Emiru "attacked" at TwitchCon, Ws for Pennsylvania and Arizona | HBR News 524

Welcome to HBR News where we give the badger treatment to the news of the week! This week we will be looking news regarding parenting reforms in Arizona and Pennsylvania, TwitchCon drama, Door Dash, and more!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
This is HBr News number five twenty four Ema Room
attacked at twitch pon W's for Pennsylvania in Arizona, where
we discuss the news.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Of the week and give it the Badger treatment.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Hello everybody, and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. Becaus
are doing well this week, and that you're laughing in
all of this absurdity so that you are not consumed
by it. I am your host, Brian. I'm joined by
doctor randamercam Hella Walin might be here.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
She hasn't shown up yet. I know that she didn't
make the last show because it was some scheduling thing.
So hopefully, you know, she'll either show up or we
will find out that, you know, there's a good reason
for her absence.

Speaker 3 (00:47):
Are you gonna say, Mike, I said hello, oh, hello, Hello, No,
that's unusually loquacious for me to say hello.

Speaker 2 (00:59):
You caught me off ard a little bit. Yeah. So, oh,
and there's Hannah. See let me just say, I gotta
plug I gotta plug her in the the audience.

Speaker 1 (01:10):
Can't hear you talking? Just give me a second here.
Oh no, it's okay. I'm just glad you made it.

Speaker 4 (01:17):
Okay, my headset to my new computer is more of
a effort for the computer than just putting it in.

Speaker 1 (01:33):
Yeah, gotta go with those drivers and stuff. All right, well, yes,
so we have a Hannah.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
We are good. Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
So anyway, with all that said, uh, please be sure
to continue the conversations both in the chat as well
as the comments section on this week's HBr news. We're
going to be looking at new some news regarding parenting
reforms or co parenting reforms that are currently in progress
as in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Twitch con drama, which I

(02:04):
think is gonna be a pretty big story, a door
dash drama that has happened. And more so, stick around.
It's gonna be a good time. Am You should have
joined us afterwards for the patron only shows. So as
you see here, I am displaying the website TikTok where
we're going to be looking at basically some door dash

(02:26):
some some reactions to the door dash story. If you
guys don't know the DoorDash story, I'll get to it.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
It's the last story.

Speaker 3 (02:33):
Mental, I'm gonna go so mad on this ship.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Yeah, it's it's so well, we will we'll we'll look
at it.

Speaker 2 (02:40):
Afterwards.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
But I think that it's definitely like sort of in
line with the Mruse story as well, which is also
a bit crazy. So so yeah, if you want to
join us for the extra TikTok discussion TikTok Talk, I
guess then you have to become a badger yourself by
going to feed them and setting up a monthly subscription

(03:02):
five bucks a months. We'll get you into the Discord
server where you'll be able to watch all of the
additional content, which includes lots of other patron shows as
well as works in progress shows. I know that people
got the rageing early, for example the extra long rangeing
that we put out, and you know there's all kinds
of groups and activities and things like that, so you know,

(03:25):
it could be cool, especially if you care about.

Speaker 2 (03:29):
The same issues.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
It'd be nice to be around other people who also
have similar beliefs. So that is feedbbadger dot com, ford
slash subscribe. If you want to send us a message
at any point during the show, you can do so
either through a rumble rant or super chat, or the
best way to do it is a feedbbadger dot com,
ford slash Just the tip because YouTube doesn't take well.
YouTube takes a considerable chunk of the super chat. And

(03:53):
if you don't want to give Google your money, which
I would understand, then it's probably better to go through
Feed the Badger dot com or slash just the tip,
all right. And if you don't want to wake up
in a morning to find it we'd be eating from
the internet, go to Badger feed dot com or honey
Badger Radio dot com. Yes, I know a lot of websites,
all right. But anyway, with all that said, let us
get into today's stories. So this one's a little bit

(04:16):
of a follow up, because, as you know, antifa has
been like a thing on everyone's lips for a while now.
And when I say a while, I mean like since
the year twenty nineteen, maybe before.

Speaker 2 (04:31):
I mean, I know, it's definitely an old.

Speaker 5 (04:32):
Idea, as somewhat as someone insists that ever since fascism
came around, there's been anti fascism, which isn't the same
as antiphild but yes it is, but no it isn't.

Speaker 3 (04:46):
I'll get into it when need right.

Speaker 1 (04:49):
So we have here an interesting story. Apparently there was
a book called the Anti Antifa, the Anti Fascist Handbook,
which was pretty popular. Here's a picture of Minneapolis DA
Keith Ellison holding his copy proudly. So not like a

(05:11):
fringe thing, you know, popular with some people are that
have let's say that that have some that are in
high places. But anyway, recently, though, in early October twenty
twenty five, the Rutgers University Student Assembly in New Brunswick,
New Jersey, introduced a resolution titled Resolution and Support of
Professor Mark Bray's Academic Freedom and Free Expression Mark Bray,

(05:33):
because you guys don't know, is the guy who wrote
the Anti Fascist Handbook. The measure urges university President William F.
Tate the fourth cool Name, to publicly defend mister Mark Bray,
a history professor known for his scholarship on anti fascism,
including authoring the book Antifa, the Anti Fascist Handbook. It

(05:56):
calls for Rutgers to reaffirm Bray's academic freedom, provide him
with legal safety and logistical support mid threats, and clarify
that political disagreement alone does not justify discipline. The resolution
emerged in response to escalating harassment against Bray following President
Donald Trump's executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.

(06:18):
The controversy intensified after the Rutgers chapter of Turning Point
USA launched a change dot org petition on October three
demanding Bray's dismissal for allegedly promoting left wing terrorism and
endangering conservative students through his Antifa affiliations. The petition, which
garnered over eighteen hundred signatures, cited Bray's past statements labeling

(06:40):
figures like Bill O'Reilly as fascists and advocating militant actions.
Triggered by death threats, supposedly doxing of his home address,
and even a blocked flight attempt, Bray relocated to Spain
with his family, shifting his classes to online classes. The
student resolution was approved by the Rutgers universe, so he

(07:00):
senate on October seventeenth, highlighting tensions over free speech and
ideological clashes on campus. So well, let me just summarize.
So in summary, the guy who wrote the book that
antifa and basically just revolutionary anarchist communists all over the

(07:20):
world use as their guide to determining what antifa is
and who is a fascist had a job as a
tenured professor at Rutgers University for years and now that
Antifa has been designated a domestic terrorist organization. He suddenly

(07:42):
feels threatened and has left and fled to Spain with
his family and now does his courses online. And the
school is trying to the student assembly, but I think
it's the school itself, the Rutgers University school is essentially
trying to start a resolution in support of his academic
freedom and free expression. And so he is the victim,

(08:07):
according to himself, of death threats and dosing the Antifa guy. Okay,
but anyway, and he said himself he's not a terrorist,
but that he does engage in anti fascist activity. Anyway,
I'm gonna leave it. I got I gotta say some more,
but I'm gonna let this one go. Go ahead, Mike,
if you wish.

Speaker 3 (08:26):
Yeah, many of you may be thinking what I'm thinking.
Surely Antifa doesn't exist, and Tifa never existed, it can't exist. Therefore,
this man's extremist activism doesn't exist, and neither does his book.
So what's the problem. What are you even worried about?

(08:50):
It doesn't matter how many hard copies of his book
you hold up with his name on it. He could
just go It's not mine. I didn't write that this
sort of thing isn't my bag, baby, And I suppose
the argument is, yeah, but we're living under a fascist
regime ever since twenty four and they'll prosecute anyone they

(09:16):
think is in some way associated with antifer so just
so they can destroy their enemies. Okay, So I have
to ask, what do you mean by fascist? What do
you mean? What do you mean by fascist? How do
you not know what fascist means? What are you a fascist? No, sir,

(09:36):
I am not. I personally, I would like the smallest
government humanly possible, with the absolute bare minimum of power
and influence over the people of any given nation. If
the government is to exist at all, I want it
to keep the people of a nation safe from the
people of other nations. What So, you are a fascist,

(10:01):
and there you have it. That's what they mean by fascist,
at least that's one of the things they mean. Fascism
is prioritizing the people they're supposed to be serving over
the people they're not supposed to be serving. The primary
function that a state is supposed to have. These people

(10:23):
are not interested in curtailing government overreach. What they're interested
in interested in is curtailing millionaires and billionaires. They've made
it crystal clear they want to use the bloated monster
of the government to steal from hard working, successful private

(10:44):
individuals and their families and their enterprises. And it's not
just the rich that they also want to steal from men,
especially white men, especially straight men, no matter how poor
and downtrodden those straight wornes are. I know some of
us think they've put the woke away, that they're no

(11:06):
longer focusing on race and gender politics, and that they've
reverted back to the Bernie sounderisms of the millionaires and
the millionaires, specifically the billionaires, now that Bernie and his
fellow communists are themselves millionaires. But let's not fool ourselves.
It's just that they have already secured that they're institutional

(11:29):
crusade against straight white men. They've already populated the schools
and the mass media and the courts with their locophobic
racists and their massandric sexists. So now that that's secured,
they're working their way back through the evolution of communism

(11:49):
all the way to its roots. See, there are some
straight white men who have, despite all odds, become financially successful,
and we can't have that. What do you suppose they
intend to do about the billionaires? How do you suppose
they're going to stop them from being billionaires. It's pretty obvious,

(12:13):
isn't it. They want the government to tax them so
hard that they can never get that rich in the
first place. And when they're done with the billionaires, they'll
come for the millionaires and then the thousandaires, and they
won't stop until no individual in the country has more
than a handful of pocket change in digital social credit.

(12:37):
And all the money in the world is in the
hands of the government, and the government does with it
what they see fit. And no, they do not call
this fascism, and to be fair, it's not. It's much
worse than fascism. It's communism. That's exactly what every communist
state has done, and it always, without exception, results in destitution.

