my
political position on that. I was just trying to explain
what I thought were helpful facts.
But again, people, they just putyou in a camp and then they
hate. And so let me explain the clip
that people commented on. There was a clip where I explain
(09:46):
that America has the highest percapita gun ownership in the
world, meaning we have more gunsper people than any other
country in the world. If guns and having access to
guns was the the the main or sole thing that produced
violence, like unrighteous violence, mass shootings,
(10:07):
murders, all that kind of stuff,then we should be.
Our homicide rate should be #1 if our per capita gun ownership
is #1 and that's the main issue,it can be an issue.
But if that's the main issue, then we should at least be
towards the top probably #1 because we have the most guns,
(10:28):
we should have the highest per capita murder rate.
And I explained that America ranks 121st in per capita
murders, which means there's 120other countries that have more
guns. I'm sorry, they have less guns.
There's 120 other countries thathave less guns per capita than
we do, yet more murders. Now, if I was off and we were
(10:53):
just #2 and I said we are #1 OK,I can explain your, your hate or
whatever. But again, any comment other
than yes, we should be #1 in percapita murders if we're number
one in per capita gun ownership and the guns are the problem.
But I was proving that there's 120 other countries where they
have more murders and less guns.And people commented thusly.
(11:16):
We give you a few. First of all, they seem to not
understand the math or the numbers.
Again, if we have if, if, if you're trying to make the case
that guns are the primary problem when it comes to gun
violence, not people or culture or government guns, then if
we're number one in per capita gun ownership, we should be also
number one in per capita murders.
One person said there are also 74 countries with less murders.
(11:42):
Meaning like Zach, you idiot, we're not 120, we're number 75.
And I'm like, again, to, to refute my position, we have to
be #1 So again, I, I mean, math,math is tough.
But there are also 74 countries with less murders. the US is not
supposed to be compared with Haiti.
We should be looking to Western Europe where the murder rate is
(12:02):
an order of magnitude lower. Before I posted this I said
please before you comment check out the episode I addressed this
that in places in Western Europelike the UK, per capita the
violent crime rate is 4 times ashigh as the US even though gun
ownership is severely restricted.
Another guy said same thing. I like how he cherry picked a 12
(12:24):
year old study. I googled this and according to
EU NS 2023 numbers, the US is 66th.
That's still my point. Let let me grant it to you.
Let's pretend that the America that that the Americas what is
what is this like am I an explorer?
Let's pretend that America is number 66 in per capita murders,
(12:45):
though we're number one in per capita gun ownership.
Do you do you do you see how do you see how my point is still
overwhelmingly correct? So I mean, I don't want to be
mean, but go like look in a mirror if you want to see the
problem because you're, you'll be looking at the problem.
(13:06):
All of the countries ahead are second or third world and most
have guns. Shocking that this guy is full
of it. I'm going to address that in
just a second as I show you these four comments.
So that's, that's people saying,hey, we're not #121 we're
anything other than one. And I'm like, for you to refute
my position, we have to be #1 But there's something else they
keep bringing up. Zach, why are you mentioning
(13:28):
other countries? Why not just first world
countries? So let me give you 4 comments
that happened in a row on the same thing.
Listen to this. How do we rank amongst developed
democracies? That's one guy, another person
who has a dog in their profile picture and no face.
Yet among the advanced industrialized nations, we rank
first higher than many third world nations too.
(13:48):
Another guy says where do we rank with school shootings?
That's again because he didn't listen to the episode.
We've talked about how three of the worst six school shootings
have actually happened in the UK.
And you also, I'm sorry, in Europe, not not just the UK in
the in Europe and also you can'tjust consider school shootings.
You have to consider overall murders, rapes, violent crime,
etcetera. But and then another person,
where do we rank among first world countries?
(14:10):
Hint, we're in first with #2 farbehind.
So here's what they're saying. Pay attention to this because
this is fantastic, Zach. You're not separating developed
and modern nations from third world countries.
Oh, you mean that there's something other than guns that
(14:31):
are contributing to these statistics?
You, you mean something like howwell a nation is doing, its
politics, its values, its culture, the rights that they
have or don't have? I 100% agree with you.
There is a reason why developed nations have less gun violence
than nations that are not developed, and it doesn't have
to do with guns, which is exactly my point.
(14:53):
Thank you so much for agreeing. Thank you for sharing, Sharing
that when you say that a countryis underdeveloped, you're saying
there are factors. Because what they're saying is
they're like, well, yeah, there's a bunch of countries
more violent than America, and they don't have as much guns.
