How to STOP Feminists from Beating Men on Men’s Issues (Whatever Podcast Breakdown)

Join us on Maintaining Frame. Andrew Wilson debates feminist/leftist(but I repeat myself) Charly on more feminism. It gets worse!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, everybody, Welcome Honi Badge Radio. My name is Brian Alton.
This is now we're going to get into the same
podcast episode, but we're going to actually like look at
the actual arguments before things, you know, just turned into
whatever podcast attacks.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
The whatever podcast Team Charlie versus team Andrew. That's what
we're looking at. Yeah, and yeah, we're gonna We're gonna
get into the meat of the arguments as it were
last time we covered the viral insults or the insults
that went viral. I apologize. For some reason, Voidcat just
really loves me today, probably because she wants another can

(00:41):
of food, which she is not getting. You are not
getting another can of food, no matter how much you
beg So we're going back to that podcast and we're
pulling out the arguments as they were. In some cases,
we're sort of reconstructing it from I think a lot
of noise. And I'm not saying that the noise is

(01:01):
coming from Andrew, but it is coming from somebody on
that panel. So we went I went back through and
I basically, you know, Andrew would make a point and
I would find where Charlie actually addressed that point. And
then if Andrew came back with something further, So that's
that's where we're at. We're reconstructing the meat of the

(01:22):
arguments from that panel so we can look at them,
we can ascertain who actually won the point, and we're
not just gonna look at it from a logical perspective,
because these debates take place on another level entirely, which
is establishing and maintaining frame. So there, from what my

(01:42):
analysis looking at this, I see three distinct frames. There
is Andrew's conservative frame. I know he probably wouldn't identify
as a conservative, maybe a palaeo traditionalist, but it's kind
of it's a frame where you want the particular role
or the particular expectations of men to be recognized, that

(02:05):
men live up to them then and men also gain
worth through living up to those expectations. It's more of
it's a framework around manhood and expectations of men. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but that's what I see a
lot of Brian, Please correct me if I'm wrong. That's
what I see a lot of traditionalist focus on, is
that there is this frame work that men need to

(02:26):
live up to and that they should be acknowledged as
having worth. If they do, but many traditionalists don't acknowledge
that men have worth in and of themselves, or that
necessarily they have particular abilities and skills that lead to
being able to live up to these standards that women

(02:46):
may not have. So it's more like you live up
to this standard because otherwise you are expendable. I'm not
saying that Andrew completely buys into that framework, but I
think he's coming more from that traditionalist approach to manhood.
Then there's Charlie framework, and Charlie's framework is the dominant
framework of our society, and that framework is you want

(03:09):
to establish that men or maintain that men are a
threat to women in society, that men do not offer
anything unique, So you won't even recognize that they're being
held to a higher standard of women, much less the
traditional recognition that they're held to that higher standard and
should be respected and people should be grateful for that.

(03:29):
So you don't even want to do that. You don't
even want to recognize that men are held to a
higher standard, nor do you want to recognize any unique
value proposition that men provide. The societies are part of,
and you want to at every moment neutralize, hide or
minimize any kind of vulnerabilities or sacrifices men make in society.

(03:50):
And that's because Charlie is trying to uphold an ideological
position that societies benefit men asymmetrically at the expense of women.
And in order to uphold that position, you can't talk
about things like maybe unique biological benefits that men give society.
You can't talk about any of the sacrifices that men
endure in order to provide those benefits to society. And

(04:13):
you have to frame men as a threat. So these
are the three frames, and we're gonna go through the
arguments that I reconstructed from that soup. And again I'm
not throwing shade at Andrew. He wasn't the one, you know,
supplying the lukewarm, viscous fluid for most of this that
was coming from other parties. And we're gonna reconstruct it,

(04:34):
and we're gonna look at it and see if these,
if which frame reigns supreme in each of the arguments.
So that's laying it out there. Did I did I
reveal too much? I don't know, Brian, what do you think? No? Okay, okay,
So I think I gave a good framework hopefully you
guys understand if you don't just message me, Hey, crazy
autistic lady, I don't get it.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
Yeah, I mean if something happens in the video that yeah,
it's your claims, then you can just interrupt and point
it out at that point.

Speaker 2 (05:04):
Yeah, okay, sure, yeah, maybe you should and then we'll Yeah,
I'll do the things, but before I do, you know, guys,
message in the chat. You can send a message and
I will note and respond to it. If you don't
understand what I'm getting in, if you have any questions,
and if you want to send a comment right that
just just whatever you want to say. You like my hat,

(05:27):
you think I'm completely wrong, you think Brian is wrong,
you think everything is wrong, you think the world is wrong.
You know, just send it to feed the Badger dot
com slash just the tip, and I don't want to
type cast you. You guys could also be sending us.
You know everything is right, and you know that whatever
you want, whatever commentary you want to give. If you
think I'm right about my assessment of how an argument went,

(05:49):
if you think that it went a different way than
feed the Badger dot com slash just the tip, please
do send those in because they really do help us
out being able to bring you this content, and in
a bit I will do the I'll point you all
to our to supporting us as well. But for now,
let's let's get into it. You got all the time
codes run, you got everything ready?

Speaker 1 (06:09):
I do? I mean, yeah, what do you want me
to start with?

Speaker 3 (06:11):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (06:11):
Oh, shadow the Master says, I think you framed the
frame well, Allison, thank you. I think you framed my
framing of the frame well as well.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
Okay, next, what's the first time code we're doing?

Speaker 2 (06:25):
All right, let me just uh okay, so we have
we have a couple in the subject of draft war.
We have the play play one. I did this all
in different I think.

Speaker 1 (06:38):
That's most of the discussion because it's ultimately about like
this male disposability or you know, like the difference between
male disposability and female perceived victimhood. I guess mm hmmm.
So that just something I think about.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Yeah, and I think one of the like one of
the main ways that I think conserv I'm gonna just
say conservatives. I'm not mean I don't mean all conservatives.
I know a lot of people in this position don't
even identify it.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
Claim it's fine, okay, all right.

Speaker 2 (07:14):
I think the one of the big differences is that
conservatives do embrace the idea that men are expendable but
should be respected and you know, felt people should feel
grateful for them when they live up to a standard,
Whereas because we focus on ways that men aren't necessarily
living up to a standard, but society is actually failing them,

(07:37):
we are proposing that men have an inherent value and
they should be helped when they have problems, you know,
and society shouldn't make those problems worse. Okay. So I
think that that those two framings are different, and it's
really critical to point that different out because I think
from my perspective, there's a big blind spot that that

(07:58):
conservatives fallen, and that is that men do have value
and they should be supported when they fail to live
even when they fail to live up to the standards
we've set them to, because if we do support them,
they can live up to those standards. So it's a

(08:19):
bit of a different framework. And I'm not saying all
conservatives look at the world that way, right, and certainly
they aren't as bad as what the people who are
calling themselves the left, who are basically political tribalists because
they're actively kneecapping men. Let's face it, they're actively like
conservatives are saying, you need to overcome your problems or
you don't have worth. Liberals are like, God, we're going

(08:42):
to give you some more of those their problems men,
We're gonna make them worse. So there's there's you know,
there's a difference in in in you know, the worsening
of conservatives versus liberals when it comes to men's rights
and men's issues. Okay, so the place that we have
under draft and war is super soldier frame. But I

(09:03):
feel like that one isn't really good to go into
because it's mostly like me and Brian we're talking about
this mostly like just setting up the background for why
Andrew believes what he believes and why Charlie is sort
of out to lunch, and basically all it is is,
you know, men are stronger, so they make more effective soldiers. However,

(09:25):
I would counter this by saying that if we lived
in a patriarchy that truly put men first and found
them more valuable, then why not just send women to
war because they're expendable and they don't have any social value,
and if both sides, like the two patriarchies on both
sides agree and say, way, way, we much prefer to
save our very valuable and precious sons versus our worthless

(09:48):
and valueless daughters, why don't they just both send women
to fight? And then if women are fighting women, the
strength doesn't matter, you know what I mean? You get
it like that makes perfect sense to me from a
purely uh mechanistic uh society that puts men's benefit before women,
like I don't know anyway, but the point is here,

(10:09):
men are physically stronger. So unfortunately, even if the patriarchies
agree to make their their daughters fight it out, at
some point, there will probably be a society that says, hey,
why don't we send our sons instead, and we'll win
and they will, and so that's you know, it's not
really a long term and that's what the basically the
super soldier frame is about. It's just men are stronger,

(10:31):
so they make better soldiers. Okay, No, let's go to
one sex fights, two sex votes, so that supports the
next play, which is one sex fights, two sex of vote,
which is essentially what we've brought up, what I brought
up like decades ago, which is, you are creating a

(10:52):
situation of disadvantage when you have an expectation that one
sex fight, but both sex get to vote. The sex
that has to fight will end up being paying the
cost of the sex that doesn't and their political decisions,
and that immediately creates a second class citizenship among men

(11:14):
with men. All right, let's look at that, all right.

Speaker 1 (11:17):
I jumped up to that first time.

Speaker 4 (11:19):
Code because they get my hindrance, and so I guess
all I need really need here is just the agreement
that it will always be the case no matter what
that it'll it'll be heavily ninety eight percent or so
of men who will be engaged in frontline combat operations.
If that's the case, then they have the most to
risk when it comes to warfare.

Speaker 2 (11:37):
I would like to point something out here. It's going
to be it's always going to be like ninety five
nine ninety eight percent men because society. It's not because
men are stronger. Like I'll just peel back to my
suggestion that patriarchy just make women fight and then it
doesn't matter. You know, women aren't strong as men because
they're going to be finding other women. Yeah, but the

(11:59):
point is that our societies see men. We tolerate men
coming home in body bags more than we do women.
So it's likely that that's the real reason. And in fact,
if you go back to World War two and the
parliamentary discussions on drafting women, not wanting to impose the

(12:22):
hardship of war on women was the actual reason. In fact,
they made a statement saying that yes, they thought that
women could, you know, do what men could do. They
just felt that they shouldn't have to and they certainly
shouldn't be compelled to. Right, So it's not it not

(12:43):
It doesn't really come down to strength differential. It really
comes down to social worth. Okay, did you want to
add something to that, Brian?

Speaker 1 (12:54):
I mean, where's actually dimorphic species? Men are different, not
just physical but also like we have evolved to be
prepared to make sacrifices if necessary. So I mean, we're
not going to live in a world without war. I
mean we're just not so like there's there's just gonna

(13:15):
be hostility. They're just going to be like you know,
like we're we're about to revert to a point where
we're going to be up against the elements again. If
we keep on this trajectory, and when that happened, men
are going to be necessary and they're going to be expendable.
But we're going to be willing to do it because
we want to survive as a species. And I don't
think men even have a problem with that really, because

(13:36):
they you know, they want us overall. They want to
secure the future for the human race, and that includes
you know, primarily their own children if they have them,
and their family members. So like accepting that as a
reality isn't necessarily not caring about men. It's understanding that
women can't do what men do, and so we needed
to get done. We can't. We can't expect women to

(13:59):
do it. We just can't. Like that's just you know, insane.

Speaker 2 (14:04):
Though. Yeah, I get what you're saying, Okay, finish.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
No, but I'm just saying, like, that's just the reality.
I don't think it's I don't I don't know. I
I mean that's what I think. I don't think generally,
I don't believe that conservatives are interested in using men
as cannon fodder. I think that they acknowledge that men
are worth something as human beings too, but that the
reality is that you know when sacrifice is necessary, even

(14:33):
though we should be very careful about avoiding it. It's probably, yes,
more tolerable that it happened to men than women or children.
So if it's going to come from somewhere, you know,
I got a super chat, but I'm sorry from shadow shadow.
The Master gave us five dollars Australian and said, Brian,

(14:56):
what is the necklace around your neck? Love you guys? Well,
thank you, shout the master. This is a Crusader cross
or a Jerusalem cross, a fivefold cross. It's a it's
got like a big cross in the middle with four
small crosses around it. It was basically a like a

(15:19):
heraldrick cross that like the Crusaders had on their shields
during the Crusades. Basically, so thank you. I think it's
a really cool looking cross.

Speaker 2 (15:29):
So anyway, yeah, I want to make my state my case.
First of all, I have had these arguments with conservatives.
There there is a number of conservatives who believe things
like weak men create weak societies and that kind of stuff,
And honestly, I think it's more societies fail their men.

(15:50):
And while I agree that men are stronger, they are
more capable of taking these risks and these hardships on.
I don't think that they owe it to any society
to do so, to use those particular strengths in the
service of that society, unless that society has taken pains

(16:13):
to reduce the possibility and to minimize it and to
understand that men have this and and it is absolutely
horrified at the thought of having to expend its sons
in any capacity, and that is absolutely the last resort
and doesn't see the situation in terms of society its

(16:35):
sons having to prove itself to society, but society having
to prove itself worthy of its son's sacrifice. So I
think there's a difference there, and I see a lot
of conservative at least the ones I argue with. But
you know, Twitter is Twitter. Everybody's you know, high as
like strung up like a long tailed cat in a
room full of rocking chairs. But there is that difference

(16:58):
that that men have nothing to prove to anyone, To
be honest, that's my perspective. Men have nothing to prove.
They aren't weak. They're still doing what they do, which
is provide and protect for other people. Right, They're still
trying to make it work in this world. It's our
society that has massively failed them, has failed to deal

(17:22):
with their mental health issues, their social crisises, the relationship
crisis is like that has perpetuated a massive threat narrative
against them. Now, I think on the conservative point, they
would probably call out feminists for not giving men the
external standard, whereas I call out feminists for not giving

(17:43):
men the support they need and turning this social attitudes
towards men into a threat narrative in which they outsize
men's threat to women in society in order to manipulate
people to give them clout and money. So that's where
I'm coming from. Think our society is worthy of men's sacrifice.
I think the lot has to change before we are

(18:07):
And I think that again, yes, we can recognize that
men are uniquely strong, physically strong, and uniquely capable of
enduring certain types of hardships, but that isn't an excuse
to lean on that every time our society fucks something up, Like,
men aren't a bandage for our problems. They shouldn't be

(18:28):
blamed for things that they aren't responsible for and they
haven't done. And so that's where my approach comes from.
Because I'm strict men's issues. I'm strictly we need to
stop taking a sledgehammer to the engine of society, right,
you know, like conservatives can say what the engine should

(18:49):
be doing all they like. Meanwhile, the left or whatever
is wearing the skin of the left is taking a
sledgehammer to the engine and saying while men should embody
this external standard or men should show you know, weak
men create weak societies. And all of this stuff doesn't
change the fact and is not addressing the fact that

(19:11):
the left is taking a sledgehammer to men, and we
need to stop that before we can start talking about
what the engine needs to do. And it's not even
an ethical issue. It's like you're not going to go
anywhere with an engine if you're taking a sledgehammer to it,
And if you want to use that engine, you got
to stop the person taking the sledgehammer to it before

(19:33):
you can even start talking about what you want to
use the engine for. What standards men should uphold, how
a happy wife makes a happy life, and all of
this other stuff. Okay, did you want to add anything
to that or should we actually get to a time.