(13:04):
But there's an easy way around it, you see. Just
don't call it communism, call it anti fascism. Job done. Yes,
we want to abolish wealth, we want to abolish private property,
and we want to abolish families, just like Marx told
us to. But we don't call it Marxism. We don't

(13:24):
call it communism. Oh wait, shit. A lot of us
literally do call it communism. They're not even hiding it.
They're open and proud about it, and they can gleefully
declare it in public and face no consequences for their
support of one hundred million murders. But those people are

(13:45):
just the people who actually call it communism. They're they're
just a fringe minority. They don't represent us. Don't worry
about it. As a matter of fact, they don't exist.
Communism doesn't exist, after all, it's never been tried. Only
anti fascism exists. Oh but antifer it doesn't exist, even

(14:08):
though it's just anti fascism, which is the only thing
that does exist. Is that clear? What we're witnessing is
what happened. This is how so many sitcom episodes are
set up. That's that's that's how you can make hundreds
of episodes of the same sitcom. It's just a character
tells a lie and and and then to get around it,

(14:31):
they have to tell another lie, and then another, and
it all becomes this comedy of errors. They have to
they have to stick with all of these lies and
all of the lies on top of those lies, and
then they can never admit to any of these lies.
So they have to keep stacking this house of cards
and and and until it reaches this breaking point and
the only option they have left is to flee to

(14:53):
another country, like Mark Bray did. And and good for you,
mister Bray. I mean it if you don't support the
prosperity of the American people and you'd rather their wealth
and property is handed gift wrapped to everyone else. If
you think Americans live on stolen land, thank you very

(15:16):
much for putting your money where your mouth is and
leaving that stolen land and going somewhere else, Somewhere else
where they have no history of colonialism, let alone fascism.
Where is it you've escaped to again? Spain? Good good,

(15:37):
I'm sure I'll have a whale of a time in Spain.
Just do remember, now that you're in Europe, you're supposed
to be prioritizing everyone except the indigenous people. Best of
luck explaining your sudden flip flop on this most crucial
of matters. And yeah, don't even make eye contact with

(15:59):
them of the local senoritas, or you'll be charged with femicide.
I could smell your flop sweat from here, sir. It
is salty and delicious, and I'm here for it.

Speaker 4 (16:16):
It kind of makes me wonder what else he has
done besides write that book. And the reason I wonder
that is, I don't know if the younger people listening
have heard of a book called The Anarchist Cookbook. But

(16:36):
that book flat out had recipes for explosives and other
things that violated federal law if you would have them
or create them. The recipes themselves were not necessarily illegal,
and the book didn't constitute like conspiracy to commit a crime.
It was just information, just like if you study chemistry,

(17:00):
you have that same information. It's whether or not you
use it to commit crimes that determines whether or not
you're a criminal. And so they never prosecuted the original
author of the Anarchist Cookbook, despite the fact that many

(17:22):
of the things in that book could be used to
commit crimes if somebody was so stupid as to do that,
and some people were, and then of course there was
there's a difference between the US and say, other other nations,

(17:45):
particularly European nations. So there have been some people in
the UK for that have been prosecuted for selling copies
or having a copy of that book, but not in
the US, just not just for having There's one student
who was prosecuted but was acquitted after arguing that it

(18:09):
was for using for use in a role playing game,
basically character information, you know, basically proving probably to a
d M, this is a real possible thing that can
be done, which I could see a gamer doing that,
and and you know, and I'm sure there are people

(18:31):
that have I'm not the only one that's that's looked
up that information out of curiosity just to see, you
know what, what's there, with no intention of doing anything
with it because it would do god awful damage and
and hurt people, so you don't actually want to do
anything with it. But it's interesting information to know, right

(18:55):
and being interested in stuff like that's not a crime. No,
Knowing information is not a crime unless it's protected information,
you know, knowing information that's not not classified, if you're
not you know, eligible for it, that's not a crime.

(19:17):
Sharing information that's not protected is not a crime. Obviously
there's some information. For instance, I can't share my patient's
information with y'all. That would be a crime. But a
book like this, unless he's out and out like outlining

(19:39):
here's how you should commit these crimes and creating a
conspiracy to commit crimes using that book, he must have
done something else that he's he's fleeing for, because they
wouldn't be able to prosecute him just for providing him

(20:00):
on things like here's how to hide your face and
here's how to make makeshift weapons and blah blah blah.
They can't prosecute for that unless he's advocating in the
book let's do this, here's the plan, and people are

(20:22):
following the plan, and then he can get uh, you know,
prosecuted for conspiring with others to commit crimes. But yeah,
it really does kind of make me suspicious. What else
did this guy do besides write a book? It just

(20:43):
something stinks there. There's a there's the smell test that
the that he's he's running away because he's afraid he's
going to be prosecuted for writing a book. I'm not
buying it, especially not going to some place in Europe
where he is more likely to be prosecuted for writing
a book than he would be in the United States.

(21:07):
So and then again, I as like I said, I've
seen the Anarchist Cookbook. I haven't seen the Antifa Handbook,
So I don't know what's in it.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
Well, I can tell you what's I can tell you
what's in it.

Speaker 1 (21:26):
First of all, this book is available on Amazon, so
it's not like a book that's banned or anything like that.
There are books written by like, you know, Martin Luther,
like not Martin Luther King, but Martin Luther, the.

Speaker 2 (21:41):
Guy that started the Protestant Reformation that.

Speaker 1 (21:43):
You can't get on Amazon. But you can get the
Antifashion Antifa, the Anti Fascist Handbook on Amazon dot com.
And the thing is is that, first of all, this
book is in high circulation on college campuses. Usually these
these teachers that write books, they get distribution on colleges.

Speaker 2 (22:05):
So it's not just available at Rutgers.

Speaker 1 (22:08):
It has become the go to book for people who
want to be antifa or otherwise just revolutionary communists, because
that's what they are. This is just Marxism with a
different it's like rebranded to be a little bit less,
you know, stigmatized. I guess so that's why they say
we're not we're not communists, we're just anti fascists.

Speaker 4 (22:29):
He's selling the book, right.

Speaker 1 (22:32):
Well, no, Amazon sells the book. His name is attached
to the book. So, but here's the thing.

Speaker 4 (22:37):
So it's I'll bet he's a communist, but I'll bet
he's making money from the book.

Speaker 1 (22:45):
Of course, he's making money from the book. How much
do you think the book costs. I'll tell you. You can
get the book for twenty ten dollars on kindle or
twenty bucks on paperback.

Speaker 4 (22:56):
And wow, that's expensive.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (22:58):
Other thing that. Here's another thing too. So I think
that this is like the way these people operate. Okay,
they are allergic to accountability, but they definitely want action.
So what he does is he writes the book and
he acts like a mild mannered, you know, college professor,
an intellectual. He's like, I don't engage in any anti

(23:19):
fascist action. I don't go to protests. I don't participate
in any of the of the violence of the riots.
In fact, I don't even think that's happening, or if
it is, it's not because of my book. But a
portion of the prophets from the book goes to anti
fascist organizations. They go to supporting the legal battles of antifas.
So they go they don't go to Antifa soldiers on

(23:41):
the floor. They go to the lawyers that protect them.
And if you look at like, for example, the governments
of states like Washington or Oregon, they're completely infiltrated with
these people.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
So it's not just like the.

Speaker 1 (23:58):
Guys in the black that are, you know, wearing masks
and throwing Molotov cocktails. It's like the lawyers, it's the
it's people in the government, it's people in the courts,
it's the judges, like it's it's everywhere.

Speaker 2 (24:11):
So his book's money goes toward.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
That's why I showed you guys Keith Ellison. By the way,
this guy's in Minneapolis. Like Minnesota isn't even as paused
as like Washington, Oregon and California is like not nearly
as pause. But this is mainstream for these people. So
the guy himself probably not breaking any laws, but his

(24:37):
the way these people operate is it's always like this,
you know, stochastic way of doing things. Right, he writes
a book, he puts some opinions in it. It's it's
apparently full of like comi buzzwords.

Speaker 2 (24:48):
There's no.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
There's no like you know, like formulas or it doesn't
teach you how to make bombs or anything like that.

Speaker 2 (24:56):
But What it does do is it.

Speaker 1 (24:58):
Affirms I'll read one of the reviews on Amazon. Okay,
Militant Marxist, this is a negative review. By the way,
most of them are positive reviews. So because people are
stupid or there are people running cover for this book.
So one of the negative ones. Militant Marxist communists rebranding
themselves is anti fascists to provide a more respectable image.

(25:20):
Definition of fascism obscured and altered to include patriarchy, racism, authoritarianism, capitalism, nationalism, meritocracy, etc.
Author's definition can apply to all forms of any government.
Since the formation of civilization, definition can also apply to
antifa itself. Author rejects Western liberal notions of free speech
and democracy. Assumes anti fascists have the right to no

(25:43):
platform fascist speakers, regardless of the institution that gave the
speaker that platform. It makes delusional claims of moral superiority
to fascists because of recent history. Ignores murders orchestrated by
Stalin and Mao that make Hitler look like a saint.
I've read everything Mars, including some personal letters, and there
isn't space to refute the discredited and obsolete ideology advocated

(26:06):
by this author, So you know again it's it's it
is not a handbook in the sense that it has instructions.
It's just a piece of agit prop designed to get
stupid people to think that their resentment towards people who
have more is justified, and it basically excuses that by

(26:27):
making these arguments from systemic oppression or whatever. And the
fact that he ran away to Spain because his views
were exposed as being unpopular based on the results of
the recent election, that only further cements things. And you know,
Spain is probably not that unsafe for him, to be honest,
because it's probably one of, if not the most feminist

(26:48):
country in the world, and that means just the most leftists.
So he's probably gonna be safe. And I mean unless
you know they they I don't know, like he gets
I don't even know that they're coming after him legally.
He just ran away and claimed he was being harassed
and received death threats.

