Team Andrew vs Team Charlie: Hit or Miss on Men’s Issues? | Deep Cut (Whatever Podcast) - Honey Badger Radio

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello everybody, and welcome back to Honey Badger Radio. My
name is Brian with Allison, and this is Team Andrew
versus Team Charlie Hit or miss on men's Issues, where
we're going to be looking at a debate. It was
from about a month ago on the Whatever podcast two
weeks No, it's this is a month old video. Oh okay,

(00:21):
so we got really late. Yeah yeah, this got messy fast,
and that's exactly why it matters.

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Team Andrew versus Team Charlie on Whatever Podcast firals from
a You're an Idiot jab into a full blown pylon,
complete with Rachel charging in from offscreen to defend her husband,
while the chat does precision character assassination on both of them,
although I would say that they were much more precise
with Charlie. In this episode, we're going to treat that

(00:53):
chaos like a game tape. First, walk through the fight
beat by beat. Then we're on the highlight rail of
the most searched hits versus the most feral roasts that
came out of it. After that will slow down the
footage and look at the arguments under the drama. Who's
threat narrativizing men? So if you guys know, if it's
been here a while, what a threat narrative is. It's

(01:14):
basically just presenting men is a threat that needs to
be neutralized. Who's crash, who's cashing in on male sacrifice?
And who if anyone is willing to talk about men
as fully human. By the end, you won't just know
who won the shouting match. Well, I think you already
know it. You'll know why Rachel had to protect her husband,
why Charlie's frame is still winning, and what we can

(01:35):
do about it, all right, And if you want to
make a commentary of your own at any point throughout
the show, you can do so that feedbadgery dot com
slash just the tip, very best way for you to
send us a tip, and the best way for you
to send a comment with that tip, because that comment
does not go through YouTube's comment labyrinth of mystery. So
once again that's feedbadgery dot com slash just the tip.

(01:58):
And if you want to support the show, support right,
all right?

Speaker 1 (02:03):
Are you what? What? What microphone are you using? Sound
too bad? But it sounds like you're far away.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
Maybe the you know what it is?

Speaker 4 (02:13):
It is the void cat.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
Yeah, okay, it's.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
The chaos Agent. I apologize guys hopefully that that intro
wasn't too bad. You're really you're really getting into it today.
You're like, you're like, no, you shall not stream.

Speaker 1 (02:30):
Yeah, okay. So, uh, Andrew and Charlie were like, Andrew's
a frequent guest on the Whatever podcast, and he's invited
on off and by Brian Atlis, the guy who hosts
the show, because he's debating uh, you know, feminists on there.
For the most part. They say that he just debates

(02:53):
like you know, three or fours, but that's not really true.
I mean a lot of them. Basically, everyone who goes
on there, whether they are three or four or not,
is basically going on there with the feminist worldview, and
he's basically just you know, debating them on that. But
he's also debated men and like other people, you know,
so it's not just like that. It's not low hanging
fruit per se. And Charlie is defending feminism, so they're

(03:15):
basically just defending it's a debate on feminism that gets
a bit heated later on. And this one, this one
had like a clip that went viral, so we're going
to be looking at the actual topics that we're discussed.
We're gonna start with I guess war, right, is that

(03:36):
the first one? Or what do you want to what
do you want to jump into?

Speaker 2 (03:42):
Sorry, Alison voidcat wrangling, I apologize. No, Let's just go
for the one that you said. Let's go into the fight.
Let's talk about the fight, the meta fight. Yeah, the
what everybody wants to talk about, the viral part of it.
I had to I had to do something to pease
the voidcat. I had to sacrifice, throw a can of

(04:03):
tuna into the volcano. So yeah, let's just do that.
Let's just go to where everything goes to hell?

Speaker 1 (04:10):
All right. So at this point in the debate, this
is like four hours and fifteen minutes in this this
video six hours and twenty minutes long, just about so
you can imagine if you'd been sitting there debating with
a brick wall for four hours, you're gonna get frustrated.
Oh yeah, and uh, we have we have special chat activities.

(04:33):
It looks like no we don't. Some of the special
people have found their way to the main chat though.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
Yeah, like new people just yeah, hello, special people in
the main chat mm hmm. Okay.

Speaker 1 (04:44):
Yeah, So anyway. So at this point, uh, you know,
Andrews trying to like explain his worldview to Charlie. This
is the woman here, her name is Charlie. It is
a woman, not a trans man, not a trans woman,
just a lesbian feminist woman that dresses like a Mister

(05:05):
Rogers character for some reason. And yeah, so he's trying
to explain our worldview and nothing's getting through.

Speaker 3 (05:11):
So fucking dyke, don't talk about my wife.

Speaker 1 (05:13):
I gotta go back a little bit before then.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
Yeah, yeah, you just dumped us right at the deep
end there.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
Yeah, it's just like that, the way the time codes are.
I'll go here.

Speaker 3 (05:23):
Can I just take this show right? When you're talking
about Donald Trump, he has the same exact powers that
the president Joe Biden had before him, the same ones
he had. He doesn't have a single additional power, not
a single one.

Speaker 4 (05:34):
What about the bullshit of the Supreme Court ruled that
he cannot be held responsible for specific illegal acts that
he committed.

Speaker 3 (05:43):
Yeah, well, look, this was an early understanding of case
law with the president.

Speaker 1 (05:47):
Is that so sorry? It's just the way that the
fucking dyke it just jumps ahead to like because of
the time codes, yeah, I know.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
It's it's really freaking it's it's really janky.

Speaker 3 (05:59):
Yeah, when you're talking about Donald maybe I can just
like move forward a little bit.

Speaker 2 (06:06):
Mm hmm, and let's.

Speaker 1 (06:08):
See if there's a way to do this more precisely.
I apologize. I'm trying to get to.

Speaker 3 (06:13):
Where you can't have the state charging the executive branch.
You can't have them doing that.

Speaker 1 (06:20):
Let's go, Okay, can you not?

Speaker 3 (06:23):
The Supreme Court even ruled you can't.