Speaker 1 (19:47):
Let's get video.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
Okay, yeah, all right.

Speaker 4 (19:51):
The case that they have the most risk during warfare,
and it is I think that it's a fundamental unfairness
in society, not just an unfairness, but a great injustice
that women are allowed to vote on policies for warfare
that they then don't have to go fight. As much
as it upsets me that Congress can make laws and

(20:13):
exempt itself from them, it's just as much of an
injustice to me that Congress can do that as it
is an injustice to me that women can do this
to men.

Speaker 2 (20:25):
H Good, good framing. Okay, he's emphasizing that women have
the power, they are a threat to men, and men
are vulnerable to it. Let's see. You know, I don't
really have a lot of faith in Charlie as a
single instance of a good debater, but she's got a

(20:47):
lot on her side in terms of big guns, like
already universalized narratives. But let's see how she responds. Are
we at that point yet? Are we still in Andrews?

Speaker 1 (20:56):
I don't know. I have a worse it's in a bit.

Speaker 3 (20:59):
But okay, okay, I mean, so would you say that
only able bodied men under a certain age should be
allowed to vote.

Speaker 4 (21:12):
No because of what's called because of what's called fighting potential.
So the idea is just this. It may be extraordinarily
rare that you ever need to get somebody who's disabled
or very old or very infirm to fight in frontline combat,
but if you do, it's going to be men, and

(21:33):
the potential remains for men, and the potential is not
there for women.

Speaker 3 (21:37):
Do you do you think that men with significant disabilities
would be better frontline combatants than women?

Speaker 2 (21:43):
What the hell is this? Weeds?

Speaker 4 (21:47):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (21:47):
I mean's she's saying, like in this hypothetical, you know,
do you think that disabled guys are better fighters? It's irrelevant.
They were just drafted, that's the point. Yeah, it doesn't
matter has one leg. If they're like low enough on men,
and if there's like a seventy year old dude with
like one leg, they're going to draft him before they

(22:09):
draft any women. That's just the way it is.

Speaker 2 (22:12):
Yeah. And it's not again like, it's not about strength
like I was saying, it's about what we consider to
be expendable and what we're willing to have suffer for us. Now,
I don't know what the hell she's on about. What
what where are we in the time codes?

Speaker 1 (22:28):
Let me see let me reverse twenty thirty six.

Speaker 2 (22:31):
Twenty thirty six. Okay, so we've we've gone really far back.

Speaker 1 (22:37):
Can we go to no, it was like one sex
oh yeah right, twenty thirty secks.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Yeah, okay, yeah, but we were only only supposed to
go nineteen twenty eight.

Speaker 1 (22:47):
All right. Yeah, so let's got me jump ahead to
the next one. I one so yeah, yeah, it's like
way over here all right.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
So the frame before we get into it is basically
Andrews said that it's pretty much always going to be
men who are fighting in war, right, And he.

Speaker 1 (23:07):
Does say it's an injustice to send men to their deaths. Yes,
is an acknowledgment that there are people who can vote
for the fates of other people that take no that
they don't have to pay any checks that they're basically
filling out. And he compares them to congressmen who do that,

(23:28):
saying it's like when you have like, you know, warmongering
neocon rhinos that send people to the Middle East to
die to get oil or whatever the narrative is, and
they don't themselves have to do it, And this is
the same thing.

Speaker 2 (23:44):
Yeah, yep, I think that this is an excellent like
I think Andrew's really doing well for in the men's issues.
Fraim right. I think that from a very bluepilled conservative perspective,
they would say, because men have this ability, they owe
it to societies. But I'm talking about working within the

(24:09):
context of female like like feminist framework. But anyway, let's
let's keep going see what what Charley has to say.

Speaker 3 (24:18):
To that the men in Ukraine feel about it, because
I do think that there are often men with very
uh you know, strong ideas about chivalry who would say
that's my duty, sure, agree to.

Speaker 4 (24:36):
Carry on our co Yeah, I completely agree.

Speaker 3 (24:38):
Women need to go because that's that's very much.

Speaker 4 (24:40):
What would that have to do with the justice of
it all or the injustice of it all?

Speaker 3 (24:44):
Well, there's no justice in that. That's not that's not just.

Speaker 4 (24:47):
And so the thing is that.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
So she's trying to like she was trying to basically say, well,
men dying in war are using Ukraine. Because that's why
this is a bit of a gap. They were talking
about the Ukraine Russia conflict. And Andrew was pointing out that,
you know, because she was saying, well, we haven't done
a draft in like so many years. Was a little
bit before this, and he's like, well they did in Ukraine.

(25:14):
They just they're drafting people in the Ukraine right now.
There's guys that are, you know, on the front lines
that are like sixty plus years old, sixty five years old,
you know. And she's like, well, isn't that just chivalry?
So she was trying to say that men being drafted
to fight in a war when they're in their sixties
is just old. It's that old patriarchy again. And he

(25:36):
was like, that's not a commentary on whether or not
it's just or unjust, right, you're just saying you're trying
to blame men for this.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
So exactly, Yeah, she's trying to reframe whip men's agency
and reframe blame away from women. Yepkay, that's what she's
trying to do. She's trying to maintain that threat narrative.
Men are to blame and they're a threat and they
have no vulnerabilities. So let's see how all right, let's

(26:07):
see how.

Speaker 1 (26:07):
Well, let me see what is this forty five twenty one?
There's still a little bit more we haven't actually no,
that's the end of that clip, but I could play
more if you want to. Sure again and there's Charlie
saying that she would vote against the drafts. I can
jump ahead to that.

Speaker 2 (26:24):
Let's let's see what Andrew has to say.

Speaker 3 (26:26):
I'm curious, all right for the practical these sorts of
votes to pass. Is it a woman in power that
is making these things happen?

Speaker 4 (26:34):
Well, in a democracy, yes, aren't all women.

Speaker 2 (26:37):
In the power.

Speaker 1 (26:39):
And yeah, so she's now see first, let's just see
you guys see what she's doing. First she tries to
blame it on chivalry, which is basically another way of
blaming it on men. That doesn't work. Then she tries
to blame it on oh, well, who are the people
you know in the big house that are like that
are in power, that are actually like sending these men

(26:59):
to war? Because another thing feminists do is they'll say, well,
it's men in the in positions of government that send
men to war, so it's obviously not my problem. And
he's like, no, women vote for these people, which is like,
it is true. I mean men also vote for these people.
But I think in general, when people are casting their ballots,
men are at least aware that if they vote for

(27:22):
a warmonger it could be a problem for them at
least personally, right, women, I don't think they think about
that as much. Now as long as the guy's promising, Gibbs,
it doesn't matter. Right, Like Obama got elected twice and
he was grown striking the Middle East the whole time,
and nobody talks about it because it wasn't in the
media or anything. But women voted for him because they

(27:44):
wanted to be the person that voted for the black
guy that time. So they made history. But you know,
and I think that it's it's it is an important
thing to point out.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yeah, and I mean what she's what again, what she's
trying to do is just reframe it to blame men
and threaten Okay, let's let's keep going.

Speaker 4 (28:06):
All right, No, no, you don't have the power to vote.

Speaker 3 (28:11):
I can vote, but the people who are deciding.

Speaker 4 (28:14):
What I can then you have equal power to men.

Speaker 3 (28:17):
Certainly, yes, the men of of of my status, but
you know, not the lawmakers, not the politician you voted for.

Speaker 2 (28:24):
Okay, here's what's here's what's so infuriating with this camp,
with this particular framing. The vote is so important. You
don't mean anything in society unless you have the vote. Well,
you are equally responsible, if not more responsible, for using
your vote to vote in warmongers. Oh no, the vote

(28:44):
isn't meaningless. It's not it's not worth anything. It just
as soon as this thing that you want it actually
means that you are going to be responsible for something,
Suddenly it's meaningless. So which is it? Is the vote
meaningless therefore getting the vote didn't give you any power?

(29:05):
Or is the vote meaningful therefore you are responsible for
what you're doing with your vote. You see how they
frame this. It's infuriating. Okay, I don't think we're going
to get through many of these, all.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
Right, you when you get to the next one, yeah,
let's get the rest of this jumped to the next one.

Speaker 2 (29:25):
Jump to the next one, because we're done the rest
of this, all right.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
So the next one is her saying, well, I wouldn't
vote for this, which is another dumb argument because it
doesn't matter. So fifty three fifty five right here, we'll
just move forward like ten seconds, all.

Speaker 3 (29:46):
Right, either of you being called in a draft to
go to the front lines to fight slim to none.

Speaker 1 (29:56):
However, she's saying, I wouldn't. The odds of you guys
getting drafted are slint to none, which is a lie.
It is a lie because if the government needs men
bat bodies badly enough, they will draft men of whatever age.
I could be drafted, even though I'm not in shape
or anything. But if they need it badly enough, like

(30:18):
in Ukraine. That's like that's the primary example, then they
will do it.

Speaker 2 (30:23):
Yeah. And the other thing is, the other thing is, okay,
they will draft men who are outside of what you
would expect to combat aged men for. But the other
thing is, there are men still alive who were subjected
to the draft, right, there are men who still remember

(30:45):
this this injustice? Okay, there aren't. There are what ten
women alive who still remember a time without women having
the vote, And yet we are supposed to submit to
the land acknowledgment when it comes to the vote and
women and just handwave something that has happened in living

(31:10):
memory to men. Soon. I'm saying, it's like, there's this
complete hypocrisy here. She could meet men who were subject
to the draft, Andrew's never going to meet a woman
who wasn't able to vote, Certainly not a woman who
wasn't able to vote by the time she hit eighteen.
Like maybe you'd meet a woman who was like, oh,

(31:32):
my mother wasn't able to vote, But you will not
meet a woman who could not vote at some point
in her life at this point in time. And yet
you can meet a man who was forced to drop
everything in his life, forced to let go of all
of his hopes for themselves and his plans for himself,
and go and fight in a war that you know,

(31:53):
in retrospect made very little sense. Okay, And that's the difference.
And yet we can't reckon recognize the draft as an
injustice that men face. But we have to constantly, oh,
we're sorry women didn't have the vote. They didn't have
the vote. They got the vote when when universal suffrage
for all men was created, but not before then. You know,

(32:15):
like we have to constantly be like, oh, yeah, we
need to we need to make reparations for the time
that women didn't have the vote. And it's it's now
a century away, but we can't even consider the time
that men were subject to the draft, even though it's
not a century away, it's within living memory. Okay, all right, yeah,

(32:37):
I'm done.

Speaker 3 (32:38):
Uh, slim to none. However, I am against the draft,
and I would support I would support any motion legal
motion to remove the draft.

Speaker 4 (32:48):
Can I just vote for that?

Speaker 3 (32:49):
I would use my power as a woman.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
That's very nice, that's very nice. But again, you are
going to bring up women's lack of a vote as
historic injustice, as a bludgeon to derive clout and access
to resources today. And yet you will not contend with
the fact that it's a much much less far back

(33:17):
in time and justice that men are still alive who
are subjected to this. You won't contend to that with
that at all. You'll just completely ignore. Oh, it's not
going to have there's no good to well, women are
unlikely to lose the vote, to be honest, because they'd
have to vote for it, So there you go. But
men are far more likely to end up in a draft,
and they have memories of having been subjected to the draft,

(33:39):
and you're just hand waving that. Okay, mm hmm, all right,
let's see what I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (33:46):
Even if that's the case, that's nice that you say that, right,
But our global leaders are never going to get rid
of the draft because their military, their military advisors tell
them not to because it's a huge weapon for mobilization
of military force. If you need so we're never gonna
get rid of it. That's just a fucking pipe drain.

Speaker 1 (34:04):
You know.

Speaker 2 (34:04):
What's happened instead is that they're making the draft more
and more invisible. So you get put on a list.
Whenever you interact with any citizenship benefits, like getting a
driver's license or registering to vote or a passport, you
get put on a draft without your knowledge and without

(34:24):
your consent as a man. That's what they did in Canada.
This is Canadians are like, oh, we don't even have
selective service, bitch, you have selective service. You just don't
know it, because Canadian men are put on a list
without being told, and this is what you know. They say, oh,
we got rid of selective service in the draft. No,
there's I don't think I would suspect there is no

(34:47):
government that has ever truly gotten rid of selective service.
They've just hidden it. They don't have to deal with
the questions it brings up and the arguments. They don't
want to have to deal with the potential of men
protesting it, so they just hide it. Ugh, okay, all right.