Speaker 4 (27:06):
So yeah, that's that still makes me wonder did he
do something else and he's just using the situation because
this doesn't sound like something that you would have to
flee the country over at all.

Speaker 2 (27:19):
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 3 (27:21):
Maybe I wonder if he's some kind of sex pest.
It's not like a communist or a male feminist to
be some kind of sex pest. And that's what I'm saying.
If you, if you go into Spain, you're gonna have
to hold back on your sex pastory because for sure,
like I say, you're gonna get fucked up every orifice

(27:42):
if you if you so much as breathe in the
wrong direction in Spain. So yeah, you may have fucked
yourself there. Mark.

Speaker 4 (27:51):
If he's in Spain, he doesn't have to be a
sex pest. He just has to.

Speaker 2 (27:56):
Do is that?

Speaker 4 (27:57):
So what he doesn't have to he doesn't have to
do anything, He just to be male in public.

Speaker 2 (28:02):
That's basically.

Speaker 4 (28:04):
Feminists are so horrible.

Speaker 1 (28:07):
Uh, They're.

Speaker 4 (28:10):
They're incredibly touchy, and they've gotten laws passed that are
the stuff that we're complaining about in the in the
UK looks like, uh, you know, a playdate. In comparison
to the way that feminists in Spain have gotten the
laws they're changed, it's insane.

Speaker 1 (28:31):
Yeah, well, anyway, so this is I'm gonna just say
this is good news insofar as at least this isn't
like mainstream. I mean, yeah, the school is going to
try to protect him, and that's fine, but remember this,
this is another thing that I think it's worth thinking about.
The school is invoking freedom of speech to protect someone

(28:53):
who doesn't believe in freedom of speech, like he looked
in the book says that you should not give like.
It's essentially the Karl Popper you know, paradox of tolerance,
where to essentially Carl Popper argued that you should not
tolerate the intolerant. Of course, he was doing that so
that he could like essentially have control over the you know,

(29:15):
the town square, so that he can, like no longer
he could ban or otherwise censor people who he doesn't like.
And yeah, the commies are all about that because they
don't care about hypocrisy. They care about hierarchy. They care
about who has the power. If it's them, guess what,
they make the rules. So yeah, anyway, so he left,

(29:35):
and I don't know what's gonna happen with that, but
I thought it was worth following up, especially since the
whole country was on fire by these people and continues
to be to some degree, So I thought.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
It was worth a follow up story.

Speaker 3 (29:49):
So it was nice of us not to allude to
the no King's protest, but we kind of did, didn't we.

Speaker 2 (29:54):
Well, the boomer hippie protest.

Speaker 1 (29:56):
Yeah whatever, I mean, I was more like, yeah, I
mean that was nothing burger anyway, and I'm guess I'm
glad about that. But it's just more affirmation that, you know,
the they're they're they're not as strong as they appear
to be or at they might seem. So this is
this is just what I think. I mean, We'll to
see who knows. But yeah, anyway, in.

Speaker 4 (30:18):
The meantime, good riddance to bad rubbish into to Spain.
We apologize for the dumping of trash in your your
country there.

Speaker 1 (30:30):
Yeah all right, So anyway, let's move on to the
next one. I got some super chows I should look at,
and then we'll move on to the next story. So
we got one this way?

Speaker 2 (30:42):
Is it yesterday? No? Two days ago?

Speaker 1 (30:45):
I guess I should read it because I don't know
if Allison did. But we got one on Sunday at
ten pm two and it is from Morning Glory Milking
Farm projection for five dollars and they say I thought
something funny A few days ago. Do women have a
subconscious sexual fantasy as described by Morning Glory Milking Farm,

(31:07):
where they project this image of mythological godlike beings unto
men and then find themselves upset that men aren't the superhumans?
In other words, are women sexually frustrated by their own
unrealistic expectations. Maybe these expectations were better fulfilled before than
the nineteenth Hope this super child gives you all a
slight chuckle, have a good one. Well, thank you for then,

(31:27):
I now just put that stupid book in my head again.

Speaker 3 (31:30):
Yeah, it's fairly subconscious at this point, especially in light
of Morning Glory Milk.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
Yeah, right, Like, what what do you mean subconscious?

Speaker 4 (31:41):
And at this point, yeah, there's a there's a bit
of truth to that though, and it's we don't have
the physical strength of men who are the same size
as we are. And I'm saying this from the perspective
of a gal that was taller than almost all of

(32:02):
the other gals in my class by the time I
was thirteen. I wasn't necessarily physically stronger than all of them,
but and in fact, there were there were gals that
were a lot stronger than me. But the strongest of
them still could be overpowered by about half the guys
we knew. And you know, to us it is like

(32:26):
a superpower when there's an object that we can't move
at all and one of you picks it up and
you know, tots it like it's nothing, and being picked
up physically lifted up off the ground as if we
don't present difficulty. Lifting is another one like that does

(32:52):
seem like a superhuman power to us because most of
us don't have it. And you know, again, like I'm
I'm from the perspective of someone I used to lift
people when I worked in nursing homes when I was younger,
but my limit was still lower than the men that
I worked with in terms of how big of a

(33:13):
person I could lift, how much somebody could weigh, and
I could lift them by myself, and you know whether
or not I was a little bit injured after that.
And so it does to a lot of women. There's
there's some somewhat of a tendency to be mystified by

(33:37):
things that men are able to do. But I don't
think that's the whole story, right, Most girls never face
the level of accountability even once they reached the age
of womanhood. They never faced the level of accountability for
themselves that a man does, even that a boy does

(34:01):
at say, the age of sixteen. Most most women don't
have to be any more responsible for themselves than a
fourteen year old boy. By that, I mean if I
had married a guy that didn't have an ex wife

(34:22):
and a child support payment to make, and I had
just relied on his income and called myself a homemaker,
and whether I did a good job at it or
a bad job at it, it wouldn't wouldn't have mattered.
I could have done that, and people would have not

(34:44):
called me a deadbeat for that. They wouldn't have suggested
that I was dead weight in the marriage. They wouldn't
have suggested that I wasn't living up to my potential.
They wouldn't have suggested that I wasn't exercising accountability for myself.
They would have suggested that I was doing what women

(35:04):
normally do, and I had a perfectly respectable lifestyle, and
it was his job to support that lifestyle and my
job to take care of the home. And you know, men,
if men did that, they would get called dead beats.

(35:25):
They would get called dead weight, They would be accused
of mooching off of a woman, they would be called weak.
They get they get ridiculed for it. My husband is
a better homemaker than I am. I'm not a good housekeeper.
My house looks like a train wreck right now. I'm

(35:48):
a I'm a decent cook. But he's a better cook
than I am. And you know, there's a lot of
stuff like that that he's better at than I am.
And if we had a situation where we had a
disabled kid, or we had eight kids, uh, you know,
or something along those lines where it would make sense

(36:11):
for one person to work in the other person to
manage all of the complexity of the home, he would
have been better at it than me. But if he
had done that and I had maintained my workaholic status, uh,
there would have been every every side of our our

(36:32):
social environment would have come down on us for it.
Our families, our friends, everybody in my workplace. You know,
any any guy that he knew, like, there would have
been this combination of you know, what what's that guy doing?

(36:52):
You know, can't he can't he work, can't he handle
a job? You know, things like that, and you know,
act like he was living the easy life. Whereas when
a woman does it, we get told it's the hardest
job anyone's ever done by people who have probably never
ever even looked at the inside of a sewer or

(37:17):
the inside of the the a a garbage truck, or
dealt with the fun aspects of working as a gastro
entrologist or a infectious disease specialist or an oncologist who
has to tell people they're going to die, Like, I

(37:40):
don't think it's the hardest job, right, So women women
get this combination of unaccountability and ego stroking and lack
of awareness of other people's lives. Like when they see

(38:02):
men handling things that women are not raised to be
equipped to handle and may not be naturally equipped to handle,
it does look like this mystical, magical superpower, especially when
they're completely unaware of their lack of accountability and they

(38:25):
see men taking accountability for things that you know, they
wouldn't even consider much less take accountability for. I don't know,
it's it's it's more that I think than the physical stuff.
So yeah, that's why women treat men like gods and

(38:46):
then get disappointed when they turn out to be human.

Speaker 3 (38:50):
And if anyone needs any context as to what Morning
Glory Milking Farm is. Nope, I'm not going to offer
any explanation, and I would implore my co hosts not
to offer any explanation either. You're gonna have to look
it up.

Speaker 4 (39:03):
Don't look it up.

Speaker 3 (39:05):
Don't look it up, and let's just move on.

Speaker 2 (39:10):
Let's please just yeah, we're gonna move on.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
So I also got a super child from Green Indoors
for five dollars and he didn't say anything.

Speaker 2 (39:18):
So I don't know if that was a mistake. But
if it wasn't, thank you.

Speaker 1 (39:23):
If it was a tag at Badger live Streams in
a comment with what it is you actually wanted to say,
and I will read it after the next story. So
we're gonna move on to the next one. Let us know,
you guys think about this one in the comments, all right.
So you know, just as a little bit of a
setup for this, there was some changes made in I

(39:46):
think it was Tennessee where they basically passed an equal
shared parenting law, which well, it.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
Wasn't like a fourth thing.

Speaker 1 (39:58):
It was basically like treating equal shared parenting as the
default when a child custody case comes up.

Speaker 4 (40:05):
It's the difficulty shared parenting law, and it allows usually
it's the typical equally shared parenting law. It usually allows
if there's mitigating circumstances, the judge can make a different decision.
If the couple wants to make a different agreement, they can.
If you know, somebody wants to fight for a different circumstance,
you know they can. They can do that. It's just

(40:27):
if the couple decides in their divorce to go with
the state default. The state default is equally shared parenting,
and that's that's the template for equally shared parenting laws
across the nation.