Speaker 4 (06:24):
I think you should be able to. I think that's ridiculous.
I think to be able to hold too much power
in their hands because I am against authoritarianism.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
Okay, So let's say California does that. They say, hey,
we're going to go ahead and bring up Donald Trump
on and he needs to appear in court. How does
California enforce that?

Speaker 2 (06:47):
Hmm? Guns, I don't know, Bears, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (06:53):
That gets tricky. I wouldn't trust Donald Trump too.

Speaker 3 (06:55):
Are they going to send California agents to arrest the
president of the United State?

Speaker 4 (07:00):
Do you think we could send the National Guard and
start a civil war? Our national Guard, the California National Guard?
Why would she reason?

Speaker 3 (07:11):
Why would she?

Speaker 1 (07:13):
This is where so he's trying to explain, you know,
like the way that the government works, which is essentially
that is, it is force, and Charlie is either intentionally
up to or just not very smart. But what it's
coming what's coming across, is that she's not smart. She's
a she's an activist. She says a lot of the

(07:34):
same things that feminists say. She gets pats on the
back for it. It inflates her ego. So she goes
on to do this in other places, gets pats on
the back for it, inflates her ego, and on and
on it goes until someone pops her bubble. And so
this is where that happens. So but it's obvious she
doesn't understand that. Like what it's sort of like the

(07:56):
gun conversation. You know, in order to take away people's guns,
you have to use guns to take them. So you're
not really against guns, you're just not You're just only
in favor of the government having them. So it's like
saying you're not against power, you just want your people
to have power, right, So it's authoritarian. Okay, yeah, all right, anyway, I.

Speaker 3 (08:20):
Got to rephrase this. I'm going to reframe and I'm
just gonna be totally honest with you. I will never
be able to convince you of my worldview. You all,
I know. But the reason is not because I'm not
a great orator, or I don't make good points, or
I haven't said things which should be compelling to a person.
But Charlie, I just think, honestly, you're too fucking stupid

(08:41):
to understand them.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
Okay, Can I just point something out? What would she
have said to someone who said we should just start
a civil war with Biden? I'm pretty sure that happened,
or not even close, but something like it was framed,
something like just was a January event that happened? And
what did they call? Insurrection?

Speaker 1 (09:06):
Right?

Speaker 2 (09:07):
Lady, what you're saying is insurrection? Right, But it's okay
because your political tribe is doing it?

Speaker 1 (09:13):
Is it?

Speaker 2 (09:17):
If you're saying, if you're saying, let's start a civil war,
let's overthrow the government with with troops, that's insurrection. That's
exactly what this side of the argument was pointing fingers
at for January sixth, when that really wasn't what happened
on January sixth, at least from the footage I've seen.
It's you know, it's not it's being reframed as something else.

(09:40):
And she but she would say that as insurrection if
Republicans had said that during Joe Biden's term. Now, this
is this is complete moral myopia, complete moral tribalism. And
he's right, although she's not looking at it from his frame.

(10:02):
He's like, you know, in order to have an advanced democracy,
we have to uphold certain principles of rule of law.
And she's like, smash ogre smash no Ogro is a
cool character from Dark Crystal. No Augro was, you know,
all get smash a get smash other tribe. That's that's
basically where she's operating. And of course she can't logically

(10:25):
explain it because it's a feeling. She just wants to
get rid of the Orange Man. She just wants to
get rid of the tribe of the Orange Man, and
and also feel intellectually superior to that tribe for some reason.
So operate on the most basic base level, zero political nuance,

(10:46):
destroy other tribe, and yet still feel like an enlightened
intellectual while you do so it's interesting to watch. So, yeah,
I understand why he said that. It must be very frustrating.
It was like me and Rose Wrist remember that. And
it just came down to be part of my tribe,
B tribe or not, you know, not exist. And I'm like,

(11:09):
I don't want to be part of your tribe, well
B tribe, you know, Like I'm like, and that was it,
because talking to these political tribalists is an exercise and
sheer frustration and they don't they don't get the fact
that what they're advancing is war. Well, I guess she
does now because she's literally said it, let's just do

(11:30):
a civil war, folks, let's just do that.

Speaker 1 (11:32):
Well, she's trying to say something something, this is what
you guys do. I'm just you know, but it's just
not it. Basically, for most of this conversation, she's being obtuse,
she's avoiding confronting his arguments. She is doing what aboutism,

(11:53):
she is bringing up anecdotes, she's been wrong on her
actual claims, like this is like, until this moment, I
don't see how anyone could say she was winning at anything.
But so at this point he's like, this is what
I believe, and she just isn't listening. And even when
he says, I'm not gonna be able to convince you

(12:15):
of my worldview. He's even basically saying, I can't even
get you to understand my worldview, not necessarily agree with it,
because you can't even decide whether or not you agree
with something if you don't actually understand it. And the
reason is because she believes that there's nothing that he
could possibly say that would change her mind. And this

(12:35):
is you know, remember, this is a conversation about feminism,
So by default, she's entering the conversation saying, I am
the feminist, I am right. Anyone who disagrees with me,
there must be something broken inside of them. They can't
possibly disagree with me because I believe the good things,
because I'm the good person that believes the good things.
This is what they think. Anyone who doesn't agree with me,

(12:55):
obviously is a bad person that believes bad things. It
is that childish, it is that simplistic, but it is
that true, and can't he can't convince that.

Speaker 2 (13:05):
So now, granted, she does not win necessarily on the
in the realm of logic and reason and principles, but
it isn't still entirely possible to win on the ground
of narrative framing. Yeah, yeah, so that's not that is
like the least appropriate win for an advanced democracy, But

(13:32):
it is possible, you know, like that she she simply
is capable of maintaining the narrative frame throughout all of
this or parts of it anyway. So let's uh, let's get.

Speaker 1 (13:43):
Into the step. So yeah, so he he basically says,
you're too fucking stupid understand it. It's I think a
better reply might have been you don't want to understand it,
because that's what it really is.

Speaker 4 (13:55):
But sell you on my worldview. Yesfe has three baby
daddies and has been married twice before.