But they have other problems like politics and what kind of
people are in power and what values the people are taught and
(15:15):
what the home life is like. And I'm like 100% if you
separate developed countries from non developed countries
when it comes to this statistic,you absolutely make my point,
which is there are things that contribute to gun violence that
does not have to do with the gun.
It has to do with the person andwith the culture.
OK, sometimes I feel like this. I, I was one time listening to
(15:39):
an interview where a distinguished professor, a
humanities professor was being recognized.
And the interviewer said, you know, you're a distinguished
professor, you have written over20 books.
You're you've published a lot ofarticles, You're a well known
name. But something weird happens
anytime you teach like at a college, right?
(16:03):
There's all he's he said, isn't it the case that there's always
like some freshman that is brandnew to this, that just wants to
sit in class and teach you something?
Like you have all this study andall this erudition and all this
knowledge and some kid who's a freshman in college who's what,
1819 comes into the class with aswagger and a lack of humility
(16:24):
and they're trying to just own you and teach you something
because does that ever happened?What do you do?
And he goes, oh, it happens all the time.
I just say to that student, I'm a great man.
Who are you? I think about that quote often
when I read the haters online. Let's get to the next one.
I did an episode on the differences between Democrats
(16:44):
and Republicans and by the way, was very fair and very biased.
I just gave the history and thenthe differences on the sides.
I didn't come down on a side. I'm just here to educate.
I don't want you to believe whatI believe.
I want you to wrestle. I want you to get upset.
I want you to change some of your opinions.
I want you to talk to others with whom you disagree.
And for marketing purposes, the marketing company put a clip up
(17:05):
on where I explained what the issue was with abortion and Roe
V Wade. OK, let me be very, very clear
what that issue was about. The issue was not about
abortion. Roe V Wade did not make abortion
legal or illegal, and it's reversal did not make it legal
or illegal. The the issue was always about
(17:25):
whether or not it was a states rights issue or it was a
constitutional right. So when Roe V Wade first
happened, what they said was that you had a constitutional
right to abortion and therefore it was legal and states could
not outlaw it. And then when Roe V.
Wade was revoked, they said, actually, that's not, there's
nothing in the Constitution about abortion that is going to
(17:47):
be a states rights issue. And the states get to determine
if it's going to be legal or illegal.
That's what it's about. It's about is abortion in the
Constitution, not if you like it, not if you think it's a
women's right issue, not if you think that it's some religious
issue and none of that. And that's all I said.
Hey, listen, regardless of your view on abortion, this is what
that was about. That's objectively true.
(18:07):
When I say Roe V. Wade said this and then they
said not this. That's a fact.
And yet people, people be people.
And so let's look at this here. One person who has a bottle as
their picture says we need less big government.
Roe V Wade made abortion a conversation between you and
(18:28):
your doctor. Removing it made the
government's oversight on our bodies larger.
Republicans are pro big government.
Again, I I'm not commenting on Republicans or Democrats.
Again, you'll see people's tribalism where they they want
to put you in a box and so they can just dismiss you instead of
dealing with an argument. Roe V Wade was not about a
(18:50):
conversation with you and your doctor.
Your doctor does not have the right to determine legality,
what the state will consider as legal life or not legal life.
That's a philosophical question.The issue was about whether or
not it was constitutional or not.
Before Roe V Wade, there were places where abortion was
already legal. So you already had a
(19:11):
conversation with your doctor. Again, it was about, is it, is
it mentioned explication in the Constitution or should it be
left up to the states as the Constitution says that's what it
was about. Somebody else who is a man with
pink hair says it absolutely wasabout abortion.
Roe was a stepping stone, the first big obstacle preventing
(19:32):
abortion bans. The Constitution guarantees a
right to privacy, which should absolutely include medical
privacy. The debate in the whole
pro-life, pro-choice thing is whether or not that fetus or
baby is a human. If it's a human, medical privacy
(19:53):
goes out the window. You don't have a right to murder
somebody as long as a doctor's there.
If the baby is not a human, thenyou do.
And so whether or not it is a human is not about your privacy.
That is about a bigger standard.It's an ontological question.
What is it that makes someone a human?
Is it when they're viable? Because babies are not viable
(20:13):
out of the womb for a long time.Adults are not viable without.
Grocery stores and hospitals andthese kind of things.