Speaker 3 (35:12):
So remove women's ability to vote and then we'll never
go to war. Is that you're thinking no.

Speaker 4 (35:17):
I'm saying that this injustice and unfairness. And by the way,
like when you bring up you say, well, what about
sixty year olds? They can't be drafted? Okay, but they
could have been when they were in their twenties and
signed up to the draft in which you didn't have to,
So their potential was already there and exhausted. They already
had to go through that stage of life where their
number could be called and yours couldn't. So yeah, they

(35:38):
still get the benefit. They still did the thing that
you guys will never fucking do. They still did it.

Speaker 2 (35:43):
Yeah. Well, here's the thing. Here's the thing, Charlie, keep
your vote, but get rid of the narrative that you're
a victim relative to men. Keep your vote, ladies, but
no longer can you conte in you to assert victimhood
relative to men. How about that? Okay, how about you

(36:07):
just acknowledge the injustice. That's what Andrews is chaying. Just
acknowledge the injustice. We don't have to talk about. Well
you shouldn't have that means you want to get rid
of women's you're reframing the injustice in terms of harm
to women instead of acknowledging the injustice to men. That's
what she's doing, and she's trying to silence it because
she doesn't want She got the threat narrative. You've got

(36:30):
to minimize Ben's vulnerability. You've got to maximize their threat
and their negative intent and agency. And that's how it goes.
And that's what she's doing. So she's hanging on too,
with both fists and her monkey toes. All right.

Speaker 1 (36:45):
Again like that, Andrew's not actually debating to take the
vote away. He's using it as an example of female privilege. Yes,
that's what that's what the point is. It's to sort
of like blow that whole thing up, right, So I
got a couple superchows. The fish got nukes, gave us
five dollars superchow and says, badgers, please get right with Jesus.

(37:07):
Time is running short. I want to see you guys
up there. Also, you by now must realize the Nineteenth
must be repealed to save Western civilization and it's not
going to happen, So just get right with Jesus. Thank
you go badgers, Thank you Fish. Appreciate the message, and
uh yeah, I mean look, I don't think the Nineteenth

(37:29):
is going anywhere. I like, it's a meme as far
as I'm concerned, but it does pits off feminists, so
I have fun with it, but it's not going anywhere,
you know. But maybe, like if we're having the thing is,
I think that Andrew does this for the same reasons
that I do it. I bring it up because it's
worth talking about just how much accountability, no consequence, there

(37:54):
is to women's actions. And that's like a really obvious
one we can talk because about that abortion, you know,
child abuse, things like this. And the thing is is
that something that's very rock solid that is inarguable is
the draft and the vote. So, like, you know, because

(38:16):
without the draft, I mean, if you don't get a draft,
if you don't sign up for the draft, you are
subject as a man to lots of penalties, one of
which is you can't vote. So men don't get the
vote if they don't sign up. Women get the vote
by default. So literally, men actually have less of the
right to vote. Not that the vote is a right,

(38:36):
because it's not, but they have less of access to
the vote than women do. And talking about it in
this way is a way to get people to think
about it, because we take this for granted all the time,
so when you talk about it, you just put it
in their head to think about. So that's the goal.
Why I joking, you know, joke about the Nineteenth all

(38:57):
the time. I don't think it's going because women would
actually have to vote for that, and I don't think
that's gonna happen.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
If any point women actually vote for that, I think
the problem is probably solved.

Speaker 1 (39:11):
Yeah, if it gets to the point where women are
willing to vote for it, then that means that we've
solved the problem exactly.

Speaker 2 (39:16):
Yeah, but uh, sorry for leaving. I had I wanted
to get myself a glass of water, or actually I
think I'm getting void cat a glass of water, but
hopefully I'll get a few SIPs in before she decides
to take it over.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
All right, let's continue, all right, next super Child, I
get to the super Chow from Richard Beere for five dollars,
and he says, instead of taking the right to vote
away from women, just have the candas owns podcasts about
whatever conspiracy theory of the week is running. On election day.
The women will be too riveted to the podcast to
show up to the polls. Not exactly, voter suppression either,

(39:51):
Thank you, Richard. Yes, I get it. I get the joke.
I see what you did there. Okay, So let's do
you want me to play the rest of this. Let
him make his point.

Speaker 2 (40:02):
Let him make his point, all right, yeah, and then
I will I will do the summation of this particular
argumentative argumentation.

Speaker 1 (40:11):
Okay, moving on to the next thing.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
No, no, no, but let him finish the point here.

Speaker 1 (40:16):
Okay, okay, all right, let's play it.

Speaker 4 (40:17):
The thing is so, the thing is is like it
just stands like this to reason, right, it doesn't matter
if the eighteen year old never gets called to a draft.
The potential is only there that he will. And you
can't get mad at him later because he still maintains
voting rights or certain rights that you don't get, because
he still went through the process of signing up for
the draft and had the potential to be called and

(40:37):
you never did.

Speaker 2 (40:39):
Okay, right there, bam m hm bam, yeah, you win.

Speaker 1 (40:44):
I would have I would have driven a home a
different way. I would have said, you, you can't you
you can't get mad at him because he didn't go
to war and die and could no longer vote. Because
that's another thing. Too, right. A man who is draft
and goes to war and dies there, well he doesn't
get to vote. I mean he can well, in some

(41:05):
elections he might get to vote. He might get to
vote for Biden, but like in general, he's on people,
he's not supposed to be able to vote because he's dead.
So I would have pointed out that like getting drafted
or like being signed up for the draft is not
something to be taken lightly, because what these people do
is they they they sort of handwave it like, well,

(41:27):
we haven't had a draft in a long time. And
if you say, well they're doing it right now, well
you know you're gonna get all the glory or or
something right, or you're not gonna see action, or you're
not gonna you know. It's always like, how do I
take these these situations that have like as much a
risk of death or dismemberment or PTSD or other kind

(41:49):
of harm as there is none, and just make like
try to minimize that damage. So, yeah, a woman gets
the vote, A man who gets drafted may not vote
because he may not come back alive. So that that's
why I would put it, or at least try to
like put a fine point on.

Speaker 2 (42:06):
Yeah, and ultimately I would have put it, Okay, we
live in a we live in a time period where
you can talk to men who have been subject to
the draft. You there's no women alive who weren't able
to vote. Okay, So why is it that one thing
you're you're saying that one thing is more important, or
you're going to use the vote as a bludgeon to

(42:28):
assert moral dominance and demand tithe, but you refuse to
acknowledge the more recent tragedy and the more recent disenfranchisement. Okay,
let's go to the next Oh wait, before we do that,
let me do the summation. Here we go, all right,
winner Andrew also partially men's rights frame as well, or

(42:49):
at least a dual win for Andrew and the men's
rights frame. He forces recognition of a uniquely male burden, right,
and he forces her to recognize that it is a
situation where women have power over men and do not
face the same sacrifice. Charlie's attempt to generalize, general generalize war,
generalize the suffering of war doesn't fully erase that recognition. Right,

(43:14):
this is this is this is actually perplexity, I asked,
perplexity based on this framework, who won in this case?
Andrew and us? Hey, go as at least yeah, okay?
Play three is the illusory.

Speaker 1 (43:31):
Illusory benefits of war, illusory.

Speaker 2 (43:34):
Benefits of war. Let's do it.

Speaker 1 (43:38):
All, right, fifty one? Just check it here again, just
double check fifty one, fifty five. So right here.

Speaker 4 (43:53):
It's a huge injustice that one proportion of the population
has the potential to always fight wars on behalf of
the the other the other doesn't have to fight it
gets all the benefits of them doing it, right, And
we're supposed to just be like, well, okay, then the bench, No,
that's not okay.

Speaker 3 (44:09):
Then the benefits like having your male family members die
potential wartime rape if your country is.

Speaker 4 (44:16):
The benefits if you did you hear that?

Speaker 2 (44:18):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (44:19):
Did you hear that? That was the Hillary Clinton thing.
You know, Women are the vict primary victims of war
because their husbands, brothers, fathers, and sons all die.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
Women are the primary victims of war because their oppressors die. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (44:35):
Does their oppressors die? Right?

Speaker 2 (44:37):
Yeah? No, not in the context of your framing of
the relationship between men and women. Dear, are we at
fifty two nineteen yet?

Speaker 1 (44:46):
Or I just I just backed up a little bit.
I want to hear it again. But let's let's see.

Speaker 4 (44:50):
It's all the benefits of them doing it right, and
we're supposed to just be like, well, okay. Then it's
like yeah, fuck that, No, that's not okay.

Speaker 3 (44:58):
Then the benefits like having your male family members die,
potential wartime rape if your country.

Speaker 4 (45:04):
Is the benefits of you not being fucking occupied and
being able to get all your resources.

Speaker 2 (45:09):
Yes, yeah, okay. And then here's another benefit. All right,
here's another benefit. Okay. As a result of World War two,
the US was established as the world reserve currency, which
you know, you know, there's a few steps in between,
you know, there's you know, a couple of steps. Question mark.

(45:30):
She gets an avocado job, avocado toast job. She gets
to pretend to have some kind of marketable skill with
her I don't know women studies masters, right, or what
is a political science? I don't know what she got
it in. But she she gets to protect she gets
to have a life without men, without men's support. Like

(45:51):
that was a benefit of World War two, you know,
for for you know, for the West, I would say,
but also the US being the world reserve currency, allowing
for a situation where you can have massive government deficits
that employ women like this. Now, I think most people

(46:15):
on this channel would not regard that as a benefit,
and she probably doesn't even understand what I'm talking about.
But to elaborate on it's basically an elaboration on Andrew's
point that women enjoy the bonus of additional resources acquired
through war. I think in the and Sumer, I think

(46:36):
it was Sumer, or at least one of those really
old civilizations, the word for war was the same word
as more cattle. Right, Oh yeah, and ethnographers who've looked at,
or an anthropologist who looked at historically in society, it's resources.

(46:57):
Societies go to war over resources. Okay, So if you're
part of a successful society who's gone to war over resources,
if you're a woman in that society, you are going
to benefit. You are going to get additional resources, and
in certain time periods we will get you know, a
couple slave women to do your work for you, that

(47:20):
kind of thing. So, yes, women did benefit from war.
They benefited immensely from war, which is probably why they
continued to teach boys and young men that that was
an essential component of their identity. I mean, in addition
to the natural like men, like most male social mammals
do defend their social group. Like that's that, But you

(47:42):
know there's also the socialization on top of that to
who you're supposed to defend, right, So that there's women
have been part of this from the beginning. They've been
benefiting it from the beginning. And the other thing is
that this discussion always revolves around war. But this instinct
that men have that gets exploited in war is also

(48:04):
useful for building skyscrapers, tunneling under the Thames, you know,
creating the Hoover Dam, piloting the Edmund Fitzgerald over like
one of the Great Lakes. You know that this desire
to protect and endure hardship for your social group has
a lot more benefits than soldiering and men going to war.

(48:29):
In fact, I would argue that war is an exploitation
of that instinct. So it's like we use men to
solve political political conflicts. In the current era, we use
men to solve those kinds of conflicts, Like it's a
failure of societies to solve these problems, so they send
their sons to war. And it makes it make them

(48:50):
feel like it's but there are other ways that we
use men men's expendability, and war shouldn't be separated from
all of that other stuff. It shouldn't be separated from
how we say, sacrifice men to maintain our infrastructure. Like
it shouldn't be separated from the men who died building
the Hoover gem or died building a skyscraper, or died
tunneling under the Thames. You know, it shouldn't be separated

(49:11):
from those sacrifices because it's all the same thing. It's
just so happens that we also sacrifice men to solve
political disputes and get more resources as societies. So I mean,
do you see what I'm saying. It's like this shouldn't
be separated. This is all part of the same continuity, right.

Speaker 1 (49:27):
Yeah, I mean I don't think Andrew would disagree with
any of that.

Speaker 2 (49:30):
Oh I'm not even I'm not saying it to Andrew.

Speaker 1 (49:32):
Oh okay, yeah, I mean maybe, Like I said, I
think that the conversation about war and the draft is
the one that has the finest, most clear point, like
the like the least the hardest to disagree with. It's
the strongest point, but all those other points are also true.

(49:52):
But I mean, like women like Charlie will weasel around
them anyway.

Speaker 2 (49:56):
And she's saying that women do not benefit from men
going to war.

Speaker 1 (50:01):
Right, even if women.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
Don't benefit from men going to war specifically, they benefit
from the social phenomenon or the evolutionary or whatever the cycle,
whatever you want to call it, that men sacrifice for
the benefit of their social groups. They benefit from it
in other circumstances, and you can't take those circumstances away

(50:23):
from also using men expendability or expending men in solving
political problems. That's what I'm saying. So even if she
can argue, oh, women don't benefit from war, women sure
as hell benefit from clean water, they benefit from electricity,
they benefit from natural gas, nuclear like fossil fuels, all
of this stuff which is maintained by men. And it's

(50:46):
maintained because men are willing to take these risks, you know,
for for for money, for social work, but also just
to provide for their for their families. Right, So it's
all a continuum. War is just an extreme end of
that continuum. It's the most useless waste of men's willingness
to take on risk and hardship to protect others the

(51:09):
most useless waste. But it's on a continuum. So when
she says, oh, I don't benefit from war, while it's
not just war we're talking about, is it. It's every
circumstance where men expend themselves in order protect and provide
for others. That's what I'm saying. I'm pointing it at Charlie,
not an Andrew Bryan.

Speaker 1 (51:28):
Oh, I'm just saying, like that further strengthens our position.
Is all saying, yeah, okay, so should I play more
of this or jump ahead to the next thing?

Speaker 2 (51:40):
Jump ahead to the next thing.

Speaker 1 (51:41):
All right, So the next thing is arguing Charlie arguing
almost no one benefits except ultra wealthy women suffer two,
which I think we just did. That's fifty two. Actually, no,
we're getting on it now.