Speaker 3 (14:03):
And you under and under your religion, Elix snizz, what
is that? You're a fucking dyke. Don't talk about my wife.
He's stupid bitch. Shut your fucking mouth. Shut your stupid bitch.

Speaker 4 (14:14):
Mouth your wife with the three baby Did.

Speaker 3 (14:17):
I just say, okay, all right? And consequential in comparison
to your ditch licking to.

Speaker 4 (14:24):
The men that you.

Speaker 1 (14:26):
And now she's gonna she's gonna problematize all the men
that watch Andrew based on this comment, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (14:35):
This is threat. This is threat narrativing.

Speaker 1 (14:37):
Yes, although it was.

Speaker 2 (14:39):
Interesting, she went after his wife m that actually is uh,
that is a very high level difficulty to start attacking
a woman in this context. So this is probably why
she pivots to attacking his male audience. Well, because when
a woman attacks another woman, she doesn't have the automatic

(15:00):
assist that the woman is framed already as threatening and
lacking in any vulnerability and that their intentions are negative.
When a woman attacks a man, that that's already in place,
that's already in play. So the fact that she attacked
Rachel first is probably.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
She was trying to use the fact that Rachel has
children from different men before Andrew, without actually knowing the
story behind that, as a way to attack Andrew.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
Oh yeah, I know, I know.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
Yeah, so sas saying, why are you taking somebody's like
sloppy forces or whatever.

Speaker 2 (15:42):
Yeah, but that's attacking on more of a I think
a male vector, not necessarily a female vector. In order
to establish a threaten narrative, if you attack the woman,
then you have to deal with the fact that Rachel,
as a woman, even she's perceived as a conservative woman,
is perceived to be more vulnerable than Andrew, and you

(16:05):
have when you're dealing with threat narratives, you have to
realize everything is reversed. The most vulnerable party is actually
the hardest party to attack in a threat narrative sense.
So Rach, she just she just took a jab at
what is, in effect Andrew Wilson's where we perceive his
vulnerability to be, which is his wife, and he perceives

(16:27):
it too, I no doubt. So she's actually hit him
where he's strongest, which is that was a mistake on
her part. She should have gone directly to the in cell.
Your your your audience is a bunch of in cells. Uh,
maybe she could get away with something and your aicoc
kind of thing, But the way that she framed it,

(16:49):
she actually gave him a huge inn, or at least
she gave Rachel a big in, which is interesting. But
now she's pivoting to safer territory, which is attacking men,
specifically the men of his audience. So that's what I'm saying, right,
So she made a mistake going after Rachel first. She
ended up going she ended up throwing a punch where

(17:10):
his defense is strong, and now she's trying to quickly
re establish some kind of dominance by now going after
where he's weaker, which is, oh my God, you have
an all male, all in cell audience. That means that
you are potentially a vector of evil into society. And
so she's pivoting to something. So you see how she

(17:32):
just she doesn't even seem to blink with the whole
uh her him throwing slurs at her right and insulting
her sexual proclivities, she doesn't blink, partially because this might
have been a faint maneuver by her part. This may
have been intentional. If it was intentional, like I think
it was probably uh a mistake, but it could have

(17:56):
been a faint She could have attacked him at his
strongest point, which is his wife, because she's perceived to
be vulnerable, but also knowing that he's going to react
badly to that, and then he's going to go on
the big bad, angry, pissed off man, and then she
frames him as a threat. Of course, I'm not sure

(18:17):
if Andrew really cares about that, but other people might.
So she may have done this as a feint to
get him to start acting in a very aggressive manner,
which then frames him as a threat, which wins the
threat narrative like she wins. So that may been part
of her rationale, which is why you'll notice the insult

(18:37):
doesn't land like she does not give a crap about
him saying that she licks ditches or anything. She doesn't
even pause in her threat narrativing. She just is pivoting
to another thing. So she if I'm right, Well, actually
I got two interpretations. One she made a mistake by
attacking Rachel. One it wasn't a mistake. It was an

(18:57):
intentional feint. She attacked Rachel to get him to get
into his big bad, pissed off man and then frame
him as a threat. And then she's pivoting to framing
his audience as a threat for the win. So let's
see what happens, okay, to.

Speaker 3 (19:13):
Do the women that you try to do, the women
that you try to Charlie, did I bring Charlie? Did
bring your family is older? Did I bring any of
your family into anything? Did I say anything about you?

Speaker 2 (19:26):
Yeahlie, it's because that's good. That's good. Actually, actually that's
really good. Like what he's doing there is he's holding
her to the line did I attack you? Did I
attack you? And she's like, yo, you she did.

Speaker 1 (19:41):
He did attack her, but he did not attack people
that she is close to you attack people who are
close to him.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
So he's emphasizing her threat essentially and her bad intent
and the bad intent in terms of bringing into the
argument people who are even involved in it. So basically,
he's saying, you are engaging and killing, you're engaging in
targeting bystanders, and she's she is rather ineffectively countering that

(20:11):
by refocusing on while you're the threat because you insulted me,
and that justifies me targeting bystanders. Right, That's that's where
that's going. Now, Now this is hitting. Notice this. Notice
her face now, before her face was almost completely neutral,
if not smug to condescending. Now she's she this is

(20:32):
hitting because she knows that he is threatening her threat narrative.
She he is actually at this point actually engaging with
her on the level of where the conflict actually is,
and she's she is waking up to that. So let's
see where it goes.

Speaker 4 (20:50):
No, it's because you're embarrassed and you know that the
traditional values that you tried. You're not a traditional man.

Speaker 2 (20:57):
Okay, here here, let's let's let's let's stop here. You
are embarrassed. So what is she attacking here? She's attacking
his sense of use as a man. Right and now,
in the threat narrative, you can also frame. You can
also attack men based on their threat, and you can
also attack men based on whether or not they're useful.