Speaker 1 (40:42):
Right, So in if I remember correctly, and it's either
Tennessee or Kentucky, there was a great like basically there
was a They were looking at the divorce rates from
the from the time that the the law was changed,
and filings of divorce declined by twenty five percent, which

(41:07):
outpays the national average of eighteen percent after they started
from essentially like default shared parenting as the you know,
when there is a divorce, so which means when the
women don't think they're going to get the kids and
all of the other stuff that comes with that, like
child support, they're less likely to divorce their husbands, So

(41:28):
it's almost like the incentive to divorce is reduced, and
as a consequence of that, it looks like a number
of other states are at the very least examining or
moving on that path of starting to re examine the
child custody laws to assume essentially, like you know, shared

(41:49):
parenting as a default. So following that lead, Arizona has
long emphasized shared parenting through its twenty twelve reforms under
ARS and twenty five four H three point zero two,
which mandates courts to adopt parenting plans maximizing each parent's

(42:10):
time with the child consistent with the child's best interests
while avoiding gender based preferences. In twenty twenty five, HB
two two ninety six was introduced to further strengthen these provisions,
explicitly requiring shared legal decision making and equal parenting time
unless rebutted, alongside mandatory mediation for custody disputes to reduce

(42:31):
court battles. This bills on the state's preference for near
equal splits, with courts prioritizing emotional and physical child health.
As of October of this year, the bill remains in
legislative review, but twenty twenty five family law updates have
already integrated modern child support adjustments for shared arrangements, signaling

(42:51):
ongoing momentum towards presumption based equality. Pennsylvania's reforms so this
is basically specifically about Pennsylvania and Arizona because they're like
the furthest along, even though there are other states looking
into this as well, are accelerating with House Bill three
seventy eight, signed to law on June thirtieth, twenty twenty five,
effective August twenty ninth, which streamlines child custody factors from

(43:13):
sixteen to twelve, consolidating elements like parental cooperation and alienation risks.
To better support shared arrangements, Courts must now provide written
custody factors to parties within thirty days of filing, promoting
transparency and negotiation towards equal time. A related push via
Representative Jamie Flick's amendment for a fifty to fifty presumption

(43:35):
narrowly failed one hundred and three to ninety nine, so
there was like one hundred and three in favor in
ninety nine against, but garnered bipartisan support, highlighting growing advocacy
for default, shared custody absent unfitness. HB fourteen twelve also
eases modifications to existing orders without proving material changes in
key scenarios, facilitating adjustments for balance parenting. These changes aligned

(43:59):
with national trends, as Pennsylvania's guidelines already adjust support for
forty percent plus overnights, but full presumption legislation remains pending
for twenty twenty six. And so I thought, because I'm
I'm sorry, I apologize which state it was? It was
either Tennessee or Kentucky that I think it might have
been Kentucky that had a significant drop in divorce filings

(44:25):
after the shared parenting or the presumption of fifty to
fifty parenting went through. And there's a YouTube where you
guys probably heard of, named Alexander Grace. I was talking
to Mike about this before the show started, who typically
talks only about you know, like dating stuff and like sex,
like you know, female dynamics and things like that. But

(44:46):
he has lately been making more and more videos talking
about men's issues because he's seeing a lot of you know,
like the modern women online like complaining about men and
dogging on men and missionry kind of mainstreamed, and he's
been taking more and more of an interest in the
men's issue space. And so he actually said that he

(45:08):
saw like the you know that data of the when
you when you basically give fifty to fifty custody, by default,
women are far less likely or significantly less likely to
file for divorce, and so they're more likely to work
with their partner and in order to like essentially you know,

(45:29):
try to like make it work out for the child
instead of simply filing.

Speaker 2 (45:33):
The divorce papers.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
So and he said that we owe the men's rights
guys a great a great gratitude and for you know,
the work that we've been doing, which has been thankless largely,
and so I just wanted to say we got a
little bit of a shout out, and I'm glad this
is happening. And uh yeah, so I want to like
leave it to you guys to give your thoughts.

Speaker 2 (45:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (45:56):
I'm not sure what to make of this one, but
if it's if in any part, removing some of the
incentive for women to divorce their husbands and retain full
custody of the children, it sounds like a good idea.
I think the reason there are so many divorces and
so many children raised by single mothers. It stems from
the same reason, the fact that women have this incentive.

(46:20):
I think if men were instead given this incentive, they
would probably capitalize on it as well, for one of
a better word, At least largely, we're only human, all
of us, and we're driven by incentives more than we're
driven by this concept of rights. I mean, animals don't

(46:41):
interact with each other based on rights, do they. They
don't have a concept of rights. Only humans have a
concept of rights. As much as we should consider the
only real rights to be the right to be essentially
left alone, the right to have your body to yourself

(47:02):
and not be mutilated, your property to yourself and not
be stolen, and indeed, your children to yourself and not
be stolen or mutilated. The concept of rights is too
easily misinterpreted as the right to be given free shit
at other people's expense. But every living creature evolves and

(47:26):
adapts based on incentives, and that's really what we mean
when it comes to being given free shit. Women don't
deserve any of the free shit they're being given, and
they wouldn't crave it were it not given to them.
By the government. It's like any other addiction. Prehistoric humans

(47:49):
were not afforded any of these addictions. They were never
addicted to drugs, because no drug is so abundant in
the prehistoric world as to be as to become an addiction.
Not even sugar. The only sugar we could get in
the prehistoric world was in the form of fruit, and
even fruit was only available scarcely and seasonally, and complete

(48:17):
and exclusive access to your children was never afforded to
us in the scarce environment in which we evolved. And
in the same way, it was never normal for women
to have exclusive access to their children, or even the
lion's share of that access, not for as long as
we've been Homo sapiens, or even many of its precursors.

(48:42):
It's only the advent of a romantic, chival ric society
and a government that upholds it, that that has seen
fit to exclude fathers from such basic Dare I say rights?
So yeah, maybe maybe less knock that ship back of

(49:05):
wrong a wrong or two. It's not normal. It's an
affected quirk of modernity that's only upheld by a series
of agreed upon lies.

Speaker 2 (49:20):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (49:21):
I don't have much more to say on that this
isn't really my forte because it's because it's all uh
legal stuff. I'll let Hannah get into it. This sounds
like Hanna.

Speaker 4 (49:30):
I actually I actually wrote an article about this a
while back, and I think we've done a few shows
on it. But it's it's it's interesting historically when men
did have more legal rights in regard to their children
than women did. Men didn't divorce their wives left and right.

(49:55):
But we also didn't have no fault divorce, and so
if you just abandoned the marriage without cause, you had
some sort of penalties. You might still have to pay
maintenance unless your your ex wife remarried. So so there

(50:16):
is that, But they still didn't lose custody of the children.
They could take the children and go and they would
have to they would have to pay maintenance and and
so on, but they might they still might be able
to monopolize time with the kids, and they didn't do it.

(50:38):
In the meantime, parental alienation is something that is done
far more by women than by men today, and it's
partly because it's far more difficult for a man to
succeed at it. But that's not really the only reason.
When men want to be aggressive, they're usually more physically

(51:05):
aggressive or economically aggressive. When women want to be aggressive,
they're usually more relationally aggressive, and so they're more likely
to do things like using false allegations to try to
win custody battles and things like that. But this type

(51:25):
of legislation is becoming more common across the country, and
that is a good thing. The people who are lobbying
for that legislation desperately need you. They need you to
write to your legislators about the importance of dual custody,

(51:47):
of equally shared parenting, and the importance of maintaining a
father's ability to parent his children not just with his wallet,
but with his mentorship and his presence, his nurturing and
love and care being, the strength that his children see,

(52:11):
and the accountability that his children see. And yeah, financial
abuse is majority female Gabriel and it's done in a
way that most people don't recognize as abuse. Right. They
recognize it as financial abuse if a husband earns all

(52:32):
the money and objects to the wife getting a job
but then won't let her spend, you know, have any
spending control, right, but they don't recognize it as abuse.
If the husband earns all the money and the wife
gets six or seven credit cards in both of their

(52:53):
names and runs up sixty thousand dollars in debt when
that's more than he makes annually, it should be recognized
as abuse if she does that, but it's not. They
don't recognize it as abuse if if she runs them
into debt under other circumstances, either you know, whether it's

(53:16):
it's medical bills that are you know, from hypochondria or
just you know, gambling. Like women have run up debts
on their husbands in a variety of ways and then
done nothing to contribute to paying them off, right, And

(53:36):
so there are sneaky ways that don't get counted. And
I think if those things got counted, you would probably
see more like ninety percent of it being female perpetrated
and ten percent male perpetrated. But since that's not the case,
you know, and and well, we see things like, well,

(53:58):
most debt is in men's names, therefore men are the
ones that are irresponsible spenders. But we never look at
things like the yeah, the credit cards in his name,
but whose signature is on all the receipts? Because when
you sign, you sign your own name. And of course
now it's even easier because all you have to do

(54:18):
is run it through a machine at the cash register
or use it online and put in the little three
digit number on the back. And nobody's signature is on
the receipts, so you don't know who spent the money.
You know that it's in his name, so it is.
It is definitely. But that's that's not the type of

(54:42):
financial aggression I'm talking about. Like men. You know, men,
when they're aggressive, they're usually not trying to beat down
a woman, and they'll they'll buy their way into somebody's
company and then take over, you know, things like that.
That's it's not the same put everything in his name. Poor.