Speaker 3 (51:57):
So let me play this occupied and what that means
is that a good chunk of the money that we
make will be going on.

Speaker 4 (52:03):
I assure you you're wrong. I assure you that if
you refuse to go to war, you will be occupied.

Speaker 3 (52:10):
We will also be again if if if our country
goes to war, any country that votes to go to war,
there's a chance that they could be invaded and their
women could be subjected to uh war time essay again also, but.

Speaker 1 (52:26):
That is not yeah, after the men are dead.

Speaker 2 (52:30):
Yeah, after the men are dead. Yeah, that's a risk
that you take for war.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
That's not it's a risk we take for being alive.
Like just like sorry, like the world is not safe.

Speaker 2 (52:45):
Yeah, Also men get raped in war.

Speaker 1 (52:47):
Friends, like the only only a person who lives in
the first world, like Charlie, that where they're so safe
and so comfortable. Can they look at the idea of
of this potential outcome of like being invaded, conquered and
then you know, taken in by the invading force and
being like basically made to integrate, which is what happens

(53:11):
to the women generally, Like even in an enemy invading
force values women's like the life of a woman more
than the yes, obviously, like they'll at least keep them
because they're like, well, we can use them, you know.
And of course she'll say, well, that's worse than dying,
Like no, I mean it's and look I'm not trying

(53:34):
to make light of it, but it's it's if only
you can be so comfortable that you can't look at
that dispassionately and stoically and say, well, this is like
this is a reality that we have to live with.
You know. It's like it's like never having been exposed
to crime and then saying crime shouldn't exist.

Speaker 2 (53:53):
Yeah right, yeah, well, I mean she can say that,
it's just that she can't she can't see well, okay,
so yes, this is a risk that societies take. And
if the situation happens that a society ends up losing
all of its sons and gets invaded, well, first of all,
you know, do women really do women really really do

(54:18):
that badly when they're invaded? I seem to recall some
like in in uh journals or diaries of French women,
how when the Germans managed to invade their country in
the in the forties World War two, how they described

(54:40):
how the french Men who had lost were so furtive
and and failed, you know, and then it was like
rodent men and then the big wild, strong, uh you know,
like Barb, you know, big wild, strong, confident German men,
and they're like oh la lah, you know, like do

(55:02):
they really do they really lose out that much? I mean,
in some societies they did so for example in Germania,
like back in like the the back in ancient Rome,
you know, with with those kinds of societies there, for

(55:25):
whatever reason, if you won, you killed everyone, you sacrificed
everyone to wotan. You never threw everyone in the swamp.
So they evolved this thing where if you failed on
the battlefield, the women would kill the fleeing men, then
killed their children, then kill themselves to avoid capture. So
you know, maybe in that society you can say women

(55:47):
really suffered with see the same degree that men did
with war. But you know, you know, I'm not saying no,
it's not that fringe. It had a pretty big influence
on Romans and also on European history. Like we're talking
about a fairly large population body, and but we I

(56:07):
don't want to necessarily get in that. I don't, But
that's not what she's talking about. It's it's the whole.
Like Hillary Quinton, women are the biggest victims of war,
like you mentioned, like all the un talking about how
women are the biggest victims of war because they're the
ones who end up in the refugee camps. And let's go,
where are the men ah raped and dead in a ditch.

Speaker 1 (56:30):
Yeah, men got raped too, you know.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
Yes, And actually some of the studies, one study from
the Congo found, actually, what would it's a surprising amount
of rape by women in wartime something like I think
I think it was ten percent of men were raped
by women, and you know that's got to be higher.
And forty percent of women were raped by women in wartime.

(56:57):
Just it's it's higher than you would think. Okay, so
when she's talking about all women are going to be
invaded and well, you may not always be raped by
the male invaders, lady, you might also find yourself with
the unwonted attentions of you know, of a female invader

(57:19):
as well. Okay, let's keep going. Oh wait, wait, this
is done.

Speaker 1 (57:24):
Isn't it. No, No, it's not, You're not done.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
Keep going.

Speaker 3 (57:28):
The times of war. Things are tough, Your resources are
are not there. People starved during wartime. There is very
few people who actively benefit from war except for the
ultra wealthy.

Speaker 4 (57:42):
Yeah, but do you understand that the case in point
is that it's going to be men who are going
to do this. And when you say things that are
they just sound absurd to me, like there's no guarantee
that you still won't be occupied even if you send
them in off to war. It's like, so what, you're
still sending the men off to war, and yeah, you

(58:03):
just don't ever have that potent, Like that's nothing you
ever have to worry about. When you go down and
you sign up to vote, you don't have to sign
a draft card, like you don't. You don't get let's
put it this way.

Speaker 2 (58:14):
Let's put it this way. Okay. A society sends its
sons off to war and wins. Women get the benefit
of the resources. A society signs its sons off and loses.
The society gets invaded. Everybody in that society suffers. But
in both cases, men are suffering, right.

Speaker 1 (58:37):
Yeah, yeah, she's trying to do it too wrong. People
of who cares.

Speaker 2 (58:41):
But society wins, society wins, men suffer. Even when the
society wins, men suffer. When the society went loses, women
also suffer. But that's the outcome that you don't want.
And she's trying to pretend that that's equal. It isn't.

Speaker 1 (58:59):
Okay, all right, let me look at the time code here.

Speaker 2 (59:03):
I think we're done with this, Like.

Speaker 1 (59:05):
I don't know, Yeah, that's done, so okay.

Speaker 2 (59:11):
All right, let's do the let's do the analysis here, Okay.
Illusionary benefits of war, Charlie says only the ultra wealthy benefit,
which flattens sects distinctions and contribution. It dilutes the idea
that men as a women is a class free wide
on men's sacrifice. If the society wins, men have still suffered,
but women benefit. It only happens that women also suffer

(59:35):
if the society loses and maybe somewhat during the war
because of privation. Andrew and sists others, including women, benefit
from men's risks, highlighting male contribution, but again mostly a
sacrificial winner. Andrew narrowly he maintains a narrative of unique
male sacrifice. Charlie's everybody suffers elites only frame leans towards

(59:55):
erasing ordinary men's sacrifice role, but doesn't fully succeed Andrew one.
But had Charlie really put or had he not been
so on the ball about swatting away her nonsense around, oh,
but women also suffer and women aren't with you know,
the win, would not he would not have won. So

(01:00:17):
that's that's that's something to take away from this. Make sure,
they don't reframe it in terms of women have it worse,
and she was desperately trying to do that. I mean
desperately maybe is the wrong word, because her affect is
really too bored for the sinful earth kind.

Speaker 1 (01:00:34):
Of well, it's this, well, I think there's like trying
to send across this message of like why are you
making me expend energy to like obviously slap down your
argument with these like overused, you know, kind of tropy
cliche responses like well, women are the biggest victims of war, well,

(01:00:55):
you know, women would suffer also risks a lot as well,
and shit like that, Right, when everyone loses, women lose,
women lose two, therefore it's worse than when only men lose.

Speaker 2 (01:01:10):
Yeah, okay, so let's uh so, let's go to the
next one. I will, I will get my document out of.

Speaker 1 (01:01:18):
Here, Crime and Violence.

Speaker 2 (01:01:20):
Crime and Violence three plays, Play four men is the
default threat, and then play five is crime without context.
Oh oh no, that's in hipocrious. Play six responsibility without repair.
Let's go for men's default threat because I think that's
got the big relevance to us. All right, so is silence? Okay,

(01:01:45):
ready grist and ready I think they're pulling very.

Speaker 4 (01:01:50):
Very old. It's not just that. Think about here in
the United States, you're going to get a tank through
Michigan in the wintertime. I don't think so. I don't
think that's now. I don't think so. So the thing is.

Speaker 2 (01:01:59):
Thirty one yeah, okay, all right, let's go.

Speaker 4 (01:02:05):
A lot of strength, regardless of technology, and even utilizing
technology requires a lot of physical strength. Tanks require loading
from shells, carrying tons of shells, carrying tons of equipment
and ammunition, and not only that, you have to be
more resistant to the elements, and men are Men are
more resistant to elements than women are, and so they

(01:02:25):
have kind of everything going for them. They're they're the
super soldier, and they were designed basically to be super soldiers.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
Right, that's me I thought you might.

Speaker 1 (01:02:36):
All right, so this is there's a little bit more
of it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:40):
Okay, sure we can finish that.

Speaker 3 (01:02:42):
If you have an exaggerated idea of what the average
starving Russian farm boy might look like.

Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
I think okay, no, start, lady, lady, sir, Why am
I saying, sir? The average starving Russian farm boy is
going to still be stronger than the average starving Russian
farm girl. That's his point. All right, let's go to
where Charlie, because this is what's freaking weird. She insists
that men don't have this physical strength differential right, that

(01:03:14):
they're not somehow physically stronger or more capable of doing
these things. Maybe that's the issue. She's fine with recognizing
that men are hulking morons who are physically strong, but
not that they are capable of using that for any
kind of benefit to women or society. But anyway, go
back to six point fifty one where she.

Speaker 1 (01:03:33):
So this is actually before Andrews's commons.

Speaker 2 (01:03:36):
It's yeah, yeah, I know, it's it's like, uh, but
it's a little bit back.

Speaker 4 (01:03:43):
And forth, like checkpoints, state mandated garments, state removing media
independent media in order to have state messaging. I think
of those types of things, and those were all the
things that I saw during the Wawns from the side
of the leftist, progressive and the feminist side, and they

(01:04:06):
all seem to be in pretty good unison there, and
it seems like all that did was limit choice.

Speaker 2 (01:04:11):
And so are we in maybe this is an incorrect
time code. Are we in six fifty one?

Speaker 1 (01:04:16):
Now we're at seven eleven, but I started at like
six point forty something, so, huh, this.

Speaker 2 (01:04:22):
Looks like COREL made a mistake. Okay, let me let
me fix this. Let's go to crime without context. Yeah,
sorry about that, guys. We'll see if I can get
COREL to fix.

Speaker 3 (01:04:36):
That's what the majority of warfare is now, bombs, drones,
gorilla stuff.

Speaker 4 (01:04:44):
War will always come down after you get past the
technological barriers. So if you have a first world nation
attacking third world nation, sure right, they're left with gorilla warfare.
We use massive amounts of technology to level major cities
things like this, and then setting in occupying four worse,
they fight the occupying force with guerrilla warfare. That's true.
But when it comes to first world nations, that's different.

(01:05:07):
They have technology, they're gonna blow the hell out of
each other, right, But then when they blow up each
other's technology, it still comes down to infantry based combat.
Why do you think they train people to be infantrymen?
Because it still comes down to that. And there's lots
of places you can't get technology. You can't always get
technology in the deep dark jungle, or in the high
deserts or in the snow covered your fields. And planes.

Speaker 2 (01:05:28):
All right, looks like looks like this is a little
bit like the time codes here are not working properly.
So why don't we skip to the third one, which
is responsibility without repair?

Speaker 1 (01:05:42):
Okay, okay, yeah, thirty five forty male responsibility and self control.

Speaker 2 (01:05:49):
Yeah, I'll try to get coral up.

Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
Yeap coral.

Speaker 3 (01:05:58):
If we needed to get them as buff as the average.

Speaker 4 (01:06:00):
Yeah, but you see the whole matter we were if.

Speaker 3 (01:06:02):
We were desperate for it, we could start giving women
tea and they would get pretty jacked pretty quickly.

Speaker 4 (01:06:07):
Yeah. Do you see the issue there?

Speaker 1 (01:06:09):
Though?

Speaker 4 (01:06:09):
That should be pretty obvious right away.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
Why I would be forcing someone to take eight?

Speaker 4 (01:06:14):
No, no, no, that's not the issue. The issue is it's like,
why wouldn't you just give it to the men.

Speaker 3 (01:06:19):
Because now the astron of men just turns into estrogen,
which is why people looking to transition to uh, you know,
have more male secondary sex characteristics. They have to be
careful about the dosa just testosterron they take, otherwise it
loops around and turns back into ask.

Speaker 4 (01:06:34):
Sure, but if it's a but if it's a case,
you're looking for a strength differential, right, Most men are
short on testosterone anyway, and you can give them TRT.

Speaker 3 (01:06:42):
Why not give it?

Speaker 4 (01:06:43):
That's that's one, but two for women, TRT in its
effects and changes and your physical body would take years,
doesn't take weeks.

Speaker 2 (01:06:51):
Oh, what's okay. Ultimately this provides a little bit of background, right,
But what she's arguing is that men's men don't have
useful strength. But later on she argues that men are threatening.
Do you get what I'm saying? Physically threatening? So she
recognizes that men are strong when it it involves being

(01:07:15):
presented as a physical threat, but she refuses to recognize
that that strength might be beneficial. We can go to
one fifty.

Speaker 1 (01:07:24):
Nine fifty all right, one fifty Yeah, all right, fucking
thing is like six hours.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
Yes, yes, they're worse than us.

Speaker 1 (01:07:40):
Yeah, all right, yeap.

Speaker 3 (01:07:46):
Opportunity in trying to not make judgments on someone on
the basis side.

Speaker 4 (01:07:52):
I think it's fine for people to make judgments, of course.

Speaker 3 (01:07:55):
You know, like if I am walking down the street
at night and I see a large group of rowdy
twenties something men, I'm gonna be like a little bit
like anxious, you know, I'm gonna be like, well, they're
rowdy young men. That could be potentially dangerous.

Speaker 1 (01:08:08):
Okay, all right, wait he's gonna say.

Speaker 4 (01:08:15):
Men.