(21:17):
And that's where she's going right now, you're embarrassed, you're vulnerable.
You should feel ashamed as a man because you're vulnerable.
You should feel ashamed as a man because you don't
recognize that your strength should be in service of my weakness,
and blah blah, on and on it goes. All right,
So that's that's a pretty good counter by her. Let's
see how he responds.

Speaker 1 (21:40):
Let's go through it.

Speaker 3 (21:41):
Chuck, tell me what I'm doing, which is immoral, what.

Speaker 4 (21:44):
You're doing, which is immral.

Speaker 1 (21:45):
I think that, yeah, because okay, before we get into it,
Pazinos that were talking over each other. She was trying
to use the fact that Andrew married a woman who
had children from other men before as a way to
dig in, because she was saying, well, according to like
the people that you associate with and your values, like

(22:06):
you're like the worst person, which doesn't actually make sense,
but I guess because Andrew, like he's a christiann orthodox
Christian at that but also he spends time with the
guys in the red pill at the Manisphere guys. He
doesn't agree with them on because he was on like
pearls thing with with Paul Elam I think at one

(22:29):
point as well. He doesn't agree with their prescriptions, but
he is looking at what their like diagnoses is right,
He's and he's always been in defended us for that
by saying, look, you know, the MRAs and the red pillars,
they have an accurate picture of the problem. And and

(22:51):
generally the red pill is a descriptive thing. It just says,
here's what's going on with men and women, right. It's
not necessarily prescript The prescriptions come in different forms either
Migtao men's rights, you know, or pick up artist stuff,
red pill stuff. And he's basically like got a different
idea of a prescription, which is his orthodox Christianity and

(23:14):
essentially patriarchy. But that is only if you ask for it.
So what she's trying to do is paint him as
a hypocrite or discredit him in the eyes of his
Menisphere peers by saying, look at you, you married a
woman with you know, like that have babies from other
men in the past, and he's saying, how is that immoral?

(23:34):
Explain to me how that is immoral by my standards
as a Christian right? How is that un Christian? And
she's gonna have to make that case, which she can't
make because the truth is Christianity is not against that
at all. It's obviously like if someone is redeemed and
you like want to if you love them and you
marry them and you raise their children, that is Christian right.

Speaker 2 (23:57):
So it isn't me it's adultery. But that's that's not.

Speaker 1 (24:03):
She didn't she didn't cheat with anybody.

Speaker 2 (24:05):
She she no, no adultery is married in strict Christian
like just basic historical Christian sexual norms, you get one wife,
one husband, and anything after that as adultery. Now, there's
a lot of different interpretations because that's pretty damn strict,
especially with Produstan.

Speaker 1 (24:24):
Yeah, but again I'm just saying, like this is what
her tactic is.

Speaker 2 (24:28):
So but it's certainly not immoral and her her landscape,
that's true.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
But we're going to get to that. So anyway, Albert
Nita Retro gave us five dollars. Canadian says, whatever, podcasts
are a bunch of hypocritical A holes? All right, thank
you for your input. Hypothetical A holes? Yeah, I think
you meant to say the critical. But anyway, let's keep going.

Speaker 4 (24:50):
You have been complicit in convincing young men that no, no.

Speaker 3 (24:55):
No, my family dynamic. What am I doing being married
to my moral Then?

Speaker 1 (24:59):
Why so?

Speaker 3 (25:00):
Then so all you did so? Wait so wait, Chuck,
all you're doing is saying is so, Chuck? Should I be?
Shouldn't you actually be saying that? Andrew? You're doing? You're
doing a good thing. Hang on, Charlie, I just want
to make sure I got this right.

Speaker 4 (25:15):
Huh?

Speaker 3 (25:16):
Am I doing a good thing? Am I doing good thing?

Speaker 4 (25:20):
Do you think your wife is a charity by taking.

Speaker 3 (25:22):
By taking, by taking care of?

Speaker 5 (25:23):
Man?

Speaker 2 (25:23):
Did you see that? Do you see how she's constantly
pivoting back to threat narrativing like you're you are a
threat to your wife because you pity her? See that?

Speaker 1 (25:35):
Now?

Speaker 2 (25:35):
Yes, he she briefly dipped into threatening his sense of
honor in terms of his audience. But she's she's I
think she's mostly operating from a threat narrative frame. So
what that is is she's trying to show him as
a threat. She's trying to poke, poke at his vulnerabilities
to get him to react in such a way that

(25:56):
demonstrates he's a threat. And she's trying to maxim lies
her vulnerability in this circumstance so that she perceives to
be the injured party. But yeah, this is But again,
she did pivot, I think briefly, into a more male frame,
and attacking is his honor, that that whole thing about
being a hypocrite with his audience is more male framed.

(26:18):
It's more about principles. So it's interesting she she's straddling
a line. I'm wondering where she's going to go.

Speaker 3 (26:24):
All right, a good thing whose father's abandoned them? Was
I doing good thing?

Speaker 4 (26:28):
You're doing a good thing?

Speaker 3 (26:29):
Oh okay, well then, Chuck, why did you use that
as a form of personal attack on me? Okay, this
is good doing a good thing.

Speaker 2 (26:36):
I'm convincing you of my worldview. All right, he's got that.
That's really well done. So he reframed that as an attack,
so she has to acknowl it and also reframed it
as an attack that has no legitimacy within her principles,
which I don't think she has. But we'll go with that, right,

(26:58):
But now she has to defend. She's on the defensive.
She has to explain why she engaged in this threatening action,
and he's not letting her get away with the idea
that it isn't threatening or it was justified or some crap.
So that's good, that's his response.

Speaker 1 (27:12):
Is good.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
Let's see what she does.

Speaker 4 (27:14):
Under my worldview.

Speaker 3 (27:15):
I'm a person.

Speaker 4 (27:16):
Can you can marry your wife and no one would
judge you, and you can raise the children that aren't
yours and no one would judge you.

Speaker 3 (27:22):
No, they would still under.

Speaker 4 (27:24):
Your worldview, that would not be so Christian.

Speaker 3 (27:26):
Nationalists, m m yeah, what.

Speaker 4 (27:28):
About it even acceptable?