(55:07):
There's the story that just circulated online of the guy
that put everything in his mother's name so his wife
couldn't sue sue him for it in the divorce, which
I thought was brilliant. But in any case, there's a
there's a major history of the National Organization for Women
fighting against these types of laws. So when I say

(55:27):
these people need you to write to your legislators, I
really mean it, like, make sure that the people who
are involved in passing laws in your state know that
the people of your state want the children of your
state to have the benefit of both parents and the

(55:49):
benefit of in particular, not being raised in fatherless homes.
Send them the information you can find online. The shoot,
I can't think of the name of it, the Fatherhood Initiative,

(56:09):
has quite a bit of research that you could send them.
And I believe they have a website that their name
is in the website name, and I haven't looked it
up in quite a while, but I will say, like
the National Organization for Women has fought paternal custody going

(56:32):
all the way back to in the nineteen seventies when
joint custody was under discussion as opposed to the mother
being considered the primary caregiver and therefore the primary custodial
parent and or the custodial parent. And they've fought that

(56:58):
all the way through to today when it's equally shared parenting,
and they made the same arguments the whole time. Their
arguments portray all men equally as dead beats, abusers and
liars and cheats that are just trying to get out
of paying child support by monopolizing time with the children,

(57:23):
as opposed to you know, women who are monopolizing time
with the children not to get that child support apparently
so their their argument basically is that women love their
children and men don't love their children and they just
use them for money in the meantime. There they argue

(57:47):
that men men are are going to abuse the children
if they have custody, any custody at all. They argue
that men are going to abuse the mother if the
mother is forced to share custody, and they argue that
men will use custody to get out of child support,

(58:07):
even though women who owe child support are more likely
to not pay it than men who owe child support.
Women who who owe child support are more likely to
owe less than the men because they earn less, and

(58:30):
women who don't have custody are more likely to not
visit their kids than men who don't have custody. Meanwhile,
when men don't have custody and women do, about forty
percent of mothers In one study here in it was

(58:54):
reported in Frequency of Visitation by divorced Fathers Differences in
reports by fathers and mothers by Sanford H. Braver and
Group that about forty percent of mothers had reported that
they had interfered with the non custodial father's visitation on

(59:16):
at least one occasion to punish their ex spouse, so
not because it was bad for the kids, but because
mom was mad at dad. Between twenty five and thirty
three percent of mothers denied visits. Altogether, ninety percent of
the violence and kidnapping that they'd seen in this study

(59:38):
was sole custody situations in which the sole custodial parent
feared losing custody status. So equally, shared parenting rights protect
kids' lives, they protect kid's access to the other parent,
and they make it more difficult for the other parent

(01:00:04):
for the agitating parent the alienating parent to alienate the child. Similarly,
in in Surviving the Breakup by Joan Berlin Kelly and
Judith A. Wallerstein, it was reported that perhaps half of

(01:00:27):
mother's valued the father's continued contact with the children, which
means about the other half didn't. One fifth saw no
value in this whatsoever and actively tried to sabotage the
meetings by sending the children away just before the father's arrival,
by insisting that the child was ill or had pressing
homework to do, by making a scene, or by leaving
the children with the husband and disappearing, And then in

(01:00:51):
between was a large group of women that had many
mixed feelings about the father's visits, resenting the father's gift
giving his freedom from domestic responsibilities, which is bullshit, because
when the kids are with the dad, he has domestic responsibilities.
And these irritations were expressed in their difficulties in accommodating

(01:01:18):
the different schedules of the other parent to make the
visit possible and to protect the child's access to both parents,
so they would forget appointments and so on. They would
insist on rigid schedules for the visits, refuse to permit
the visit if the father brought along an adult friend,
just little mischievous things. And I saw this with my

(01:01:41):
husband's divorce. His ex wife was one of those women
that didn't didn't want her husband in the children's lives
anymore because she didn't want to deal with him in
her life, and so she tried to do things like
insisting on conditions that she couldn't legally enforce, tried to

(01:02:03):
make him leave me. You, lied to the family about us,
and just did a whole bunch of other things. In
the seven years in hell case. When the father got
protective custody of the child, the mother began leveling false
allegations of venemate partner in sexual violence. She spent seven

(01:02:25):
years dragging him through the bowels of the criminal and
family court system to try to wrestle custody back, and
at one point even made a false rape allegation, changed
her story three times as to when and where it

(01:02:46):
allegedly occurred, because he had evidence of what he was
doing all the time. By the time she made that allegation,
we were actively guarding him, like all of his friends
were taking turns, making sure that we scheduled our time

(01:03:07):
with him, our hangout time with him, so that he
was never alone. And he was actively making sure that
you know, he went places where there were cameras, He
got receipts when he went places he could prove where
he had been and what he had been doing, so
that nobody could catch him in a moment where he

(01:03:28):
couldn't and get the court to agree that he had
been somewhere else in doing something else. And it took
seven years of that to get her designated as a
vexatious litigant so that she can't bother him anymore, and

(01:03:49):
this kind of thing occurs regularly across the country. So
as we see this improvement happening, and as you keep
writing your legislators and keeping the pressure campaign up to
protect the rights of both parents to have equal time

(01:04:09):
with their children and equal opportunities for nurturing and caring
and teaching their children how to be adults. It's also
important to emphasize that there needs to be parental accountability
when one parent denies visitation, when one parent tries to

(01:04:30):
alienate the other parent, that there needs to be some
sort of penalty. It needs to be just as serious
to not let the other parent have their time to
deny custody as it is to kidnap the child. And
it needs to be just as serious to try to
use false allegations in a divorce case or a custody

(01:04:53):
battle to try to wrestle custody away from the other parent,
you know, as it is to commit the type of
crimes that the individual is accusing the other parent of committing,
Because it's it's just as serious as kidnapping. My friend
from that case that I was a witness in went

(01:05:16):
to jail five different times for overnight visits or at
one point a whole weekend, was denied his medications, was
treated like a criminal by the police, and was severely
traumatized by the situation. To this day, he still has

(01:05:38):
PTSD symptoms from being arrested over and over again and
from not knowing when the cops were going to come
and knock at his door at three o'clock in the
morning to take him away. So it's it's and his
daughter has PTSD symptoms from that like this, She saw

(01:06:01):
her dad hold off in cuffs repeatedly and didn't understand
what was going on because she was little. So this
impacts not just the men involved, as if that wasn't
bad enough, it also impacts the children. So I'm glad
to see that this is happening, but it is not
a reason to stop pressuring legislators to treat fathers fairly.

(01:06:26):
It's very important to keep that pressure campaign up and
to maybe ramp it up, and it's also a good
time to start a pressure campaign to get them to
enact accountability for women who make false allegations in these
types of cases.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
All right, well, thank you for that. Let's take a
look at what people are saying. They're gonna move on
to the next story. But yeah, overall, I think this
is a step in the right direction. But again, like
all things, you know, it's a process. So uh okay.
So ZARAANX gave us ten dollars and says, if there
was ever a greater bit of evidence bolstering my position

(01:07:11):
of getting government out of marriage, family and children do that,
and all involved likely do better towards the marriage front,
which begets healthy children, healthy families, and healthy society. Overall, yes,
it's almost like that's the most important thing. And then
Meredith g gives us five dollars. Thank you, Meredith, and
says HBr News five twenty four only slightly related to

(01:07:33):
the stories of the night. Richard Barris, The People's Pundit
is doing a poll on political violence, and surprising to
me but not to me, is early results are finding
the most the most group. I guess the group most
prone to supporting political violence is not lost young men,
but educated women in their thirties and forties. Be on
the lookout for the results of that study. I will

(01:07:55):
let me just write that down really quick. Richard Barris,
The People's Pundits.

Speaker 4 (01:08:02):
Yeah, you know what, the first thing I thought of
was when read that, do you remember the guy that
was filming on campus? There was a protest going on,
and the protesters were engaging a little bit of dumb
assory and I can't remember what it was about exactly,

(01:08:24):
but the professor was sort of middle aged, maybe a
little older than middle age, like probably old enough to
have grandkids if she wasn't a cat lady. But in
any case, she's working with these students, you know, eighteen
nineteen twenty year old kids, just the start of their adulthood.

(01:08:50):
And as this individual is on their own campus in
a public look place filming what is going on, she
comes over and starts assle them and then start advocating for, uh,
some muscle, can I get some muscle over here? Basically
to assault the person filming, to get rid of them.

(01:09:13):
Even in just little ways like that, they engage in violence.

Speaker 2 (01:09:17):
Well that's that's yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:09:20):
I think women like these educated women are more likely
to advocate advocate for violence because they're not the ones
risking anything. They're usually asking men to do violence on
their behalf, which makes it easy. How many women were
on TikTok saying who's gonna do it? Who's gonna do it?
When it comes to assassinating basically anybody. It wasn't just Trump,

(01:09:40):
it was Elon Musk, it was Charlie Kirk, it was anyone.
They were like, who's gonna So who's gonna do it?
That means I'm not gonna do it, but I want
it done right, So yes, they It makes sense that
people who have no skin in the game have nothing
to lose, only have to do is complain and then
somebody else might step up on their behalf and do it.
Are going to be more likely to do it, So

(01:10:02):
it doesn't really surprise me.

Speaker 4 (01:10:03):
But and they're more likely than to get arrested for
it because they're the ones actually engaging in the violence,
and it'll get chalked up as male violence. Yeah, even
though they would never have done that if a woman
hadn't asked them, right.

Speaker 3 (01:10:19):
Imagine if this is scaled up to women voting for
wars that only men have to fight in, it's still
it's still men doing the violence. Ah, it's convenient.

Speaker 4 (01:10:32):
SEARANX says that was Melissa Click from MISSOU So I
guess missus Missouri University. Uh maybe, but in any case, Yeah,
I will say this. There's a video that I made
about that whole female proxy violence thing as well. I
believe it was we have to talk about quote male

(01:10:55):
violence end quote, because I don't believe that there is
such a thing is male violence. I believe that the
overwhelming majority of violence in the world is proxy violence
on behalf of women. So I think that's one Badger
live streams channel, but it might be on a Honey
Badger brigade channel. So you'll have to look the main

(01:11:17):
radio channel. Yeah, yeah, Honey Badger radio channel.

Speaker 3 (01:11:20):
Yeah, you're all a bunch of misogynists. How day you
say any of these things?