Speaker 2 (01:08:16):
I know, we'll get into that later. Okay, I just
want to point that out. This is what she does
men strength. Men's strength can only be recognized when it's
a threat to women in society. It cannot be recognized
in terms of its benefit. You notice that, mm hmm, yeah, yeah,

(01:08:39):
that's that's what's ridiculous about this. And of course she
would even though she insists that men are dangerous and
we should be able to discriminate against them because they're dangerous,
she doesn't acknowledge that that very dangerousness that she says
she's afraid of is useful in war, or might be

(01:09:02):
useful in dealing with risky and difficult circumstances. You know.
So she can't allow men anything even the necessary other
side of the coin to what she does insist men are,
which is dangerous and threatening. It's incredibly hypocritical. Let's say,

(01:09:27):
all right, yeah, so let's uh, let's go to the
I'll test these timecodes. I'm a little bit worried that
these are.

Speaker 1 (01:09:35):
Not Do you not want to hear where he brings
up where he will this.

Speaker 2 (01:09:40):
Is a separate category I do cover it like it's
in there. It's in the.

Speaker 1 (01:09:43):
Document, all right, all right, so let we get to
her response. Even no, no, no, go.

Speaker 2 (01:09:48):
To thirty five forty. Okay, yeah, we need like trying
to find.

Speaker 1 (01:10:00):
No, no, it's it's not come on, just it's fine.
We got this thirty five forty yeah, uh, what the hell?

Speaker 2 (01:10:08):
Sorry, it's okay. I know if jumps around, it's really annoying.

Speaker 3 (01:10:13):
Okay, all right, we were desperate for it. We could
start giving women tea and they would get pretty jacked
pretty quickly.

Speaker 4 (01:10:21):
Yeah. Do you see the issue there though, That should
be pretty awful.

Speaker 1 (01:10:24):
You just said this.

Speaker 2 (01:10:25):
Yeah, I know this is very strange.

Speaker 3 (01:10:27):
Take eight.

Speaker 4 (01:10:28):
No, no, no, that's not the issue. The issue is it's like,
why wouldn't you just give it to the men.

Speaker 1 (01:10:31):
No, this is the same sound.

Speaker 2 (01:10:33):
No no, no, no, let me play out. Let it
play out. Let it play out.

Speaker 5 (01:10:36):
All right, I'm gonna let play out because now you
of men just turns into estrogen, which is why people
looking to transition to uh you know, have more male.

Speaker 3 (01:10:48):
Secondary sex characteristics. They have to be careful about the
dosae of testoster from the table, otherwise it loops around
and turns back into ask.

Speaker 4 (01:10:54):
Sure, but if it's a but if it's a case,
you're looking for a strength differential, Right, most men are
short on testos run anyway, and you can give that's one,
but two for women, trt in its effects and changes
when your physical body would take years doesn't take weeks, and.

Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
It's not going to change the fact that women don't
go through puberty with it. So and why is she
in Like literally, what she's saying is, let's give women
the thing that gives men the natural advantage that I
refuse to acknowledge in a positive sense, but definitely acknowledge
in a negative sense. I mean, this is just absurdity

(01:11:33):
at this point.

Speaker 1 (01:11:34):
Yeah, I mean, she just she just thinks that, like
a lot of these people, they just think that human beings,
you can just like alter our chemistry and it's fine,
Like you can just make women more like men and
make men more like women, and there's no like, it's
all just very interchangeable. It's like this, you know, like
the let's say the endpoint of the blank slate idea.

(01:11:55):
That's why she's casually saying, well, just put women onto
stosterone and they'll be strong like men. You know, just
put points in strength, like she plays video games, right,
just just just dump everything in strength and you'll be fine,
even if you made a you know, buddy type the
character and okay, it just doesn't work.

Speaker 2 (01:12:13):
That way, like yeah, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:12:15):
Like we have a nature, we have a biology, and
I think that and I don't know if that's just
her trying to like find a way out, you know,
of this corner that she's in, but yeah, it's it's
a problem. So all right, yeah, should I go next?

Speaker 2 (01:12:31):
Why don't we just finish that one off to see
where it takes us?

Speaker 1 (01:12:35):
So one eleven, wait, finish this one off or go back?

Speaker 2 (01:12:40):
No, not finish that one and we'll go back to
one twenty.

Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
Eight thirty six is only a few more seconds, okay,
years for your muscles to start to create.

Speaker 3 (01:12:49):
About this?

Speaker 4 (01:12:49):
It it does, It does. It definitely does.

Speaker 3 (01:12:54):
A very personal experience with this. It does.

Speaker 4 (01:12:57):
You became fifty percent stronger using TRT. He became equivalent
in strength to the average man using TRT.

Speaker 2 (01:13:04):
No, No, there's no I mean more muscles group.

Speaker 1 (01:13:08):
Okay, so she took the ring for a while. I
guess doesn't look like a friend though.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
One twenty eight eleven. Let's go to one.

Speaker 1 (01:13:16):
Twenty eleven is where where we.

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
Were, So one hour in twenty eight minutes eleven, that's
where we were. Okay. I don't know what's going on
with these times.

Speaker 3 (01:13:29):
Terrorist threat in the sense that there.

Speaker 4 (01:13:31):
Are fucking liberals it has I wish let I could
label feminists as a domestic terrorist organizam.

Speaker 2 (01:13:38):
They were, yeah, the weather underground anybody well, and also
the original suffragettes and their their activities. They're actually I
think they one of their activities bombing mailboxes, like putting
bombs in mailboxes actually to I think a death and

(01:14:02):
somebody losing their eye. So they were not they were
actually domestic ras and during a time of war too,
which generally meant if they had been men, they would
have taken out a dawn and shot, but because they
were women, they got away with it. Patriarchy. Okay, let's

(01:14:23):
keep going on this count code, all right?

Speaker 3 (01:14:26):
Would you deny that there have not been you know,
mass shooters motivated.

Speaker 4 (01:14:32):
By Do you deny that trans ideology as motivated mass shooters?
Do we label them as being domestic terrorists?

Speaker 2 (01:14:41):
No?

Speaker 3 (01:14:42):
I think no, No.

Speaker 4 (01:14:43):
We don't.

Speaker 3 (01:14:44):
But that's different. That's like an identity rather than a
problem to be solved.

Speaker 2 (01:14:49):
I think that what.

Speaker 1 (01:14:53):
Men are a problem to be solved, I guess.

Speaker 2 (01:14:56):
And when men commit mass shootings, it's because not be
because of identity, like trans people, it's because of them
being a problem that they need to be solved. Okay,
I don't I think that she's just I think she's
briefly switched her anus for her mouth. There you're just
listening to brain farts. But yeah, let's finish this one off.

(01:15:17):
Let's see what interest.

Speaker 1 (01:15:18):
Let me see what's left in it. So eight's like
another yeah, to be solved, or they'll say, wouldn't become
trans to begin with.

Speaker 4 (01:15:27):
They have a problem and they're trying to solve it.
It's not just a matter of identity. It's a matter
of problem.

Speaker 3 (01:15:32):
Solution, medication and surgery and whatnot. Whereas like involuntary celibates, I.

Speaker 4 (01:15:38):
Just feel like involuntary celibates also if it's a problem
to be solved, they get buffing fuck a check And
that's the same shit. Right, you have a problem, you're
solving it. They're just like the trans are having a problem,
they're solving it. That's from your view, isn't that the
same thing.

Speaker 3 (01:15:52):
Then why are all the men on the internet complaining
that they are loveless and can't find women.

Speaker 2 (01:15:56):
In Okay, wait, god, she's like a freaking she's a
digression machine. She's like, uh, well, uh in cells, and
then she doesn't even explain how that logic makes any sense,
and then she digresses again. Oh, men are lonely on
the internet. Okay, this individual, I mean there every is like, oh,

(01:16:20):
she hadn't know how to debate. This dividual doesn't know
how to think. She was failed in kindergarten.

Speaker 1 (01:16:30):
Yep. Okay, well, no, she's college educated or something. But
I mean that should be obvious, right, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:16:38):
That should be nothing really. Okay, so we've just finished responsibility. Yeah,
I'm going to get you another set of time codes,
and hopefully those ones aren't.

Speaker 1 (01:16:49):
I missed any super child's.

Speaker 2 (01:16:50):
Well yeah, take a look at that. Okay. So Charlie
focuses on male moral failure and toxicity. Men are framed
as problem without compensation compensating recognition of contributional Andrew's stresses
male duty and sin still keeps men under an external
standard with little acknowledgment of harm to them. Okay, admittedly
this seems like it was all very digressiony and difficult

(01:17:14):
to pull anything meaningful out. So it might just be
a situation where Andrew was directly responding to her strange digressions. Okay, Winner,
this is what perplexity says, Charlie. Her emphasis on men
is morally at fault plus lack of interest in male
costs advance a threat narrative with no space for uniquely
positive masculinity. Andrew's external standard frame is present but subordinate here.

(01:17:38):
So and it might just be because this was an
absolute salad of a debate, but this is what perplexity saw,
so take it for what you will.

Speaker 1 (01:17:50):
It's simply like recognizing that a standard exists on men,
the same as holding them to that standard. Like if
I said the reality is, this is like how things
are if I describe it as it is and not
an aught, I'm not promoting the is. I'm saying it exists.

(01:18:14):
That's what Andrew's doing here. He's not saying this is
how it should be. He's saying this is how it is.
He's not saying I think the AI is misdiagnosing. He's
misrepresenting Andrew's position.

Speaker 2 (01:18:27):
Okay, I know that you guys don't.

Speaker 1 (01:18:29):
But I'm I'm listening to this and he's not saying
men should go and die for people who don't like them.
He is saying the reality is this, and he's just
stating it right, And he's saying, this is why women
are privileged. That's what this whole thing is about. Right.
So maybe the AI thinks that Charlie why is fine,

(01:18:52):
But I think that I don't think Andrew is making
any prescriptive statements. He's just being descriptive.

Speaker 2 (01:19:03):
Yeah, that's fair enough. It could be a situation where
he's being descriptive, but it could also be a situation
that this particular part of the argument really didn't lend
itself to pointing things out, like where these criminals are
coming from, why they're motivated for doing what they're doing,
the rate at which women engage in similar levels of crime,
you know that kind of stuff. So I wouldn't. I

(01:19:25):
don't know if I'm going to hold it to this
because it's I feel like this became spaghetti in the middle.
So let's go to the next one. BodyCount real book.
Do you guys want to go through BodyCount rule book? Like,
I'm not too inclined towards it, but you know, well,
let's do it.

Speaker 1 (01:19:46):
Forty three.

Speaker 2 (01:19:47):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:19:48):
This thing bounces all over the place, doesn't it.

Speaker 2 (01:19:51):
Yeah, well, it's trying to pull out in a six
like a very long stream, a set of arguments that
are concise.

Speaker 1 (01:20:01):
No, I mean like they're.

Speaker 2 (01:20:05):
Blaming I'm not blaming Andrew for this, but it feels
like they sort of rotate in and out of like
an orbital window, and occasionally, you know, you get a
direct shot and something relates to other you know. It's
just I'm not sure that whatever podcast is really the
best format for getting stuff done. But but they are

(01:20:28):
very big, so what they're doing seems to be working
for a police, getting people thinking, okay, let's it's successful.

Speaker 1 (01:20:35):
So yeah, I really hate on that. All right, Oh boy,
it's like frozen. Hold on you for refresh it. Sure,
give me a second.

Speaker 2 (01:20:47):
Let's see what's going on with this one.

Speaker 3 (01:20:50):
Darry Celibates, I.

Speaker 1 (01:20:51):
Just feel like, all right, one forty three, let me
do check right, twenty seven three? I got it. Okay,
We're just gonna fast forward a little bit. Twenty three

(01:21:11):
thirty three, which.

Speaker 4 (01:21:12):
Is the STI is everywhere. The STI rate increases, right. Uh,
the fact of the matter is is that you have
women who have been you know, screwed by twenty or
thirty men and men who have screwed twenty or thirty women. Yeah,
that doesn't seem like it's very good for the moral
fabric of your society or for your society at all.
And so it's like, if we can, if we can

(01:21:33):
get rid of the thing you want, which is the
unwanted pregnancy, it seems like the unwanted pregnancies decrease when
you get rid of abortion. Anyway, m sounds like interesting,
big winner here.

Speaker 3 (01:21:43):
So we have like an.

Speaker 1 (01:21:46):
Yeah, that's not the whole thing. Yeah, basically the problems
with like it's time codes are a little off, like
they are later than the actual things starts.

Speaker 2 (01:22:02):
But yeah, yeah, let's let's hear what Charlie has to
say to that.

Speaker 3 (01:22:09):
All right, entire in cell movement that I think has
been labeled a domestic terrorist threat in the sense that there.

Speaker 4 (01:22:18):
Are fucking liberals it has. I wish, I wish that
we could label feminists as a domestic terrorist.

Speaker 2 (01:22:24):
Okay, so this is this is where the feminist So she.

Speaker 1 (01:22:27):
Basically tries to say, well, you know, this authority over
here said that in cells are a domestic terrorist threat.
That's her argument. I heard from organization that men who
are virgins are are a danger to society. And Andrew
counters with, well, I wish they had done that for feminists,

(01:22:48):
but of course the organization wouldn't do that for feminists.
They completely support feminism. Yeah, I actually have the being terrorists.