Speaker 3 (27:29):
Do you understand what what Christianity is? Do you think they?

Speaker 4 (27:33):
Do you think Christian?

Speaker 6 (27:34):
Were you?

Speaker 3 (27:35):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (27:35):
I was Protestant?

Speaker 3 (27:37):
Yes I was.

Speaker 1 (27:38):
Are they getting in the weeds?

Speaker 7 (27:39):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (27:40):
Yeah, this is interesting.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
But yeah, so she's she's claiming. Okay, notice this though,
I think this is important to point out. He's saying,
under my worldview, no one would judge you. That's a lie.
You can't control whether or not people have an opinion
on your lifestyle, no matter what your religion or lack thereof,

(28:03):
is okay? That's just a lie. It doesn't matter right,
so that you can't you're just claiming that under my
worldview as a feminist, as an intersectional feminist, I believe
atheists her. She's basically saying, we would never judge anyone
for anything. That's just not true. That doesn't exist. Guys,

(28:24):
there's no such thing as a society where nobody has
opinions about anybody else. That just doesn't exist. So when
she's making a claim that's ridiculous because she's trying to
protect herself. And then she's saying, under your worldview, there'll
be lots of judgment and it'll be really hard. There's
judgment no matter what the point is. How do you
cope with it? Do you just say fuck it whatever?

(28:46):
Do you you know? Or do you get on with
your life? Like in general, in my opinion, men don't
care about judgment women do. This is what the whole
feminist movement, by the way, I've been saying for a
long time. But part of it is all about avoiding judgment.
It's like the most important thing, which is why a
lot of their causes have nothing to do with law
or policy. It's all about perception. I want to be

(29:08):
seen a certain way. That's it, yes, right, yeah, Accept
me no matter no matter what my body count is.
Accept me no matter how fat I get. Accept me
no matter how wherever I grow my hair, Accept me
no matter what clothes I choose to wear, what color
I decide to dye my hair, whether I have accept
them piercing or not, those are all based there. There's
no way you can pass a law that makes it

(29:29):
illegal for someone to judge you on those, although you
can get into a position like in Europe where free
speech is limited, where people can get arrested for saying faggot.
So there is that, and I think that comes from
this kind of attitude.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
In my opinion, well, I would say that while men
are less concerned with judgment in the way that meant
women are, they can this shouldn't be like considered a
free for all for judging, because I think that what
they are sensitive from my opinion, an outsider's opinion is

(30:06):
having a consistent metric to understand their self worth. And
that's that's a bit different than judgment because you can
you can be very iconoclastic with that, like you can
be the the uber mint. Sheo just decides on his
own standards, but a lot. And I don't think this

(30:26):
necessarily makes men like these men who do this weak,
or it's they do want some kind of way of
establishing self worth through their actions in relation to something
greater than themselves.

Speaker 1 (30:39):
That makes sense, right, Well, I think there should be
there should be a desire to please people deserving of that.

Speaker 2 (30:50):
Yeah, but I think men are drawn to external principles,
to standards of honor, and these are ways of judging
your your actions and your decisions. But women are drawn
to the absence of that.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
Well, that's right, that's right. Yeah, Well, its what I'm saying.
We understand we can't escape that world. There's no escaping
the world where people have opinions on other people, or
people have a view on how to operate in the world,
or standards of any kind like that has to exist.
So men at least believe that those should be aspirational standards,

(31:29):
and they want to achieve them so that they earn
the respect of people who see those also as aspirational.
But it also means that there are other people whose
opinions just don't fucking matter because they don't have good
standards or any standards like Why should I care what
Charlie believes if she has no standards anyways?

Speaker 2 (31:50):
Yeah, you know, yeah, Well I think this particular exchange
is a little bit in the weeds because it's essentially
two people trying to force the other say that the
other is a hypocrite.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
Well yeah, but you want me to go to a
different So at one point she goes after Stephen Crowder
for I guess it was like, here, let me get
to that real quick, because I thought that was good too,
because I let's.

Speaker 2 (32:15):
Go to the show turned sour.

Speaker 1 (32:17):
Okay, well that's that's going.

Speaker 2 (32:19):
Let's just keep going. We have to we have to
sacrifice my complex.

Speaker 4 (32:24):
The Protestant spirit is still you.

Speaker 2 (32:28):
Oh my freaking god, we're back in the hundred years War.

Speaker 4 (32:32):
It's the thing that Protestants do. When can I get
really into the idea of rules?

Speaker 3 (32:36):
And have you ever had an abortion?

Speaker 4 (32:38):
No?

Speaker 3 (32:39):
Never? Would you? Yeah, so you'd kill your own kids.
Why am I going to take moral advice from you?

Speaker 4 (32:44):
You don't have to.

Speaker 3 (32:45):
I'm not going to take moral advice from you. Show
you all your trying, but you all.

Speaker 2 (32:50):
Yeah, but you're trying to establish yourself as his moral superior.

Speaker 1 (32:55):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 2 (32:56):
So okay, again, this is this is really like, this
is basically just they're locked, you know, like you know
with with with boxing.

Speaker 1 (33:07):
Well she's yeah, she's trying to. But the thing is
she's trying to, like, he doesn't have stanards of her own,
so she's trying to find a way to hold his
standards against him. But it doesn't work because he's like, well,
why should I listen to you? You have no standards.
So he's like, he's not allowing her to do that. Pivot, Yeah,
your belief system, which again involves her having telepathy because

(33:31):
she never she never understood his belief system because for
most of the show he was trying to explain his
position and she was just you know, calling him a colonizer, racist,
sexist or whatever.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
Yeah, which is trying to establish moral dominance over h
But now he's now he's well, okay, let's let's continue,
because that's basically what's happening though.

Speaker 1 (33:52):
World view.

Speaker 3 (33:52):
Okay, which part? Which part am I lying about?

Speaker 4 (33:55):
So I think that you pretend to be a traditional
Christian man?

Speaker 3 (33:58):
But what I never said that I'm a traditionalist.