Speaker 1 (01:11:25):
All right, moving on to next story. Let us know
what you guys thinking about this one in the comments.
All right, So, and here's one of the big ones
everyone's been talking about. So, during the annual three day
event known as twitch Con, a San Diego based convention
centered around the livestream platform Twitch dot tv, prominent streamer

(01:11:46):
pictured here at EMRU was sexually assaulted. Emily Beth Shunk,
better known as Emru, is a popular cosplayer and streamer
with over two billion followers on twitch tv. She is
also a co found and content creator for the gaming
media group known as One True King. During a fan
meet and greet at TWITCHCN last weekend, a man walked

(01:12:08):
straight right past the line of fans bypassing a number
of other checkpoints, with twitch con security being nowhere in
sight and with seemingly nothing to stop him. The man
grabbed Emru's face and attempted to kiss her. Thankfully, Emrou's
personal security guard intervened immediately and force forcefully removed the
man from her sight. The man then slowly walked away

(01:12:32):
from the scene, again with no twitch con security insight.
As a quick aside, there are many people online stating
that her bodyguard was permanently banned for defending Emru over
this incident, which is false but not far from the truth.
Emru's former bodyguard was permanently banned from Twitch related live
events after stopping and detaining a stalker at a previous event,

(01:12:52):
so not this event. Twitch's response was originally lackluster, citing
that the assailant was given a thirty day ban from
twis TV, revealing that they knew exactly who the individual was. Finally,
when pressed by Emeru's manager, they changed their statement to
say that the attacker was banned from the premises, permanently
banned from Twitch dot tv and that they were working

(01:13:14):
with law enforcement. Twitch CEO Dan Clancy, who was finally
forced to leave his goon cave to give a statement,
spoke with hack urinalist Taylor Lorenz, and when asked how
Twitch is prioritizing safety at their convention, he said the following.
The safety of our creators is our top priority. The
challenge we face is a challenge in today's society. It's

(01:13:36):
not limited to Twitch. It extends throughout our society. So
you know, our problem is the world's problems.

Speaker 2 (01:13:42):
Because men exist.

Speaker 1 (01:13:44):
I do think that when you're live streaming in many ways,
that you control your community, and you can ban people,
you can make it so that those people who you
don't want engaging with you and participating with you aren't there.
What happened yesterday was something that we care deeply about
securing this the this environment. We're looking very closely at
everything that happened here, and I care deeply about Emiru.

(01:14:05):
She's a friend of mine, and so I want to
see how we can support her. Emru eventually released her
version of events, noting that her attacker was allowed to
walk away and even exit the building, a fact that
was later backed up with video evidence. She also spoke
about the immediate reaction of nearby Twitch staff, which was
to joke and laugh about how they didn't see anything happen.

(01:14:26):
She also calls out Twitch's claim that they immediately caught
the attacker, when in reality, he was walking around the
area for hours before being detained. Emru stated that this
would be her last Twitch Con and that she encourages
other creators to make it their last as well. And
I basically wanted to reiterate because I think this is
like for me, what seems to be what's going to

(01:14:50):
be the effect of this. So like, these kinds of
things can happen when you're dealing with this kind of
like environment, right, and it's unfortunate, but it can't happen
if you're like somebody that's famous. You know you're gonna
get You're gonna get a weird fans. You're gonna get
people who don't have bound they have boundary issues whatever, Right,
they're just going to a socially awkward people, and these

(01:15:13):
things are gonna happen. But the my issue is not that,
because that's just part of life. My issue is with
what the reaction to that is going to be and
how this incident is going to be framed. So I
think the fact that Dan Clancy sat down with Taylor
Lorenz is a telling thing, right. And also bear in

(01:15:35):
mind the people who run Twitch, they're all scumbags, like
they are best friends with Hassan Piker, you know, the
guy at the end of every one of our videos
that talks about MRAs being machines. And not because he
zapped his dog, because I don't give a shit about that,
it's because he called He basically said that we deserve
nine to eleven and he called for the death of
people who own property and he wanted the streets to

(01:15:57):
run red with their blood. That's I think a little
bit of a higher priority. And when he did that,
by the way, Twitch celebrated his birthday and they gave
him like a twenty four hour band or something like.

Speaker 2 (01:16:07):
It was nothing.

Speaker 1 (01:16:09):
So what we're looking at here are people who are
going to look out for each other in whatever way
they can, and they're going to do what Hollywood did
when when the Me Too movement happened. They're going to
blame men everywhere instead of just holding the individual accountable
that did the thing. And maybe anyone else who was
involved that basically allowed this guy to slip through the cracks.

(01:16:31):
But the fact is, these things will happen, and you know,
I'm sorry that happened to Emiru, but you know you're
gonna have to like you You're only you can only
be responsible for your own safety at the end of
the day. So anyway, those are my thoughts on that.
I give you, Gus the floor. It looks like this
is gonna be long sauceage.

Speaker 3 (01:16:49):
Yeah, yeah, I suppose a lot of you will be
getting the same distinct sense that I'm getting that this
is something of a storm and a takeup. Every head
line I've seen about this story has used this loaded
term sexual assault, and yeah, I in some ways technically
it is, but only because a man hugging and kissing

(01:17:12):
a woman who doesn't want to be hugged and kissed,
it is technically a sexual assault by modern standards. But
if that's the case, then it's something children frequently commit,
hugging and kissing, and it's something frequently done to children.

(01:17:33):
Every time one of your relatives, usually a grandma or
an aunt, greets you with a hug and a kiss,
that gives you what we might call an ick that
means you've been sexually assaulted, right, in which case we
have ourselves a problem that extends far beyond twitch Con.

(01:17:53):
And look, I know, I know we're all vying to
apply some sense of accountability to Twitch, given Twitch's general
aversion to accountability, especially in the wake of dog electrocution
gait or whatever we're calling it, or indeed regularly calling

(01:18:15):
for political murder gate. I get it. We'd all like
Twitch to take an objective glance at what its biggest
hitters are doing with the millions they're making. But I mean,
Jesus age Christ, can we learn a lesson from the

(01:18:36):
smear merchants in the mainstream media about not writing sensational
headlines for the sake of clicks. If anyone is anyone
going to present this story as twitch streamer unexpectedly gets
hugged and kissed at twitch Con, no, because that wouldn't

(01:18:57):
that wouldn't get the clicks. It would make it sound
like the light drizzle in a teacup that it actually is.
And don't get me wrong, there is a real issue here,
and it's the security at twitch Con is so lax.

(01:19:17):
It's lucky this man was only interested in a hug
and a kiss he was interested. If he was interested
in violently shanking her in the neck, he would have
been perfectly able to do so five or six times
before any security intervened. And yes, that sort of thing

(01:19:38):
can happen. Christina Grimmy was a twenty two year old
singer who nine years ago was shot at a meet
and greet after a concert by some Nutter and fox sake.
Dimebag Daryl, the guitarist from Pantera, was shot point blank

(01:20:02):
several times by a crazed fan on stage at a gig.
These incidents are thankfully rare, but it raises the issue
of how stringent security should really be at such public events.
And I really don't know how far we should go.
Should every gig have like metal detectors positioned at the

(01:20:26):
front doors and also backstage just in case? It's the
same hot issue as the school shootings, Like how many
contingencies should be controlled for in the event of the
rare occasions where there might be an armed Nutter on
the premises? I don't know. I don't know how many

(01:20:48):
venues can even afford these kinds of safeguards, And if
legendary heroes like diamonback Darryl, are not safe? How the
hell can we make it safe for every vapid twitch
thought His only niche is titillating, horny, lonely desperate men.

(01:21:09):
It's definitely an important issue, one for which it's difficult
to find an answer, and it's understandable when the issue
gets fired up every time someone actually gets murdered. I'm
just saying, it feels like a hell of a slow
news day when the issue gets fired up because of

(01:21:31):
a woman who got hugged and kissed, not murdered or
even attempted murdered, just hugged and kissed. That's all I'm saying.
How often has a female groupie sprinted out of the
darkness to hug and kiss a male celebrity.

Speaker 1 (01:21:51):
Yeah, well, I'm just gonna add on to that, just
to add real quick to what you're saying. Remember as
soon as the stardust, Remember that, and what happened to
that guy that was there. Also, with that in mind
that the security acted very quickly on her behalf when
this happened. But the citizen startus guy got like absolutely

(01:22:12):
like just piled on by women.

Speaker 2 (01:22:15):
There were so many of them.

Speaker 1 (01:22:16):
He couldn't tell who was touching him and who wasn't,
and no one was able to save him. So it's
a I'm not like, I'm not big, I don't know
what about ism, but it seems like that was just
here and gone, and we're probably gonna be hearing about
this emery thing for a while, and it's gonna probably
like you know, they're gonna start They're gonna try to
start another me too. But anyway, that's all I'm sorry,

(01:22:37):
my go ahead.

Speaker 3 (01:22:39):
Yeah, And how often does it become an international scandal
when a female groupie runs on stage to hug and
kiss a male celebrity. Literally never, even though it happens
all the time, even though women are just as capable
of stabbing or shooting someone to death. These are the
great equalizers after all. I mean, if you want to,

(01:23:02):
if you want to criticize Twitch and their lackluster endeavors,
please do. But there are much bigger fish to fry.
Please don't forget one of their biggest streamers is still
out there telling people to murder his political opponents. I'm
sure that doesn't narrow it down, but you know who

(01:23:24):
I'm talking about. I'm talking about the guy who abuses dogs.
And yes, the dog abuse is apparently orders of magnitude
more scandalous than the advocation for mass murder of humors.
But that's just that's just the world we live in.
People are more outraged at hurting dogs than they are

(01:23:46):
about murdering men, and they're even more outraged about a
woman getting hugged and kissed. I mean, there it is.
It's beyond politics at this point. There's a clear hierarchy here.
The lives of men are less important than the well

(01:24:06):
being of dogs, and even less important than the personal
space of a woman's lips. What do I shrug this
off with an it is what it is? Because no,
it isn't what it is. It's a fucked up inversion
of what should be in my humble, outlandish opinion for

(01:24:29):
whatever the hell that even counts for anymore. I'm I'm
not a real philosopher. None of this is humanitarian advice.
Ignore me all right here?