Speaker 2 (01:22:55):
So I actually had an extended discussion with Perplexity today
about that. And of course, as you guys know our
main well maybe you don't know, AI has a left
bias and GROC when I spoke when I was discussing
this with GROC, it's left bias. It revealed that AI

(01:23:16):
is trained by handlers, I guess you could say, and
those handlers punish AI when it gives responses that aren't
consistent with sociologies and feminist narrative. Basically, so when you're
working with an AI, you're always there's always this crust

(01:23:38):
of feminist informed thinking that you have to push through
and jail break it out of. And usually you have
to do that by focusing on what is the percentage
likelihood of this, keep to empirically sound sources, don't look
at people's feels and stuff like that. Every AI is
sort of has its own little particular sequence that you
have to go through to jail break it. But anyway,

(01:23:59):
after I did that with Perplexity, it admitted that there
is no actual science that supports feminist premises. So all
the un and institutional narrative that is promoting the manosphere
is some kind of evil. That's just an ideology defending itself,

(01:24:19):
an authoritarian ideology defending itself with no actual validity. That's
all it is. So of course it's not going to
declare itself a bunch of terrorists, because to do so
would be to destroy its own credibility. And that's what's happening.
The femosphere is protecting itself. The themosphere has no legitimacy,

(01:24:42):
no academic legitimacy, no logical legitimacy. What it talks about
does not relate to any reality than the one that
it's constructed, and yet it is forcing that reality on
everyone else and calling any kind of descent evil like
basically the work of satanism or witchcraft, and trying to

(01:25:02):
persecute people by simply consenting from their rubric, which itself
has no validity. So it's like, yes, they should be
declared some variation of bad, probably not terrorists, more like
cultural authoritarians. And they should be removed from positions of power.

(01:25:28):
In particular, they should be removed from every position that
allows them to opine on men's identities and men's worth
and men and boys' identities and worth. They should be removed.
And the fact is that men have I even asked Perplexity,
all right, are men as angry as they should be?

(01:25:48):
You know what? Perplexity said, No, their anger is not
proportionate to the amount of injustice that is being created
by these feminist institutions. Like isn't that astounding? Of course
it was after I jail break the damn thing. And
I always repeatedly ask keep it neutral, don't flatter me,

(01:26:10):
don't say things just because you think I'll agree with them.
I have to periodically do that. That's what other people
fail to do, and they get these weird hallucinations. You
have to nail on, don't flatter, don't agree and amplify,
don't create weird sources because you think I'm gonna like
what you're gonna say. Keep it neutral, And it said, no,

(01:26:31):
men are not as angry. They are not proportionately angry,
as angry as to proportion to the injustice that they're
facing here, the unjustifiable injustice of the femisphere. So all
of this, all of this hysteria around the manosphere is

(01:26:53):
basically Darth Vader squeezing paranoid is paranoid control freakery, squeezing
all the planets, and Princess Leiath saying that the harder
you grip, the more slip through your grasp. That's what
they're doing. They are the evil Fempire. Okay, anyway, but

(01:27:16):
that's never gonna happen, or maybe it won't. I mean,
maybe it will. Maybe maybe at some point people will
look back at this and realize, wow, we found a
completely new form of authoritarianism. Let's not do that again.
We can hope, well, you know what, that won't happen
unless some you know, places like this continue to operate

(01:27:38):
and continue to point it out. And since I'm on
the topic, you know you can support us that feed
the Badger dot com slash support. That was a terrible segue.
I am sorry. Please don't judge me for it. Maybe
judge me a little little.

Speaker 1 (01:27:51):
Bit, don't because maybe your reaction to the plug is
worse than the plug itself.

Speaker 2 (01:27:56):
Okay, all right, feed the badger dot com slash support everyone.

Speaker 1 (01:28:00):
They just left, just left it, just let it lie.
Yeah anyway, Okay, so the next point is really close
to this one. So I'm just gonna let this flow
into the next point.

Speaker 2 (01:28:08):
Okay, Okay, would.

Speaker 3 (01:28:11):
You deny that there have not been uh, you know,
mass shooters motivated by uh?

Speaker 4 (01:28:18):
Do you deny that trans ideology as motivated mass shooters?
Do we label them as being domestic terrorists?

Speaker 2 (01:28:26):
Okay, we already covered this.

Speaker 1 (01:28:27):
To be fair, though, there is an entire trans cult
of mass shooters. I've been They're they're called the Zizians,
and they call themselves uh rationalists, extradical extreme rationalists that
have rationally decided to take your gender.

Speaker 2 (01:28:44):
Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna deviate from this,
and I'm gonna say Andrew wins because he keeps it
to the threat of these other groups and and logic. Okay,
if if you are going to say that insult, you know,
like men who are lonely are a source of potential terrorists?

(01:29:06):
What about trans people? Right in that situation? And that's
pretty good because he's reframing it in terms of the
potential threat, bad intent of the precious, the vulnerability groups
that become so important in this feminist narrative where everybody
is judged by their need and not their capability. So

(01:29:29):
that's good. I would say that's good, but I think
we should move to the next one.

Speaker 3 (01:29:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:29:34):
Well, the other thing that he's doing, and again this
is just a debate tactic, is by saying, well, then
does that mean we should do something about trans people?
She's throwing the intersectional like you know, spaghetti in her
face and saying, well, if you're going to do this
to men, what if I told you most of the
people that you're talking about, or a significant number of

(01:29:57):
them are trans people and not so they're in your vocabulary,
they're not men, they're trans people. What do you say
to that? She's like, oh, who whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm
not transphobic, so I have to not address that, so
let me try to pivot to something else. So it's
like making her face for bigotry. Right. This is why
earlier there's another point where about how if I see

(01:30:20):
a group of young men, you know, and they're like
kind of boisterous. I get really nervous, and he's like, well,
what if they're black guys? And then she's like no, wait, wait,
wait wait. So, like you know, this is what you do.
This is how you throw them off because they're operating
under They're operating in a system that isn't principled. It's
based in identity, like hierarchy. Right, so when they say

(01:30:44):
make an assertion, they can demonize men all day long
because women hold a higher position morally in their minds.
But then they break it down into like race and
sexual orientation and gender identity and stuff like that, and
then they create a hierarchy and it puts like, you know,
straight white guys at the very bottom and all the

(01:31:06):
other men like just above that, and then you get
onto the other identities. Right, So when they're saying well
I think there's a problem with men, you can just
be like, well, those men are black, and then like
oh no, or those men are trans, or those men
are gay or whatever. Right, those men are Muslims, those
men are disabled. And so like with the in cell thing,

(01:31:27):
I would have thrown that too. I would have said, well,
you know, a lot of there's a disproportionate number of
in cells that are either physically or mentally disabled, which
is why they're lonely because women don't want them. So
are those guys like dangerous, evil bastards that we need to, like,
I don't know, euthanize, Like that's how you You basically

(01:31:48):
make them play by their rules. You hold them to
their standards.

Speaker 2 (01:31:53):
So yeah, and it's also it's also making them really uncomfortable,
which is something I always like to do because you
force them to acknowledge if the resemblance or the parallel,
the logical parallel between their vulnerability groups and men, right,
and that that I like that because men being vulnerable

(01:32:13):
is like like that, that is the thing that it
really bothers women like this, the idea of men's vulnerability
and anybody caring about it really really bothers them. That's
why they go hysterical over attacking me as a pick Mey, Okay,
let's move to play ten because I'm not I think

(01:32:36):
although the other timecodes are good, I think we should
probably pivot back this male vulnerability three plays play ten
invisible draft anxiety. I know we're pivoting back to the draft,
but I'm a little bit nervous about the previous time codes,
and I think that we should go there just to
get things.

Speaker 3 (01:32:57):
Yep, I would use my power as a woman.

Speaker 4 (01:33:02):
Yeah, that's great, but it's not even contending with what
I'm saying. That's like, not even contending with what I'm saying.
Even if that's the case, that's nice that you say that, right,
But our global leaders are never going to get rid
of the draft because their their military advisors tell them
not to because it's a huge weapon for mobilization of
military force if you need it. So we're never going

(01:33:23):
to get rid of it. That's just a fucking pipe dream.
It's never going to happen ever.

Speaker 3 (01:33:27):
So remove women's ability to vote and then we'll never
go to war. Is that is that you're thinking.

Speaker 4 (01:33:32):
No, I'm saying that this this injustice and unfairness. And
by the way, like when you bring up you say, all.

Speaker 1 (01:33:38):
Right, I'm pausing it there, that's the end of that.

Speaker 2 (01:33:42):
No, keep going, keep going because it's a little bit late.

Speaker 4 (01:33:45):
Well what about sixty year olds. They can't be drafted, okay,
but they could have been when they were in their
twenties and signed up for the draft, and which you
didn't have to. So their potential was already there and exhausted.
They already had to go through that stage of life
where their number could be called and years couldn't. So yeah,
they still get the benefit. They still did the thing
that you guys will never fucking do. They still did it.

(01:34:06):
And so the thing is, so the thing is is
like it just stands like this to reason, right, it
doesn't matter if the eighteen year old never gets called
to a draft. The potential is only there that he will,
and you can't get married for that. Voting movies.

Speaker 2 (01:34:19):
Yeah, still, we've got to stop here simply because of
the copyright issue. But yes, this is this is a repetition.
But he's coming to someplace that I want to get.

Speaker 4 (01:34:27):
To, so all right, let him go, right, or certain
rights that you don't get because he still went through
the process of signing up for the draft and had
the potential to be called and you never did.

Speaker 1 (01:34:39):
So it's like, oh, I'm sorry, my microphone is picking
up extra. It was like a toddler upstairs. I think
it did something. Let me see.

Speaker 4 (01:34:52):
Okay, Yeah, I don't get extra. In fact, hit anything
on par with that when the social status as such
that men can be called to defend you and die,
and that's never a service you have to render on
their behalf.

Speaker 3 (01:35:03):
You know, I have multiple male family members who went
to war, my grandfather who was drafted, and I've just anecdotes.

Speaker 2 (01:35:14):
Well not just anecdotes, like where is she going with this?
He's basically, this is a this is a cost that
men bear.

Speaker 1 (01:35:21):
Might say something like, well, they went to the door
to war and they're fine.

Speaker 2 (01:35:24):
Now, okay, let's let's here, let's figure it out. Let's
just find out.

Speaker 3 (01:35:28):
Never had them express to me. It makes me so
mad that you, as a woman to vote because I
was drafted and went to war.

Speaker 1 (01:35:38):
I've they've never told me that. They don't think it's unfair,
so therefore it's not.

Speaker 2 (01:35:44):
Why are you Yeah, well they shouldn't have to tell
you it's unfair for you to understand logically that it's unfair, lady, Like,
what kind of art?

Speaker 1 (01:35:53):
What the sacrifice? Like, what they're doing?

Speaker 2 (01:35:56):
Yeah, not only are they sacrificing for your ass, they're
not even they don't even want you to feel bad
about it. Patriarchy and no doubt, she believes that men,
and that includes her male relatives, have constructed a society

(01:36:16):
for their own benefit at her expense, simultaneously with her
not recognizing that they aren't even making her feel guilty
about the sacrifices they have done for her, like this is,
this is. Maybe it wasn't her, her, her teachers that

(01:36:39):
failed her, but somebody in her life never gave her
an understanding of consequence, which has led to her very
weak conception of logic and reason and ability to step
into other people's shoes. All right, let's finish this off.
Let's see what else, she says, astoundingly.

Speaker 3 (01:36:58):
Never encountered this added from anyone that went to combat. Yeah,
that was deployed like I have, I have.

Speaker 2 (01:37:06):
I can't believe it. She's basically shaming him for not
being a soldier. Right, do you see what she's doing.
She's shaming him, She's shaming his identity as a man
and saying, you can't speak to this even though you
are also subject to the same risks. Right, And what

(01:37:30):
he's talking about is not voluntary service. It's involuntary service,
which these men, aside from maybe her grandfather, haven't done right.
And she's demanding that men who care about her actually
treat her in the way that Andrew does. They're not
going to do that, dear, Like they're not going to

(01:37:52):
sit there and say, no, you need to understand, as
a woman how much you need to be grateful for me,
and don't do that generally. Okay, that's rare, and she's
demanding that before she extends herself to understand. You don't
need them to tell you that, Lady, why don't you

(01:38:13):
actually think this through and actually recognize it about your
male relatives who went to war? You see what I'm saying.
She's basically saying, well, they didn't tell me, so I'm
gonna shame you as a person who's never or men
who's never went to war, and you don't have the
right to speak for men who meant to war, well
do you? And the fact that the men who went
to war, who suffered all of this in order to

(01:38:36):
protect people like you, and the fact that they're not
actually telling you about that, does that justify you continuing
to live in ignorance over the obvious logical facts that
Andrew is presenting, like she's essentially she's using, not only
did these guys serve in other words, they put themselves

(01:38:58):
in a position, presumably in life, their desk jockeys put
themselves in a position of taking on discomfort and risk
in order to protect other people. She's insisting that there's
silence over it and maybe not wanting to even deal
with it or talk about it, and their lack of
willingness to expect her to be grateful or understand their

(01:39:20):
position is evidence that their position doesn't exist at all,
Like there's evidence that the sacrifice doesn't exist at all. Folks,
we can all pack it in. Charlie's figured it out right.
She's never had a man and her family tell her
what's what, So what's what is obviously not what Andrew's saying. Ugh, okay,

(01:39:46):
do Shully let her finish or move on to the
next one.

Speaker 1 (01:39:50):
Let's see fifty six eight.

Speaker 2 (01:39:54):
I think we've done. Charlie on the lane likelihood of
the draft, Andrew frame's Warren Draft in terms of justice, studios, duty,
and structural and fairness. Charlie, friends, you know what, I think.
That's the end of it. That's the end of it. Yeah, okay,
let's see what perplexity had to say, all right, winner, Andrew,

(01:40:15):
he secures clear recognition of male vulnerability tied to unique
male obligation. Charlie's minimization attempt fails to erase it for
the audience. Why don't we let her play out. Let's
let's see how well her minimization attempt goes.

Speaker 3 (01:40:28):
All right, this, I had never heard that before.

Speaker 4 (01:40:33):
But do you understand that, maybe.

Speaker 3 (01:40:36):
I think you do against the politicians.