Speaker 4 (34:01):
I what I see you doing as someone who claims
to be a Christian is spreading hate. Okay, I think
that you all.

Speaker 3 (34:07):
Right, Chuck? Fine, you got me, you got me. I'm
a stepfather, Chuck. What did I do wrong?

Speaker 4 (34:14):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (34:14):
Oh, he's not even letting your pivot. Well, this is good.
He's keeping the line. He's keeping the line. He's saying.

Speaker 1 (34:20):
Another thing too that's worth going out here is that
when when when Andrew debates women, feminist women, he treats
them like men. That's why he comes across as an
asshole because he's talking to the way he would talk
to men, and when he debates men, he talks to
them the exact same way. So if you think Andrew's
an asshole here, then maybe you need to think about

(34:43):
what you would say if he was doing this with
a man, because I think this is the appropriate way
to talk to feminist women. If you're going to debate
them and they want to pretend to be men, then
argue with them like their men, and then watch what
happens they become women, like really like really feminine women.

Speaker 3 (35:00):
But anyway, being your stepfather and a good father to
kids who needed one, Chuck, can you tell me.

Speaker 4 (35:05):
What I was referring?

Speaker 3 (35:06):
No, No, it was what you were referring.

Speaker 2 (35:08):
To yes, you Yeah, he's trying to pivot away. Yeah,
she you see what I mean, Like that was actually
a mistake, and he's making sure that it remains a
mistake that she attacked his family. Yep, that's good. That's
that's a that's a good way for a man to
deal with a threat narrative because she like she I'm

(35:30):
pretty sure either she did not realize what she's doing,
because she seems to be operating a little bit in
between uh, a masculine honor frame and not honor, like
holding herself to it, but holding him to it, and
a threat narrative frame. So maybe she just made a mistake,
or she thought it would be a great faint she'd
get the get the angry, and then she'd pivot into

(35:53):
his audience, him spreading hate, and then and then she'd
get the wind. But he's keeping her where she weak.
She's he's like nailed her to where she's weak, which
is her choice to attack bystanders, to attack her family,
his family. So that's good, that's that's good. Let's see,
let's see if he maintains it, because this could be
a winning strategy.

Speaker 3 (36:14):
You are what am I saying what am I doing?
What am I doing except taking care of people?

Speaker 4 (36:18):
Is you are espousing to be a good Christian man,
But what you do with your life is you don't
help others. You sit around smoking cigarettes.

Speaker 1 (36:25):
I thought I did.

Speaker 3 (36:25):
I thought you just commended me for helping others. Didn't
I help children who weren't even mind?

Speaker 4 (36:30):
Chuck, That's not what you do with your life.

Speaker 3 (36:35):
Yes, it was what I did with my whole young life,
my entire youth.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
Your job is debating women who aren't formal debaters, and
literally mock you.

Speaker 3 (36:45):
Do I only debate? Do I only debate women? Or
do I debate the best debaters in the world?

Speaker 4 (36:49):
You sometimes do?

Speaker 3 (36:50):
Yeah, so shut up?

Speaker 1 (36:51):
Okay, Wait, know this was an attempt to frame because
again this is what a lot of people do with Andrews.
They say, well, you only debate like women who can't
defend themselves. It's essentially threaten narrativing him around how he
talks to women on the Whatever podcast. But he does not,

(37:13):
and I said this earlier because they always bring this up.
He does not only like debate against three zero four's.
In fact, more and more frequently he debates people like
Dave Smith. He debates like people who do a lot
of debating all the time, and he, you know, generally
does well. He's been on modern day debate many times.
He's hosting his own debate con thing like next week

(37:35):
or next year. I'm sorry, so that's just not true.
But it's if you frame it as though he's a bully,
then that's how you win. So that's what he's doing, all.

Speaker 3 (37:50):
Right, And what have you done? What have you done?

Speaker 4 (37:53):
I have a master's.

Speaker 3 (37:54):
Yeah, you haven't done shit. You don't have a family,
You've never taken care of another human being besides yourself.
And on top of that, let's just point this out.
You have not debated with those people because they think
you're too fucking stupid to do so.

Speaker 4 (38:05):
Well, yeah, I'm not someone that does debate for.

Speaker 3 (38:07):
No, it's not because of your debate skills. Check, it's
because of your i Q skills. Do it for fucking fun? Well,
the only thing that you could come up with this
entire time, after this nice, pleasant debate, that's true. I
did say I think you're too stupid to understand my point,
but never to you. I would never have attempted to
attack one of your family members you could do it.

Speaker 2 (38:26):
Yeah, he's keeping it to that. Yeah, that's good. She
really made a mistake, So I was I was correct
because I haven't actually watched this yet. I was correct
when I identified that as a mistake. And he is
keeping he's drilling that down like he's she she really
screwed up. She let him get an opening, and he

(38:49):
is drilling down on that opening. Good instincts. This is
this has nothing to do with logic, reason accountability on her.
This is simply threat narrative, call bat But the problem
is that while men can hold their own, they can't
win a threat narrative against a woman. It is extremely

(39:15):
difficult for that. And it's because I hate to say it,
but men just do not have the same ability to
perform vulnerability as women do. And that is the strength.
Like in a threat narrative, you have to invert everything.
Vulnerability is strength, strength is weakness, and so you have

(39:36):
to understand that you have to get into that framework.
And it's much easier for women to do performative vulnerability
than men. Like if Andrew broke down in tears, that
wouldn't go as well in terms of a threat narrative
than if Charlie broke down in tears. I could just

(39:56):
imagine her breaking down.

Speaker 1 (39:57):
Into well, yeah, definitely would be better for her. Yeah,
I think for him though, it would destroy him, like
people would be, it would get memed all over the internet,
and yeah, it would be.

Speaker 2 (40:10):
That's essentially that. That's this point. A woman can not
only more successfully do performative vulnerability. They don't have the
same social followt as men do. Yeah, well, it's like
it is. I would say it's almost impossible for a
man to win a threat narrative. He's holding his own,

(40:31):
so he's not becoming a victim of her threat narrative.
But it's not like he's gonna turn he's not going
to do a reverse who know on her.