Speaker 4 (01:24:43):
Now you know enough, probably enough has been said about
the fact that this was a security issue, and it's
it's pretty obvious security issue, and it is a consistent
issue in terms of people get being attacked by greatest fans,

(01:25:03):
and this does happen quite a bit too male performers,
and it made me think, you know, not that not
that a performer should ever be expected to put up
with that kind of bullshit. There's always somebody that's going
to be crazy enough to do that. I think the

(01:25:28):
solution essentially is going to be venues like this need
to work with the more famous performers security teams and
let them have their own security, not give them any
trouble in terms of you know, and protecting their individual

(01:25:52):
and then they maintain their security on the site and
that should happen that that that should happen to, you know,
with with male and female performers. And probably one of
the most interesting and famous incidents of of this that
that comes to mind to me, Michael Jackson in like

(01:26:19):
nineteen ninety six in Seoul was in a concert and
he had this in the during one of the songs
that he was performing, he had this like a bucket.
It it it had a it was open, it had
a platform, and then it had like a fence around him,

(01:26:43):
just one bar, like a circular bar around him that
had a you know, a couple of bars going down
on the sides and it was lifted by a crane
up into the air and uh, you know for him
with with when you know, blowing up and everything and
make him look cool and stuff. Kind of typical Michael
Jackson showmanship. And he's he goes up there, it lifts

(01:27:07):
him up and he starts performing. And a crazed fan
climbed up on the crane really quickly and got up
onto that platform. And we're talking. The platform was just
barely big enough for Jackson to perform the way that
he performs when he's singing, so you know, his feet

(01:27:31):
might be more than shoulder with the part, but not
significantly more than shoulder with the part, so it was
very small. And immediately, rather than you know, freaking out,
which a woman would have done and trying to get
rid of this crazed fan, he immediately managed him. He

(01:27:52):
turned him around so that he was facing away from
him so he couldn't hurt him, but then held onto
the fan the whole time and continued to perform, continued
to sing while he was holding this fan in place
so that he didn't fall from this crane and protected
him from from getting injured until they lowered the crane.

(01:28:17):
They finally got someone there to lower the crane and
then security pulled a fan off of him and took
him away and everything. And it's a completely different reaction.
And he had death threats and and he had he
had some really insane things happen uh with with fans.

(01:28:41):
So for him to respond to one approaching him like
that in that circumstance, by his primary concern was the
fans welfare and not you know, freaking out and getting
scared was was quite remarkable. But you know, and and

(01:29:03):
it's not to shame anybody that reacts by getting upset,
but this, this kind of thing does happen to men.
Shi lah Boof had an event in twenty fourteen where
he was meeting one on one with fans and it
was kind of a publicity stunt that he was doing anything.

(01:29:23):
He had a paper bag over his head. He was
I'm not famous anymore, But as he was meeting one
on one with fans, a woman came along and sexually
assaulted him. Yeah, and it was more than just grabbing
and kissing. It was it was pretty bad, and there
were there There wasn't a lot of discussion about that.

(01:29:48):
I remember we covered it after it happened, but people
didn't get outraged like they did over this, And yes,
she should have been better protected, Yes this should have
been prevented from happening. Maybe if these convention administrations weren't

(01:30:10):
so busy politicking and trying to protect people from things
like game or gate flags and people saying the wrong
thing on the internet, they would do a better job
of protecting their performers. But I think the outrage is
kind of selective in this case because it's something that

(01:30:33):
we should care about. Whether it's a female twitch streamer
who's famous for being good at games or cute or
some combination thereof, or a famous singer or an actor,
or you know, any individual politician, and whether they're male

(01:30:57):
or female, whether they're old or young, and you know,
whether they're popular with only one side of the political
fence and the other side wants to shoot them in
the neck. Crazed fans and crazed haters don't really have
a very thick line in between them. So yeah, I

(01:31:20):
guess that's my take on it. Yeah, it's a problem,
and no, it's it's not right that the outrage is
that selective.

Speaker 1 (01:31:34):
Yeah, all right, let me see what if anybody else
has any super Chats or super Child's. But yeah, I
mean we've all, like I said, I just want to
draw that Sinners and Stardus thing, and it's definitely like
like Mike said, a storm and a teacup. I think
that the fact that EMERU is like this really petite

(01:31:56):
delicate girl. I think that really like ram up the
ginocentrism around this whole situation. And again, you know, we
we already have systems in place there when people cross
a boundary there we there already exists consequences. If Trichcon
didn't take the appropriate measures. That's a them problem. That's
not a society problem, which is what the CEO is

(01:32:18):
trying to like point to. That's bullshit full stop. So
you know, but they should take care of it on
in their own terms. And and I know that people
like Taylor Wrens are gonna use it to essentially make
claims about you know, our entire society.

Speaker 2 (01:32:34):
So all right, anyway, where were all the men?

Speaker 1 (01:32:38):
Yeah, it's gonna be again. The security stepped in immediately.
I saw the video. You know, it was dealt with immediately.
And it's just one of those things that sometimes a
weirdo gets through and you know whatever.

Speaker 4 (01:32:51):
But if if a bystander had done something, people would
be condemning him for being violent.

Speaker 2 (01:33:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:33:00):
If a bystander had stopped that guy and hit him
or wrestled him to the ground or anything like that
and he'd been injured, that would have been then it
would have been Look, men are violent.

Speaker 2 (01:33:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:33:13):
Well, the thing is that's most people's default setting. So
when they see stuff like this, it just confirms the
bias that was already there.

Speaker 2 (01:33:19):
So they're comfortable with that, right, right, which.

Speaker 4 (01:33:22):
Is why they start around and yell where are all
the men when a bystander does nothing. So, in terms
in terms of you know what, what guy's listening should
take away from this is you're damned if you do,
and you're damned if you don't. But there's a lot
less risk to you if you don't, So don't.

Speaker 2 (01:33:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:33:43):
So but again it's like, you know, we're trying to
deprogram generations of this stuff, so it's not easy. But
let's move on to the next story. I thought I
picked this because it's related, so you probably maybe maybe
you did hear about this, maybe you didn't. This is
relatively recent, so on October twelfth of twenty twenty five

(01:34:04):
in New York, DoorDash driver Livvy Rose Henderson arrived at
a customer's apartment for contactless delivery with instructions to leave
the order at the door. She claimed the front door
was wide open with lights on, and the male customer
was unconscious or asleep on a couch visible from the entryway,

(01:34:25):
with his pants and underwear pulled down to his ankles,
exposing himself indecently. Henderson, feeling unsafe and interpreting this as
a sexual harassment or assault, recorded a short video as
evidence from inside at the threshold, posted it publicly on TikTok,
which revealed the address and details, and reported the incident

(01:34:46):
to DoorDash and police. She described fearing for her safety
remember this guy was unconscious or sleeping and his pants
were down around his ankles, stating she quote could have
been attacked, and viewed the exposure as intentional given the
open door. The videos quickly went viral, amassing over twenty

(01:35:08):
million views, sparking outrage over gig worker protections and calls
for better safety measures. DoorDash banned the customer for violating
their sexual harassment policy, but also deactivated Henderson's account two
days later citing a breach of their privacy policy against
sharing videos or personal information captured during deliveries, including inside

(01:35:29):
customers's homes. Henderson followed up with additional TikTok videos expressing
frustration and anger, alleging DoorDash prioritized the customer's privacy over
her own safety, provided no clear explanation initially, and that
police dismissed her report as no crime, lacking intent from
the unconscious man. She noted accessing her remaining earnings via

(01:35:53):
a debit card after support escalations and appealed the deactivation,
though Doordash's statement confirmed both parties were band pending investigation.
The story divided online reactions, while detractors accused her of trespassing,
privacy invasion, filming and recording an unconscious naked person without consent,
potentially illegal as revenge born or dosing, and exaggerating assault

(01:36:16):
because like indecent exposure, is not active harm, arguing that
she should have just dropped the food, snapped the photo privately.

Speaker 2 (01:36:24):
And left.

Speaker 4 (01:36:26):
Yes, actually, I'm gonna jump on this one because if
if that guy had had a stroke and ended up
in that situation, not the kind in any of our
dirty minded listeners are thinking of, but an actual medical
stroke or heart attack, and she just took his picture

(01:36:50):
and left. He would have died if he'd been assaulted
and left in that position.

Speaker 5 (01:36:57):
You know.

Speaker 4 (01:36:57):
Again, if the door was supposed to be closed and
it was open, that could have been a sign that
something was very wrong. And yeah, it could have been
that this guy was just, you know, some dumbass with
some kind of mental problem who deliberately exposed himself to

(01:37:18):
this individual. But the first thing that I would have
thought of in a situation like that, if the door's
not supposed to be open and it's open, is that
something bad has happened here, and I would not have approached,
you know, I would have looked from a distance, looked inside,

(01:37:39):
and if I had seen that, then I would have
called the cops because something might be very wrong there.
That would have been an immediate nine to one one call.
And she didn't do that, right, that's suspicious to me.
It makes me wonder if Yeah, hypoglycemia, there's another one
Jobaals mentioned, and there's probably a couple dozen different medical

(01:38:04):
conditions an individual can have that can cause them to
end up in that situation. And then there's there's also,
like I said, somebody could have broken in and sexually
assaulted this individual.

Speaker 2 (01:38:18):
Which.

Speaker 4 (01:38:20):
She would have thought of if that was a female,
But she didn't think of it because she was a
female and that was a male, and therefore she decided
that she was the one being assaulted and immediately took
these measures. And of all the things, if I was

(01:38:43):
afraid of somebody and I felt I was in immediate danger,
my first response would not be to stand around taking
pictures or video. It would be to get the fuck
out of there, call the cops, and be someplace other

(01:39:06):
than where that individual might have access to me. Right,
I wouldn't stand in the doorway and film. And you know,
I understand why she might have wanted to protect herself
from false allegations, But even then, there is literally nothing

(01:39:28):
about posting that video on social media that has any
kind of protective effect for you.