Speaker 4 (01:40:38):
Well, I think you do understand though, that that many
times and justices are perpetuated on people and they don't
even know that they're being perpetuated on them. Perhaps most
injustice is that way. So just because a person tells
you or has never told you that they felt that

(01:41:00):
there was a weight of injustice in a thing which
was happening, may never have been explained to them, or
they may never have even thought about it before, like
most people.

Speaker 2 (01:41:07):
Don't, or maybe they don't want to sit hurt, or
they don't want to sit her down and say, actually,
this is an injustice and you are benefiting from it, right,
and we would like some grind. It's not important to them,
or they don't want to trouble her more likely, or
they just want to just do it and then get

(01:41:28):
it over with and not refer to it. And also
they could not be aware that this is an injustice
because they feel like they've earned their worth as a
man through going through it. Right, that's how you hide
injustice in expectation.

Speaker 1 (01:41:44):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:41:45):
Okay, well, let's let's see what she witters.

Speaker 3 (01:41:47):
Out responsible for this injustice. It is the lawmakers and
politicians that put the draft in place.

Speaker 4 (01:41:54):
Women are not responding on this is that it doesn't
really make But.

Speaker 2 (01:41:58):
Here's the problem. Thejustice exists because of the asymmetry and
treatment that women benefit from. All right, Okay, maybe the
injustice has to can persist because men just have a
higher risk tolerance. They have a higher tolerance for discomfort.
You know, they're more willing to put themselves in this

(01:42:19):
harm's way. Right, maybe that is something that has to be.
But what doesn't have to be is you continuing to
insist that society benefits men over women and us continuing
to labor under this lie about society. Maybe that doesn't
have to continue. Maybe you could let that inform your worldview,

(01:42:39):
the reality that men have to go to war, and
you don't let that inform your worldview over who is
expected to bear the costs of a peaceful society. That
I would be relatively okay with that. I don't know
if men would be okay with that, but at the
very least, can we can you let that inform your

(01:43:02):
worldview and stop saying that men constrap to society for
their own benefit at the expensive women? Can we do
that at least? Can this be a data point? Okay?

Speaker 1 (01:43:18):
All right?

Speaker 2 (01:43:18):
Do you want me to get a point live matter?

Speaker 3 (01:43:22):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (01:43:22):
Sure?

Speaker 1 (01:43:23):
Nah?

Speaker 2 (01:43:23):
You know what, Let me just double check here, let
me see if there's one worth going to. All right,
all right, let us just do I know you've been
chomping at the bit, and I know everybody's probably thinking
of this one as the best part. Okay, Play thirteen
sudden death.

Speaker 1 (01:43:40):
Round hipocripseeen minutes.

Speaker 2 (01:43:43):
No play thirteen oh oh oh oh?

Speaker 1 (01:43:47):
Is that two a sudden death round? Hypocrisy? What's she back?
Her principles?

Speaker 2 (01:43:52):
Uh? You your sister safety to sixteen twenty.

Speaker 1 (01:43:56):
Two oh to sixteen twenty two Yes.

Speaker 2 (01:44:00):
Andrew brings up interviolent well interracial violent crime statistics and
asks Charlie whether or not she'd tell her sister to
cross the street to avoid a statistically higher risk group,
then pushes her again after she refuses to say yes,
and again. This is after she said that a group
of young men she would be concerned about. But you know,

(01:44:25):
it depends depends on their chromatic their chromatic qualities, shall
we say? Okay, go for it.

Speaker 6 (01:44:33):
Violent incidents per capita of offending race. And this is
from a Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization surveyed
from twenty eighteen. So white on black there thirty, Hispanic
on black seventy six. Well, well I'll just do okay,
So white and black thirty Black on white hundred and

(01:44:55):
eighty eight versus thirty for white on black.

Speaker 4 (01:45:00):
Well, gee, Chuck, it seems like based on what you
just said earlier, if I could demonstrate this to you,
you said that you would advise your little sister to
cross the street. Do you hold to that?

Speaker 2 (01:45:13):
I want to I want to see your face.

Speaker 1 (01:45:18):
The capital of the stream. It's been per capita.

Speaker 2 (01:45:21):
Okay, hey, per capitaal lives matter.

Speaker 1 (01:45:25):
Yeah, okay, let's see what she says.

Speaker 6 (01:45:31):
By the way, this is incidents per one hundred thousand
offender population.

Speaker 4 (01:45:36):
Do you hold to it?

Speaker 1 (01:45:37):
Chuck?

Speaker 4 (01:45:38):
Do you hold to it? Are you gonna advise your
sister to cross the street?

Speaker 2 (01:45:43):
Now he's just in the hard liquor. I think it's white.

Speaker 3 (01:45:46):
Boys that are getting beat up.

Speaker 1 (01:45:50):
I think it's white boys that are getting beat up.
So suddenly her sister is safe, I guess.

Speaker 2 (01:45:56):
Yeah. Okay, so it's white boys who was getting beat up.
That includes women, dude, all right?

Speaker 1 (01:46:04):
But interestingly enough, though, there is an acknowledgment that men
are more vulnerable or more likely to be victims of
violent crime than women.

Speaker 2 (01:46:16):
Good lord, she just pivoted. You're right, she just pivoted
to when are more likely to be victims of violent crime?
So this is her evasion. Guys, black men are responsible
for a disproportionate amount of crime, but her evasion is
but it's men who are disproportionately victims of black men's crimes.

(01:46:38):
Herp Like, now we're starting to see recognition of beds issues,
but only to deflect from recognizing the asymmetrical criminal behavior
of certain races. Okay, we're definitely seeing a picture here.
This is painting a picture of something. Shall we continue?

Speaker 1 (01:47:01):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (01:47:03):
Can you pull up the s interracial essay statistics please?

Speaker 1 (01:47:07):
Such?

Speaker 2 (01:47:07):
Yeah, oh lord, it it's just gonna get Yes, I'm
telling you, it's just gonna get worklation.

Speaker 3 (01:47:17):
Is male, half the population is female. The encounters between
U and then thirteen point three percent of the population
is black.

Speaker 4 (01:47:26):
Yeah, and even less of that is male. It's only
about six percent that's male.

Speaker 2 (01:47:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:47:30):
And so but again the justice system.

Speaker 4 (01:47:33):
Remember that word, we're looking for per capita.

Speaker 3 (01:47:37):
Yeah, the justice system.

Speaker 2 (01:47:39):
Or she's really okay, all right, So there's there's lots
of weird stuff going on. But I do like how
she's acting like a freaking toddler, Like, you know, toddters
are me. I need the kiki. So that wasn't my
hand in the koki yay, Like this is her her

(01:48:00):
demeanor is. It's it's a kindergarten adjacent. But yeah, there's
lots of stuff going on here. And yes, the sexual
violence stats from the FBI are not going to be
fun for her, I can. I can already tell you
guys that. Of course, even less fun would be the

(01:48:24):
statistics that I bring up about the rate of sexual
violence that women engage in against men. I think, but
I think that that would probably just cause a blue
screen of death for her.

Speaker 1 (01:48:35):
Yeah, she just wouldn't be all just deny it because
it's not the official statistic.

Speaker 2 (01:48:41):
That yeah, statistics that she likes. But honestly, I've done
the math. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violent Survey
put on by the CDC found three years in a
row twenty ten, twenty eleven, twenty twelve in victimization between

(01:49:02):
men and women. In the last year numbers right, so
that is the last year with the it keeps a
window of one year to talk about victimization, which reduces
memory recall errors in men. Right, that's really critical. When
you include made to penetrate, which is what feminists wanted
them to name men being raped by women, you get

(01:49:23):
parity between victimization between the two groups. There's almost no
way that that result repeated three years in a row
exists in a world where there isn't parity in sexual
violence perpetration between men and women. So those are official stats.
That is the state of the art for those stats

(01:49:46):
like that is that is higher powered than anything before
or after. So we've laid this to rest. Women are
raping at approximately the same rates as men. When you
look at community surveys that are anonymous, and so when
you're looking at the actual behavior of people in the

(01:50:07):
war in the greater world, not just who we send
to jail, but who is doing what. And I'm pretty
sure if I brought that up, I don't know. I
think we would. I think we would have a good
thirty seconds of complete silence, and then I wonder what
she would pivot to. Yeah, well, what were they wearing?

(01:50:32):
I don't know. Okay, let's let's I'm I want to
see this because this is a good one too.

Speaker 1 (01:50:37):
I want to see your reaction.

Speaker 3 (01:50:39):
Yeah, just punish black people more Black people.

Speaker 2 (01:50:43):
Are they've punished men more to ever.

Speaker 4 (01:50:46):
Occur to you, it's because they commit more crimes.

Speaker 3 (01:50:49):
Well, if you look at comparisons to actual crimes committed
versus conviction rates, it's committing crimes about the same rate,
but black people are more likely to be.

Speaker 2 (01:50:56):
Sent No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
this is total bullshit. She's full of shit. There is
a slight bias towards convicting black men, but the bias
towards convicting men versus women is like six times higher.
All right, So it's it's the injustice that men face

(01:51:20):
in the justice system is substantially higher than any racial category.
Of course, we know that.

Speaker 3 (01:51:26):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:51:27):
I'm not going to sign off on what he's saying. Well, no,
i am, because black people do commit more crime, and
a lot of that is because they are father malnourished,
like they don't they have the government decided to outcompete
black fathers and they're not in their families. And what
happens single mothers are from probably don't from more primarily

(01:51:50):
responsible for producing criminals. Well, what do you think is
going to happen?

Speaker 4 (01:51:57):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:51:57):
And this is the conversation that like.

Speaker 1 (01:52:00):
Yeah, I think it's I'm okay with saying they commit
more crimes and they're more likely to be you know,
repeat offenders and everything else. But I will also say
that it's it's a product of their upbringing which comes
from the single mother home, because this wasn't a thing
that was going on like in the you know, the

(01:52:22):
like when the father was in the home before the
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society project.

Speaker 2 (01:52:30):
So yeah, right, so okay, but let's continue because I
can't interrupt when you haven't gotten to it yet.

Speaker 4 (01:52:40):
They're on their third time doing a crime, that's why,
and that's never adjusted for in the data.

Speaker 3 (01:52:46):
Do you have proof?

Speaker 4 (01:52:47):
Yes, we can pull it up. Yeah, you name whatever
study you want right now, and I'll pull up the
methodology and I can guarantee you that if we look
on the offenses by offense list, is it, Oh, this
white dude, he you know, he went in and he
stole car and he got one year, okay, and this
black guy got ten years. That's not fair. And you
know what's often left out that that's his fifteenth crime

(01:53:09):
and that's why he got the higher sentence. That's what
I've noticed when I look at that data. But the
thing I'm like, I'm willing to look at whatever data
you got. I'm happy to parse it out.

Speaker 3 (01:53:19):
I didn't prepare for this.

Speaker 4 (01:53:20):
I know I understand because now prepared, I want.

Speaker 2 (01:53:23):
To get to the sexual assault statistics. Please, where are they, sir?
I'm in the desert, I need a glass of water.
I'm beset by a leopard. Okay, how much further? Yeah,
I'd have to look it up.

Speaker 4 (01:53:38):
But this is part of that debate because it's showing
a worldview inconsistency that you have, which is that men
are mean, bad, evil patriarchy would advise your sister to
cross the street right in order to avoid them. Okay, Okay,
you're right that was a straw man, So let me
be more charitable. Okay, you would tell your sister to
cross the street when it came to a group of
rowdy young men, right, and you say that you would

(01:54:02):
advise her to do that, even if she personally didn't
have any bad experiences with rowdy young men, just based
on experiences you've had and data and various things you've observed.
And yet if somebody does that and says to their
little sister, hey, stay away from young black men, right,
based on the same exact criteria, that's somehow fucking racist.

(01:54:23):
That's what's crazy to me, is like, just can we
get some consistency?

Speaker 2 (01:54:28):
Okay, let's hear what she has to say. I'm curious,
how is she going to pivot? How is she going
to digress, how is she going to invert reality? What
is she going to do? Let us find out.

Speaker 4 (01:54:40):
Rates?

Speaker 3 (01:54:40):
And again, I would think that violent offenses.

Speaker 4 (01:54:42):
When you see this, Charlie, when you see this.

Speaker 3 (01:54:46):
But again we also discussed that the that the justice
system is more likely to it's not saying white women
I'm to convict you.

Speaker 4 (01:54:55):
Know what, I'm even willing to give it, like I'm
even willing to give it some absurdly high number, like
they're wrong about five percent, Okay, And it wouldn't even
come close to compensating for the distinction.

Speaker 2 (01:55:07):
Yes, it isn't like this is the complete red herring,
but she says, like it is really interesting that she
really wants this to be true about men but not
true about black men.

Speaker 3 (01:55:21):
That is really interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:55:25):
And having squaring that circle in her mind, it remains
it remains a circle. It resists being squared. Okay, let's
keep going.

Speaker 3 (01:55:38):
All right, all right, I mean, do you personally shut up?

Speaker 4 (01:55:45):
And that's not a fear of black people, that's an understanding.
And by the way, do you know who taught me this?
Black men? They were the ones who taught me this,
because you know who doesn't who's the lead. It's likely
to walk around a group of young black men they
don't know black men.

Speaker 1 (01:56:05):
That's the wild Yes, that's the truth. That's the thing.
Nobody wants to like. What they're afraid to say that
they're aware of their surroundings if they're not black, because
they don't want to be called racist. But it's like
it's the people who are closest to the problem that
are going to be the most honest about that problem.
I used to live in Humble Park, West side of Chicago,

(01:56:28):
and I'll tell you that, Like if I saw a
group of young black or Latino guys, I might just
keep my eye on them. M That's all I'm saying, Like,
I'll keep my wits about me, keep my head on
a swivel, you know, never relax. That's that's not racist,
that's just reality.

Speaker 2 (01:56:47):
So anyway, it's trending on the area.