Speaker 1 (40:39):
Well, this is what he does. Like, like, here's the
thing he does not. If he like asked you to
respond to something, you can't dodge that. You can't pivot
away from it, you can't try to change the subject,
you can't do what about is You have to answer
it right away or he will just keep keep it
on you until you do. And so people will see

(41:02):
that as him talking over them or insulting them. But
that's not what he's doing. He's saying, answer the question,
answer the question, answer the question, answer the question. And
if you don't, he's just gonna keep doing it, and
maybe he'll call you names while he's doing it until
you do it. So it's it's you're if you're not,
if you're not seeing that, that's what's happening. She is

(41:22):
not answering what he's saying. He is calling out her contradictions,
and she doesn't have anything because what she was trying
to do was simply make him look bad, go viral
and make some money, and it did it, and she
went viral for the wrong reasons. So uh lib pro
Marte Rules says, after three hours of destroying her arguments,

(41:44):
most people have a tough time keeping composure. Yet people
want to focus on just this part, not the whole
debate where she got destroyed. I agree. I watched. I
watched most of this fucking thing, and I'm telling you
it was mostly like nothing. And it's not because it
was It was because Charlie had nothing. She had nothing.
She came. It was like she wasn't even prepared. I

(42:05):
don't even know why she has a pen and a notepad.
She had nothing. She had anecdotes, she had threaten narratives,
she had feminist fucking gobbledygook talking points, and that was it.
She she and he debunked everything and it wasn't hard.
So I'm not even saying he's like a genius. It
wasn't hard. You just like take apart the logic and

(42:26):
and it falls apart, and she had nothing. So when
you get like I said, this is like four hours
in four hours and twenty minutes, and there's like nothing,
and she's not making a dent, and he's not able
to get her to like see even like what his
side of things is. So he just says, you know,
you're just too fucking stupid, Like we've been at this

(42:46):
for four hours, and then she goes after his family
like this is what I'm saying, Like he has less
than nothing. She's ineffensible.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
No, I mean she isn't defensible, but she doesn't have
less than nothing.

Speaker 1 (43:00):
No, I know, of logic, I mean she's got reason.

Speaker 2 (43:04):
Yeah, sure he's outmatched her, but in terms of maintaining
a narrative, she probably looks at this exchanges she won
and in certain instances she did like she she maintained
the narrative that she wants to maintain because there's two
there's two fights going on here. There's the logic and
reason fight which occurs and men are picking up on it,

(43:27):
and then there's the maintained the narrative fight, which is
operating on a completely different level. It's like she's giving
off some subsonic frequencies that the women are picking up
and they're like, oh yes, oh yes that, and men don't.
They don't pick up the level of the fight on
that level. And on that level, you can make the

(43:48):
argument that she won in terms of maintaining the particular
narrative that she wanted to maintain. No, she didn't win
on logic, she didn't win on reason, she didn't win
on coherants, she didn't even win on cleverness. But in
terms of maintaining and framing the narrative, there are potentially
points where she won, right, and now can we let's

(44:11):
let's finish this up, because I want to see the
ultimate resolution of this where it goes.

Speaker 4 (44:16):
All of my family members are better people than you.

Speaker 3 (44:19):
Well, I mean, but I'm a better person.

Speaker 4 (44:20):
When I said that, my dad has spent his life
helping people. You spent your life doing what tising to
the masses and as a fucking leader, essentially.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
Saying I am a leader? Are you saying I'm not?

Speaker 4 (44:32):
You are inconsequential in chocolate.

Speaker 2 (44:35):
So again, she's threat narratives. He's attacking his usefulness as
a man. So now she's attacking his identity, right So
this is this is all within the threat narrative for Rick,
because if a man is framed as useless, he ceases
to be somebody to talk like who has authority to speak?
So that's what she's doing. So she is attacking his

(44:56):
identity as a man right now, and he's going to
defend himself. But unfortunately, women's opinion on men's identities tend
to hold a stronger narrative weight or a stronger social weight,
which is why he's this is going to put him
on the back foot. Let's see what And again, my

(45:21):
prediction is that he's going to pivot to defending his
identity away from keeping her in the frame of recognizing
that she was engaging in something very, very threatening by
going after his family. So if he keeps her answering
to the fact that she attacked his family, that is

(45:45):
keeping her in the position of being seen as a threat,
lowering her vulnerability, increasing her bad intent. But if she
gets him to pivot to defending his identity, he moves
into a weaker position. Right, So you see the position
of framing her as a threat and framing her as
having bad intent is actually keeping her on her back foot.

(46:11):
Getting her getting him to pivot to I'm actually a
useful man is basically saying I am addressing your opinion
of my manhood as if it's legitimate. But also it's
abandoning this stronger position that's attacking where she's weak. Does
do you understand that? Okay, let's hear it, let's see

(46:32):
what happens.

Speaker 4 (46:33):
But I'm not ashamed of it, and I don't aspire
to be consequential.

Speaker 3 (46:38):
Chuck, you do. I didn't want any.

Speaker 4 (46:41):
Rules supposed at the end of the day. What you
want to do is you want to be the leader.
You want to be in charge.

Speaker 2 (46:47):
You do not have humility, Okay, useful useless man, useless man,
useless man. That's all she's saying, You're a useless man.
I'm attacking your identity. Okay. Where does he go with it?

Speaker 4 (46:58):
Where does he goats people?

Speaker 1 (47:00):
You?

Speaker 4 (47:00):
They hate the author.

Speaker 2 (47:01):
They stop Okay, go back to go back to pinning
her on her threatening attack of your family and her
bad intent in doing so. But I don't think I
think we're I think we're now in the weeds of

(47:22):
him defending his identity, or at least trying to deflect
her attempt to attack his identity as a man. Okay.

Speaker 4 (47:30):
It hates people like you. They hate the author.