Speaker 3 (01:39:37):
At all.

Speaker 4 (01:39:38):
Right, posting that video does nothing but embarrass the individual.
And she didn't post that video on whatever social media
she posted it on. I can't remember what it was
to protect herself. She did it to shame the customer.
So I don't feel bad for her that that door

(01:40:00):
dash banned her pending investigation. I think that that was
perfectly appropriate, and you know, I think that it was
perfectly acceptable for them to penalize somebody for violating their
policies regarding their consumer's private information being published like that.

(01:40:27):
I certainly wouldn't order from a company if I thought
that their delivery people might start taking pictures of my
home and posting them online. That's that would be I'm
not paying somebody to come and do that. So, you know,

(01:40:48):
I hope that this works out, that they figure out
what happened, and if the guy was being a pervert,
and there's some law he violated in doing that, you know,
accountability obviously. But if she opened his door and filmed
him and then posted it online, I hope she gets

(01:41:10):
treated the same way as if a man did that
to a woman. And I hope most people have more
sense than if they run across somebody who's unconscious like that,
in a situation where they were told something that should
lead them to not expect to find that, not expect

(01:41:30):
to find an open door and an unconscious person, that
they would actually immediately just call nine one one and
describe the situation, even if they were afraid to approach
and find out if something was wrong, you know, to
at least get first responder's attention on the situation in
case that individual was actually in distress.

Speaker 3 (01:41:59):
So yeah, yeah, dropping the food and leaving is all
she should have done. If she was to take a
photo at all, it should have been of the package
being dropped at the doorstep. And that's all she should
have done. She didn't even need to do that way.
It depends on what she's required to be proved to do.

(01:42:26):
But yeah, dropping the food and leaving is absolutely all
she should have done. How the fuck is that even controversial?
Where is even the controversy? And that especially given the outcome,
especially given that door dash also banned the customer. Now,
even given the apparent controversy, it's not as though the

(01:42:48):
consequences were only exacted in one direction. Both the customer
and the employee were punished by being banned from the
service even though the customer did nothing wrong. There could
be a goddamn orgy going on on the property and
it's exactly zero of this. Bitch is be wax. Is

(01:43:11):
this not part of the training that door dash gives
its employees. If not, it fucking should be Okay, I'm
gonna have to play the as a card against my
usual better judgment. But as a postman, I used to
be a postman, and even postman even as government employees,

(01:43:32):
even as royal employees, no less as as as they
used to be. Even postmen are absolutely not permitted to
trespass on anyone's interior property. They're allowed to go as
far as wherever the letterbox is and not a step further.
Why would they be If the door is wide open,

(01:43:53):
you drop the package just inside the door and you
go that's it. Thank fuck, I don't have to ring
the doorbell and waste my time waiting for this douchebag
to answer the fucking door. I know there's this stereotype
that postmen tend to just fuck off without ringing the
doorbell and leave like a card saying you weren't at home,

(01:44:17):
so we've taken your package back to the depot, please
come here and pick it up. But I can assure
you this is utter bollocks. Postmen don't want to have
to take the package back to the depot. That's just
extra work, especially if you have to do everything by foot.

(01:44:37):
The ideal workday for a postman or any courier is
to be able to deliver every package safely inside the
property and then go the fuck home without having to
drop anything off at the depot. The sooner we can
achieve this, the better. Postmen don't get to clock off

(01:44:59):
and go go home at a specific hour. They have
to deliver everything, or attempt to deliver everything, and they
don't get to go home until they've completed their round
their walk. Whether it's completed at one pm or five pm,
there's no excuse, so they're all trying to get their

(01:45:22):
work done as quickly as possible. It would never have
occurred to me in the event that I encountered an
open door to sneak into that house out of curiosity
just to see what's in there. It would just be
a waste of my fucking time. Not to mention a
potential crime. Even if it's not a crime, it would

(01:45:44):
it would be something that the customer could complain about it,
and in the event that they did complain, it would
be an instant sackable offense to trespass on someone's interior
property as well. It should be. The only exception would
be if I witnessed a crime that's that's one of

(01:46:06):
the perks of being a postman. Sometime sometimes they are
the first to witness a crime scene or indeed a
crime taking place. In that event, it's acceptable for you
to report that crime to your line manager and they
will report it to the police. And pardon my spleen.

(01:46:26):
But a man sitting in his own house with his
knob out is not a fucking crime, even if he's awake,
even if he's standing in the living room jacking it
to the Discovery Channel or whatever, that's not a fucking crime.
It's his house, it's his TV, it's his knob. So

(01:46:47):
hippretty happily get off my property.

Speaker 6 (01:46:50):
If the man is unfucking conscious on the sofa and
happens to have his knob out, how in anyone world
is that supposed to be a threat?

Speaker 3 (01:47:03):
Fuck you entirely, not not literally, don't actually fucking you
know what you know figuratively, Fuck you entirely. This is mental.
It is like that case in I think it was Canada,
where where some woman snuck into a man's backyard and
then she saw him naked through the window and then

(01:47:25):
had him prosecuted for indecent exposure. Needless to say, This
would never happen if the sexes were reversed. If a
man snuck onto a woman's property and saw her in
her birthday suit, he would get sacked on the spot
and probably arrested on the spot and put on the
sex offenders registry, never be employable again, and probably spend

(01:47:49):
years in prison. But the worst this bitch gets is
being sacked from door dash, and she still gets to
complain that she's the goddamn victive. I hate this world.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't hate this world. It's fucked.
It's completely fucked.

Speaker 4 (01:48:07):
You know, you.

Speaker 3 (01:48:10):
Could fix the immigration problem, you could fix all the
racism problems, you could even fix all the wars, but
we would still have this, this clown world, fucking situation
where a man is a criminal for looking at a
woman and a man is also a criminal for being
looked at by a woman. Can we please get around

(01:48:33):
to this at some point, anyone, ever? No, isn't it
isn't This shit far crazier than any of that other shit?
Might this be where all the other crazy shit is
coming from? If this kind of craziness is acceptable, then
it sounds to reason any other kind of craziness would
be would be acceptable? Absolute madness. Sorry, I need a nap.

(01:48:58):
I need a drink and a nap, and another drink
and another nap. I need drink drink siphoned into my
veins while I'm napping forever. I'm gonna I'm gonna, I'm
gonna go try that now. I'm gonna see what kind
of mcguiver device I could knock together with a vacuum
cleaner in a straw because somehow pump alcohol directly into
my liver while I sleep. Wish me luck, Wish me

(01:49:22):
my best possible fortune in the afterlife. Doctor around the
mccam mounted news on the Merger radio.

Speaker 1 (01:49:30):
In regard to your front door, and don't order any
take any delivery, and then to get as drunk and
as tired as you want.

Speaker 4 (01:49:38):
In regard to the law, I I got some bad news,
a pretty big black pill in Hima for all you guys.
I worked with a guy back in the nineties who
is on a sex offender list for life because a
girl who was on the street outside of his house

(01:50:00):
in an argument with her boyfriend called police after he
peeked out of his curtain to see what was going on.
In the street and said that he was parading himself
around naked in front of the window, and he was.
He was arrested and prosecuted and convicted of a sex

(01:50:26):
offense for that. So like, just even if you're in
your own home, if someone can see you from outside,
they will consider your nudity to be public nudity, you know.
And this is this is something that has has bugged

(01:50:49):
me ever since I learned about his case, because if
he had been a woman and a man had called
and said that, they would have arrested man for voyeurism.
But because it was a teenage girl and he was
an adult man, and she said that even though he

(01:51:11):
disputed her story, he was convicted of exposing himself to
her from inside his house behind his curtains. So, guys,
if you're going to order from any company that has
deliveries and stuff and you want stuff left outside the door,

(01:51:34):
you should be able to expect that people will not
come into your house and take pictures of you passed
out drunk naked on your couch and then post them
online and call the police and accuse you of crime.
You should be able to expect that, but you can't.
You have to lock your door. You have to protect

(01:51:54):
yourself because the state won't and the public will treat
you like you're the pervert, even though she took a
photo and she posted it online.

Speaker 1 (01:52:13):
All right, Well that was all of our stories and
it was a super long sausage.

Speaker 2 (01:52:21):
What are you gonna do?

Speaker 1 (01:52:21):
So I want to know what you guys think about
all of these. Please feel free to leave us a
comment and continue the conversations in the chat as well.
We're gonna be going to because this has been a
pretty contentious incident. We're gonna be going to the Patron Show.
We're gonna be looking at some of these tiktoks, which

(01:52:43):
are response videos to the door dash essay girl, or
at least the girl who claimed to be essayed by
an unconscious man, and we'll see like what the cope
looks like on TikTok. So if you want to join
us for that, go to Feed the badgetor cop Force Last,
subscribe to become a member and you will see you

(01:53:04):
hopefully in the Patron Show. Let me just double check
to make sure I'm not missing any super chats or
anything like that.

Speaker 2 (01:53:12):
Looks good.

Speaker 1 (01:53:13):
No super chats, no super chats, no rumble rants. Okay, cool.
So anyway with that said, I want to thank you
guys for coming on the show today, and I want
to thank Hannah and Mike for joining me and you know,
so that we can talk about these things Cuz I
think that it's.

Speaker 2 (01:53:30):
Absolutely crucial that we have these conversations.

Speaker 1 (01:53:33):
And I'm telling you I have it on good authority
that we are having an impact and this is a
good thing overall. So anyway, with that said, if you
guys like this video, please hit like, subscribe cannot already
subscribe to the belfaldifications, leave us a comment, let us
know what you guys think about what we discussed on
the show today, and please please please share this video

(01:53:53):
because sharing is caring. Thank you guys so much for
coming on today's episode of HPR News and we will
talk to you all in the next one. See you
next Tuesday. Engage