Is it about heartbeat? Is it about before that dreams
mind? Is it about just when the human
has all the parts to be a human?Is it at conception when they
have all the DNA or is it later than that?
That's the question. It's not about you have a right
(20:34):
to privacy from the government and so therefore you can murder
somebody behind closed doors if it's or if it's not murder.
I'm not. Again, I'm just saying that the
issue with the the Roe V. Wade thing was about states
rights and constitutional rights, not what people thought
it was about. Here's one I really enjoy.
(20:55):
I had a clip where I simply saidthat we should stop name calling
and deal with the issues behind the name.
And by the way, I critiqued bothsides.
I said, if you're on the right, do not just call somebody a
libtard or a communist. You have to make a case what
what do you think about what they're doing that's communistic
or socialistic? Like what?
What is it? Why do you disagree with them?
(21:18):
Do you why do you disagree with that position?
Why do you think your position'sright?
And then on the left, I was like, if you disagree with
somebody, don't just call them afascist or a Nazi.
Explain what you think that they're doing is Nazi like
behavior, but the name calling is unhelpful because you just
use it to do again do tribalism dismiss people instead of
explaining and talking about theactual issues.
(21:40):
And so I was like, don't name call talk about the issues
comment in the below give me some thoughts.
One person said, I fear if maybethe other side stopped being
fascists and Nazis, we wouldn't have need to call them fascists
and Nazis that I mean, that's, that's that's the thing.
I'm not saying they are or not. I'm saying make a case for why
(22:03):
you think whatever your other side is is a Nazi.
Like explain what Nazis are, explain what values they hold
and don't hold. Explain how powerful the
government is within those systems, whatever.
And then make a case. But I like, I was like, don't
just name call them. They're like, well, we wouldn't
call them Nazis unless they wereNazis.
And you're like, Oh dear, Oh dear.
OK next a guy said and he has a picture of a mouse looking
(22:27):
through cheese as the profile picture.
So if you kill a Nazi, who's spewing propaganda?
Again I'm I'm just reading it the way it's written.
If you kill a Nazi who's spewingpropaganda to convert others to
Nazism, now he is innocent and you are the Nazi.
You seem to be deflecting. Hitler started with sharing his
(22:47):
opinion. So you're saying America was the
Nazi's oppressor for silencing his rhetoric?
Make it make sense. Lol OK there's a lot there, none
of it good. A bit confusing that that
there's there's something here about.
He's basically saying they againhe's assuming that somebody's a
(23:11):
Nazi without proving that explaining what a Nazi is.
Any of that. And then he said Hitler started
with sharing his opinion. Basically, this is a, this is a
post against freedom of speech. Hey, we can't just let people
share their opinion. Hitler did that and look what
happened. All right.
And, and now we're oppressing them because we shut down their
opinion of the Nazis. What is happening?
And I'm like, dude, I, I, I whoo, I cannot imagine that when
(23:37):
you have a fever and you have a dream, what that dream is like,
because it is probably wild. The issue is not ever sharing
your opinion. Sharing your opinion is what the
what the 1st Amendment's for. It's it's freedom of speech.
It is the right to share things that offend people, not just
things that don't offend people.You can say whatever you want.
This is America. You cannot take away other
(23:59):
people's freedoms. You cannot act on all your
beliefs. They might be illegal, right?
But you have the right to think them and say them.
And we've got an episode on whatexactly the First Amendment
means where I interview a First Amendment attorney to talk about
all that. But to say that we need to shut
down freedom of speech or people's opinions because Hitler
(24:20):
started by sharing his opinions,that that ironically is what the
Nazis do when they shut down people from sharing their
opinions. Next, in the episode on the
death of Charlie Kirk, let me bevery clear what I did and did
not say. First of all, I didn't know much
about I I, I'd heard of him, butI'd never actually watched
(24:40):
anything by CC Kirk before his death.
After he died, I looked it up because it was a big cultural
thing. And by the way, everyone
condemned the murder. Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders on
the like, left and right condemned the murder.
So if you're one of those peoplethat are like, yeah, that's
good. He had it coming.
Like there was a lot of those kind of comments.
(25:01):
You're like the crazy, weird, creepy fringe because even the
far left says, Nope, we still are going to say murder's bad,
regardless of whether or not youlike what somebody said.
And so in that episode, I didn'tdefend Charlie or his views.
I don't agree with him on some things.
I agree with him on other things.
Again, it depends on the issue. All I said was, hey, don't shut
(25:26):
down freedom of speech. Like if you disagree with
somebody, beat them in an intelligent debate.