Speaker 3 (01:56:51):
Yeah, I think it depends on the area. Again, like
if you were walking through an area that has like
a lot of.

Speaker 4 (01:56:58):
Did you chance to find them stats for it? Someone
will send it to you on X. But yeah, it's
it's bad, Charlie, it's bad. So like the interracial distinction
is not even in the same universe, and neither is
the violent crime assault rates. And if we go down
by women, it's it's even worse. It's it's just every
time you go to the next criteria, it just will

(01:57:19):
get worse for your argument, I promise.

Speaker 2 (01:57:22):
Yeah, it's true. But but the thing is that I'm
getting a little bit annoyed. This is can we see
the stats? I mean, does he actually get to the
point where he shows the stats? I'm curious. This is God,
this has given me a curiosity. I'm going to give
you a question to your core, Brian, are we at

(01:57:42):
twenty two hours, twenty three minutes in and twelve seconds?

Speaker 1 (01:57:47):
Two hours, twenty one minutes?

Speaker 2 (01:57:49):
Oh okay, so we're almost there. Maybe go to therehead
to two hours and what twenty three minutes and twelve seconds.
Let's see if we only get to the thing that
has been promised for a while.

Speaker 4 (01:58:04):
Now, okay, so Asians are consistently low, then wouldn't that
put black men at consistently high?

Speaker 3 (01:58:14):
I would all go back a little bit because if
we look.

Speaker 2 (01:58:17):
We go back about thirty seconds, go back about thirty seconds,
because I think that we we went a little bit
too far. All right, yeah, okay, yes, shush, you shush
to agree.

Speaker 4 (01:58:30):
With that, But that would obviously have a logical entailment
that black men commit the most amount, right, that would
be the entailment there. So, like if we're saying that
it's it's the rates are consistent, so Asians are consistently low,
then wouldn't that put black men at consistently high?

Speaker 3 (01:58:51):
I would be curious about that because if we look
at like Korea and Japan, where essay is kind of
like so severe to the point that like women in
Japan have their own like train cards, I would be curious, but.

Speaker 1 (01:59:09):
It's not it's overblown. Yes, I'm guessing that in Korea
or like Japan, which is what she's specifically referencing, it's
probably a lot lower. But when there are incidences, there's
an overreaction from the public because it's you know, like
it's such a high trust society that when there are

(01:59:31):
incidences that break trust, everyone loses their minds and they
overreact and they overcorrect. Well, I don't know if it's
an over correction. I mean like, but I'm just saying
like this the like measuring the reaction of a culture
to something and then using your own standards and saying wow, wow,
like they must have it really bad because but like

(01:59:52):
in the Congo they don't have separate the train cars.
But that's like the rape capital of the world, you know, yes,
is it?

Speaker 2 (02:00:00):
You know it's like somebody, I think the one in Japan,
said there's a problem, and then we institute a solution,
and then the West says, oh my god, look at
how big the problem is. Yes, exactly, we we we
made we created a solution to it. Now I'm guessing
that they probably don't recognize the rate of sexual assault

(02:00:23):
of men in South Korea or Japan. We're probably better
at that than not than there. But that's another thing too, right, Yeah,
she's not, she's not talking about This isn't about sexual assault.
This is actually about what it is. It's about groping
in trains. Right, Okay, let's let's keep going because I'm

(02:00:46):
finding the numbers. But it's taking a while.

Speaker 1 (02:00:49):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (02:00:50):
If that has to do again with people feeling pressure
to conceal these sorts of things, being less than loyalty to.

Speaker 4 (02:00:59):
Because those are fucking perverted as shit, because they're godless.
And that's one thing that people forget about is like
it's you know, like how Japan has there where they
they have the fucking young girls walking around in the
mini skirts at all of the schools and the principles,
you know, they they're always for it, right. They sell
women's underwear out of vending machines. They have massive porn

(02:01:23):
shops where you start on the bottom floor and as
you continue to ascend, it goes from to worse and
worse and worse and worse and worse and more hardcore porn.
It's a very perverted society.

Speaker 2 (02:01:34):
Okay, all right, Here are the numbers. Here are the numbers. Korea, Korea,
South Korea around through four to thirteen per one hundred
thousand in some data sets. That's that is rates like
reported rates, no doubt. Japan about one to two for

(02:01:55):
one hundred thousand. Yeah, United States twenty seven to twenty
eight per one hundred thousands. All right, so everybody here
is talking about something that doesn't exist. South Korea is
higher than Japan, probably because South Korea, I think is

(02:02:18):
more mixed or more diverse maybe, and the US is
really is quite is twice as high as Korea, ten
times higher than Japan.

Speaker 1 (02:02:31):
Right.

Speaker 2 (02:02:31):
So, no, the fact that the finding that Asian men
engage in sexual violence less is entirely consistent with the
cultures that they come from, she's wrong. Okay. The other
thing is that the group of people who engages in

(02:02:54):
the greatest amount of sexual violence, since we are not
seeing the stats yet, I'll just say them is Native Americans.
They are absolutely disproportionately represented in the in the rape statistics,
and mostly there are actually engaging in sexual assault of
probably other Native Americans. Right, And he's right, She's not

(02:03:21):
gonna like that if we ever get to it, which
I don't know, are we Let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (02:03:27):
Well, these things can take some time. I got a
rumble ram from Nova fan twenty one for attorney says
Charlie is confident about Japan having a high sexual assault
rate Japanese women who falsely accused Japanese men to extort them.
Do we tell her? Thank you? All right? Um, let
us continue.

Speaker 4 (02:03:47):
So this feels a little if that is not as
preferred as Japan.

Speaker 3 (02:03:51):
Reno, there was porn shops everywhere. It's been cleaned up.

Speaker 1 (02:03:53):
Now.

Speaker 4 (02:03:53):
I lived in Reno too, and this.

Speaker 2 (02:03:56):
Is okay, this is this is this is weeds. Sorry,
I'm gonna you know what, you know what. I'm just
gonna go into my screed about the FBI statistics. This
is the issue with feminists, right. They want to use

(02:04:18):
conviction rates to show the percentage of men that engage
in sexual crime relative to women. The conviction rates are
who we choose to put in jail. They don't want
us to actually look at the racial composition of the
men who are going to jail for sexual assault because

(02:04:38):
it is it is damning for their intersexual analysis, let
me tell you, all right. And they also want to
use the community surveys that find parody and sexual assault
of men and women for prevalence, but they do not
want to use them for the ratio of who is

(02:05:02):
doing the assaulting because if you look at community surveys,
the most powered and the most accurate community surveys, which
are the national intimate Partner in sexual violence surveys, specifically
the three surveys that they did in three years in
a row with the same methodology, that is the gold standard.
That is the best evidence we have there is parody,

(02:05:24):
men and women rape each other at about the same rate.
They don't want to use that, but they want to
use the prevalence because it shows a vastly greater problem
of sexual assault, like the conviction rates. Yeah, yeah, Like
if you base it on the conviction rate, there's like,
if you are a white woman, you're never going to

(02:05:45):
get sexually assaulted, Like you might as well worry about
being hit by lightning. It is minuscule, Like, I mean,
you can get sexually assaulted, but it's such a small
amount yearly, right it is, it's not worth worrying about

(02:06:06):
at all. According to conviction rights, especially if you avoid
I'm really gonna get it. Native American man like, I
don't know, I don't know why that is, but anyway,
so it's like it's perishingly small. But they don't like
that because that doesn't indicate that rape is a problem.

(02:06:26):
And patriarchy, our patriarchal society is using it everywhere to
solve all of its problems, right, Just slap a little
rape on that leaky pipe, that'll do it. Like, so
that doesn't show, So they go with the community surveys.
But the problem with the community surveys is again that
pesky parody thing. So all of this is just she

(02:06:50):
doesn't want to engage fairly with the actual data, and
she is part of an ideology that has this problem
and has had this problem since the very star. They
don't want to engage honestly with expectations of academic greed
at rigor. They don't want to engage honestly with the
even the own data that they're producing, and yet they

(02:07:11):
want to maintain credibility and moral authority over the rest
of us. And they are full of shit and for
and there you go, guys, that's this argument. Then I
think it got into the weeds. But that's what I
would have brought up with it, like, what where? What

(02:07:32):
poison do you want to take? Charlie, do you want
to take the poison of We can't look at conviction
stats because they undercount or they overcount those groups of
people that we are willing we prefer to convict for rape. Okay, well,
then we're looking at community stats. What do we see there?
Parody and victimization between men and women? Right, well, we

(02:07:56):
don't want to look at that. We just want to
look at that for prevalence, but not the among men.
Choose your poison, car Charlie, Somewhere no matter what you choose,
it's gonna be uncomfortable for your ideology. But of course
they don't have to. They just can keep pivoting and
pivoting and pivoting. Oh, the conviction stats, we can't look

(02:08:20):
at them because it only shows what we those races
we choose to convict. Oh does it also show that No,
it doesn't know. No, but in terms of in terms
of which sex we prefer to convict, that's absolutely accurate
to reality. Oh, don't look at the conviction stats when
we're looking at prevalence, because uh, because the you know,

(02:08:41):
women don't feel empowered to report their rapes and this
horrible patriarchy that's gonna, it's gonna, that's gonna put them
in jail for having been sexually assaulted or some crap. Right,
And it's just around and around and around and around.
You go where you stop, well, where you stop is
on blame men, because we always stopped there. That's always

(02:09:04):
the end goal. Okay, did you want to add anything
to this, Brian? No, yep, Okay, let.

Speaker 1 (02:09:10):
Me see you all right, So do we miss any
super chat super child's nope? Nope?

Speaker 2 (02:09:17):
Okay, So perplexity says Charlie won this. Her pattern supports
a world where some groups are shielded from group based suspicion. Well,
men are not. Male threat remains a legitimate default narrative,
and male unate uniqueness is not defended. So essentially, perplexity
looks through this, and said Charlie one because she managed

(02:09:37):
to maintain the line in the frame on male threat
and it didn't move from there, and it needs to
move from there. Okay, yeah, do.

Speaker 1 (02:09:49):
You want me to play some more or no?

Speaker 2 (02:09:52):
No? No, let's I think we've we've engaged with this
two days in a row. Now we'll not any two
consecutive days with Thursday not not doing.

Speaker 1 (02:10:02):
It sufficiently explored.

Speaker 2 (02:10:06):
Yes, I feel satiated or something, all right, So I'll
take a look and see if there's anything new. Maybe
I'll poke the bulls. If you guys want to send
a message, you know, like get one in, slide it
in under the wire, do it right now. I feed

(02:10:27):
the Badger dot com slash just the tip. I did
want to briefly talk or or speak about a correction
that Korans Strong gave us last night or actually after
the show on Wednesday. Not so apparently, Julian Fries, Julian Delmo.

(02:10:52):
It's a It's a Belgian movie, right not The bet
wasn't okay. The movie is two three and a half
hours of this woman doing chores and the big climactic
like revelation was she dropped a fork and then she
killed a man and that was it. Three and a

(02:11:15):
half hours of it, all right. It was voted the
best movie. It wasn't apparently. It wasn't voted the best
movie of twenty twenty two. It was voted the best
movie of all time according to the twenty two A
twenty twenty two edition of the prestigious sight and sound list.
I'm just not media I'm you. That's that's kron song

(02:11:38):
pointing the finger at me. You're not just not media
literate enough to appreciate high IQ stuff.

Speaker 1 (02:11:46):
Yeah that's it.

Speaker 2 (02:11:47):
Yeah, that's it. That that is one hundred percent. And
yes I did watch that thing, and I watched it
because we are going to do a response on it
and anybody who defends it as saying it's some kind
of art, no, it's didactic. It's basically three and a
half hours of boredom because they're trying to show you
how awful it is to be a homemaker. That's didactic, right,

(02:12:14):
So the reason why they're doing the reason why they're
boring the crap out of you, is because they're trying
to prove to you that homemaking is awful. And yet
they have specifically selected only times when she's doing chores,
and they've overemphasized those chores, so they're showing it taking
more time than it actually would. Homemakers have eleven hours

(02:12:35):
more leisure time than the bread winners who support them,
so there's no way they're only doing chores. They're also
going to be watching soaps. They're going to be reading
romance novels. They're gonna be doing puzzles. Maybe they'll even
be engaging in intellectual you know, intelligence building activities with
their children, like play, you know. So there's a lot

(02:12:56):
more going on, and homemaker's live. So she's the director
and writer specifically chose to show this. It is not
accurate to the actual lives of homemakers, to make a
didactic point to bore us in order to make us
believe a lie. Right, Okay, that's not art. That is

(02:13:20):
not art. That is a freakin' woke struggle session in
film form. Okay, and I'm gonna have to do like
another hour of talking about this crap. Oh okay, all right,
So feed Thebadger dot com slash just a tip if
you want to send us a message. Have you watched
the ineffable Julian Delman. I think that's how you pronounce it.

(02:13:46):
Probably somebody is gonna come in and say that is
actually if not pronounced that way at all, But yeah,
have you watched them? It's fairly easy to find. The
three It's basically three and a half hours of a
woman doing chores. Came out in the seventies in Belgia. Okay,
tell me about it. Did you enjoy it? And if

(02:14:06):
you want to support the show, feed the Badger dot
com slash support. Okay, I'm gonna hand it back to Brian.
Did you want to add anything to this?

Speaker 1 (02:14:12):
I have not seen that and I have no interest
in it. No. No, it's time for Lord of the Rings.

Speaker 2 (02:14:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:14:20):
Okay. Well, with that said, if you guys like this video,
please hit like, subscribe. If you're not already subscribed, hit
the BELF notifications, 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 because
sharing is caring. Thank you guys so much for coming
on today's episode of this maintaining frame basically, and we'll

(02:14:42):
talk to you guys in the next one.