Do not take a rifle and shoot them through the neck because
you're mad because you don't like what they're saying.
That is actual suppression. That is actual oppression.
That is not allowing somebody tohave their freedom of thought or
speech because you don't like itand you're trying to be this
(25:47):
preacher, moral high ground person.
Stop that. And so all I explained is that,
you know, he you, you might hateall his views.
He shouldn't have been murdered.And he's also not a Nazi.
Again, that's the thing. He got shot at a free speech
rally. Like, let me read these comments
(26:08):
and then I let me read a comment.
And I want to explain something that could be helpful for
people. One person said, no, you're an
actual Nazi if you support Nazi ideals like Charlie Kirk did.
Think back to the 1940s and think of the average American GI
that's going over to fight the Nazis.
(26:28):
OK, that guy is an American and he's a capitalist and he is
going to fight the Nazis. He's going to fight fascism in
Europe. Ready.
Pay attention to this is really important.
This guy that's going to fight the Nazis in the 40s from
America holds almost the exact same positions as Charlie Kirk
(26:52):
on every issue. Again, I'm not saying I'm a
Charlie Kirk fan. I don't like that he just
debated undergrads instead of professors.
I thought some of his stuff was pedantic.
I I thought the lack of education sometimes showed.
But I I support people's freedomto say whatever they want.
He can't be a Nazi. He held all the views that we
(27:12):
held fighting the Nazis. Your granddad or great granddad
or whatever that fought the fought the Nazis held Charlie
Kirk's view on transgenderism, held Charlie Kirk's view on
homosexuality, held Charlie Kirk's view on freedom of
speech, held Charlie Kirk's viewon the roles of men and women,
held Charlie Kirk's view probably on religion.
Most of them were Protestants. So calling him a Nazi is
idiotic. It's asinine.
(27:33):
OK, Additionally, let's talk about what Nazis are 'cause that
is the phrase fascist and Nazism.
And so that gets thrown around alot.
So let's discuss what that is. Nazis were National Socialists.
So notice there's a right wing element and a left wing element,
an anti capitalistic and anti freedom of speech element.
The right wing element is the nationalism, OK.
(27:55):
Whereas those on the left are more communistic, more global.
They want it to take over this, you know, someone like Marx
wants to see, you know, communism all over the world.
It's more of a global movement. The socialism though, is
left-leaning. Why?
Because it's big government, it's strong government power.
It's shutting down freedom of speech, which again, Charlie
(28:16):
Kirk is promoting freedom of speech.
He got shot at a free speech rally.
The Nazis took away people's guns.
Again, a socialistic move so that the people couldn't fight
back. They limited what they could
say. They limited what they could
print. They limited what they could
preach about in Nazi, you know, in German churches.
(28:37):
The question is, you've got a right wing and a a left wing
element. OK, Nazis are bad.
Let me just throw that out there.
Nazis are bad. Also, Communists are bad.
Communists murdered way more people than Nazis, but that
doesn't make one worse just because more people were
murdered that murdered. They're both bad.
Do you know why? Because they don't allow
dissent. The Communists don't allow you
(29:00):
to dissent, and the fascists andthe Nazis don't allow you to
dissent. Charlie Kirk is all about people
dissenting. Say whatever you want, think
whatever you want. Let's have a discussion that is
all about dissent. That is the opposite of Nazism.
That is the opposite of communism.
So it's this weird things happening right now.
We're left and right are fighting each other because
they're both saying you're trying to take away our
(29:21):
freedoms. When somebody tries to stop the
right to dissent, they cancel, they fire, they silence, they
blacklist you, they do whatever that is Nazi behavior or
communist behavior. I realize those are not the
same, but there is an element that they have that is the same,
which is they do not allow dissent.
(29:41):
They do not allow opposition. OK, so the person shooting
Charlie Kirk, though he would not be in the camp of Nazi, is
doing an act that is more Nazi suppressing somebody's voice
that he doesn't like then Charlie Kirk is by expressing
his opinions and then being niceto people and not doing anything
about it. He's not murdering people.
He's not saying he disagrees with something and then he goes
(30:03):
and like oppresses those people by oppressing like fight them,
shoot them. He's just expressing his opinion
which is based on his political or religious or whatever
beliefs. Again, I don't know still a ton
about who he is, but I just wantpeople to talk about what the
real issue is instead of just throwing things out there.
Another person said in the same episode in the comments.
(30:24):
Making fun of a dead person doesn't make you a Nazi.
Masked men kidnapping people offthe streets and shoving them in
unmarked vehicles is though. English aside, what I I assume
that this is probably a, a comment about illegal
immigration or something. The government has always taken
(30:46):
criminals or people that are notcitizens and had the right to
arrest them. The the SWAT team does that
currently in unmarked vans for criminals.
Criminals are not citizens. Criminals don't have the same
rights. Criminals get, you know, have to
deal with legal things, if that's what you're saying.
I, I don't know what that has todo with the Charlie Kirk
(31:06):
shooting. And I don't know if you know the
difference between a law abidingcitizen and a criminal that is
not even a citizen. Oh gosh, these people, these
silly people. Let's, let's, let's end with
this one. Here's a good one.
I had a clip where I mentioned, and this is in the Jon Stuart
(31:26):
Mill episode. It is a, it is an undervalued
episode. It is super underrated.
It's really good and really helpful.
I think John Stuart Mill's viewsthat he gives in his works.
I mean, might just fix everything wrong in politics.
It's that good, his on liberty, his utilitarian stuff that that
it might just fix all of politics.
(31:47):
And there's a clip where I explained one of the things that
is really important to him is that you don't want just pure
democracy because you want to make sure that people have
rights regardless of what the majority wants.
You can have what's called a tyranny of the majority, right?
The example that I gave is slavery, when you just want a
pure democracy and you just say whatever the most people want is
(32:09):
what we should have. Well, that happened during
slavery. There was more people that
wanted slavery, so the rights ofpeople who were enslaved were
overshadowed. That's a bad thing.
I would rather say there's certain rights that no one can
take away and it doesn't matter what the majority wants.
The majority a lot of times are super stupid.
And so you don't want the majority.
(32:30):
You want rights protected, but you want the people to have a
voice, which is done through a representational government,
which is why the US is a Democratic Republic.
There's elements of both. OK, so I basically just said,
hey, you don't want just pure democracy.
Remember, there's there's rightsand other things to keep in
mind. And so many people said this is
such a straw man. Nobody wants a pure democracy.
(32:51):
Nobody says that, nobody thinks that way.
Zach, you don't understand, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Few things. One, this wasn't even my view.
This was John Stuart Mill's view.
So get mad at him. Again, pay attention to the
episode before you comment. And also though I'm right and a
lot of people want this, here's here's my favorite comment on
(33:11):
this. Shouldn't be considered a
democracy, meaning America. We shouldn't be considered a
democracy when we let the Electoral College pick the
winner even though the winner lost.
Zach, nobody actually holds to apure democracy.
Yeah. Every time there's an election
and someone wins the Electoral College and not the popular
vote, people say what this person just said.
(33:32):
Well, pure democracy. They didn't win the numbers.
And you're like, yeah, because rights.
We don't want to over shadow rights.
People need rights. It's very important.
States needs right to protect people's rights.
Very important. But I like the phrase that we
let the Electoral College pick the winner even though the
winner lost. Well, the winner is who the
Electoral College picks. So there you go.
(33:54):
That's just a few. Now there will be other
episodes. I'll wait every few months.
Then I'll do 1 based on the comments.
It'll be fantastic. I hope that you find this fun.
Don't get mad at me again. I don't care what side, what I
love about our show and why you should subscribe and and share
it with other people and smash that like button and you know,
(34:16):
re re re gram repost re re talk is that it's a true free speech
platform. I have my biases.
I have my presuppositions. They might not be right.
I'm happy to talk about different issues from different
sides. And that's why I interview
different kinds of people and I teach one lesson on this and I
teach 1:00 on the other side or whatever it might be.
(34:39):
That's what I want. I want you to disagree.
I want you to have a conversation.
Get the, the level to which emotion effects you when you
hear an argument is the level towhich you are an idiot.
A in an intelligent an, an intellectual, a, a strong mind
is able to hear something with which they disagree, maybe on an
(35:01):
issue that they really care about.
And they don't become emotional at all.
It's an academic exercise. They don't start yelling and
cursing and getting mad and, youknow, trying to do ad hominem
attacks instead of dealing with the argument.
They, they think, oh, OK, that'sOK.
So help me understand this, Whatabout this?
And you have a civil conversation.
All the other stuff is what children do.
(35:22):
So thanks for joining us on thisfirst kind of wild comments, not
so helpful post Owning the Haters online.
Hope you enjoyed it and we will see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
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.
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.
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