Speaker 2 (47:32):
Okay. So now not only does she attack him as
useful useless, she is now pivoting to trying to morally
dominate him again. Yeah, because she has successfully moved him
out of the frame of pointing to her as having
bad intent and and aggression by targeting his family. Right,

(47:55):
So now this is this is this is actually slipping
in the wrong direction. Okay, let's keep.

Speaker 3 (48:00):
Going so much. Why do you do instead? I get
clergy members who send me. I mean, I've got hundreds
of dms I can show you from clergy.

Speaker 2 (48:08):
Why are you proving anything to her?

Speaker 1 (48:11):
No, he's asking her he's not valid, and he's saying
if it's true.

Speaker 2 (48:16):
No, But that that's the thing. It's still saying I
have to answer to she thinks I'm useless, right, And
this is where men are men are a little bit more,
are a lot more vulnerable like she. He wants to
answer to that because that strikes right at the heart
of the male identity. You want to be useful. This
woman is saying you're useless. Now I have to prove

(48:38):
to her that I'm not use useless by you know, X, Y,
and Z. Pivot back to why did you attack my family? Okay,
why are you doing this? What does this have to
do with our argument? But why are you engaging in
something this kind of aggression towards people who are completely
innocent That He keeps it back in the threat narrative frame,

(49:02):
targeting her as opposed to this, which is, now, I
think you're a useless man. Well, I'm going to tell
you why I'm not. Of course you're not. And she
don't have to tell her because she's there trying to
get your attention and trying to argue with you. By definition,
that puts you in the category useful like you don't

(49:22):
even anyway, Let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (49:24):
But wait a minute. Is there a difference between saying, well,
let me show you why I'm not and saying, if
it's true, then why do why do I have all of.

Speaker 2 (49:35):
This there's no functional difference.

Speaker 1 (49:38):
There's no functional difference. So if if I got accused
of shoplifting, can I or or well, that's.

Speaker 2 (49:46):
Different because you're talking about okay, why do I have
to prove that I am using?

Speaker 1 (49:54):
He's not proving anything. He's saying, like, what if it's true,
true that I'm like, you know, the enemy of the church.
Why haven't I been excommunicated? Because she's making a claim
and he's saying this isn't true because if it was true,
here's what would happen. And he's saying, why hasn't this happened?

(50:14):
If this is true? That's the same as demonstrating, you know,
it's more.

Speaker 2 (50:20):
Like, okay, this is a fine point. But the ultimate
proof in the pudding will be if he finishes off
this line of inquiry and moves back into a strong position,
because it's not just that okay, this is is this
defending your identity? He's acknowledging this as a vector of
attack at all by responding to it. Yeah, all right,
So the question is does he stay in this week's

(50:42):
position where he's responding to her allegations about his usefulness
as a man, or does he get out of there
and move back into the stronger position of you are
a threat, you are targeting innocence, which is the threat
narrative position, which is what she's actually She doesn't actually

(51:02):
care if he's useless or useful. He doesn't care about
his identity. She wants him to stop saying that she's
a threat because that's where she's seeing that she's losing. Right,
So if he if he stays on this line, she
has successfully gotten him into a digression away from that.

(51:23):
So she's gotten him out of a position of strength
into a position of relative weakness. It's it's you know,
it's different. No, like, guys don't see this as easily,
but it's there. Okay, let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (51:38):
All right.

Speaker 4 (51:40):
I mean I've debated with those what are the Catechumans.
What did you say? I've debated with them, and they.

Speaker 3 (51:45):
Are You've debated with the Cumans.

Speaker 4 (51:47):
Or the best the men that you've convinced to convert
to Orthodox Christianity.

Speaker 3 (51:51):
Yeah, he debated with use Chuck, you're calling someone else
an idiot?

Speaker 4 (51:56):
Yes, okay, And there were your idiots that bought your course,
and I stopped. And even people who were saying, like
I disagree with you, but you stop them so your
horses also.

Speaker 3 (52:04):
Over their names, Schuck, who are they?

Speaker 4 (52:06):
I could describe them to you describe them? White guy
wearing a hat with the orange mustache and blue eyes.
The other guy was also white, guayna hat.

Speaker 1 (52:14):
All right, let me just jump ahead.

Speaker 2 (52:16):
Yeah, this is this is like, this is getting into
the weeds. But he she has pivoted him away from
the threat narrative. That like, being from that in that
position where she he was nailing her on being a
threat and actually going after innocence, which in the threat
narrative context, that is a more that is a stronger

(52:37):
position than whatever this is.

Speaker 3 (52:39):
Okay, let's go even under even under Catholicism. And by
the way, Christian nationalism advocates for this as well. If
there's abuse in the home or abandonment or things like this,
of course that's grounds for divorce. They're against things like uh,
not getting rid of show cause, right, Like you have
to show a cause for a divorce. You have to
create justification there against things like no fault. That's the

(53:02):
things you're against. Nobody's like, oh, there are some people,
I agree, there are some people who have been like, well,
even if you're getting beaten up at a fucking in
a relationship, you should stay. But you know what happens
when you actually hone down on what they're saying. They're
actually saying, wait a second. What I'm saying is that
that's something which can be worked through, that's not a
thing which instantly nullifies the marriage, and then as Christians,

(53:25):
you should try to work through that first before you
in the marriage, especially if you have kids. That makes
a lot of fucking sense to me.

Speaker 4 (53:31):
Did you all have a did your wife?

Speaker 7 (53:33):
All right?

Speaker 1 (53:33):
I'm just pausing. Oh she's going after his wife again,
but I'm just pausing it there he's explaining the you
know again, these misrepresent misrepresentations of this position of like, hey,
you know, maybe it's more important to work through a
marriage if they're if it's going through difficulty for the
sake of the marriage, but also for the children if

(53:53):
there are children involved, right, And I think that's true.
I mean, it just it just it's common sense to me.

Speaker 4 (54:00):
But anyway, I've had a no fault divorce? Was it
no fault?

Speaker 3 (54:04):
I'm not going to get into my personal life with you, Chuck, all.

Speaker 4 (54:07):
Right, But if you're saying that Christian nationalists are you know,
they're pro show cause but against at fault divorce. Then
it's the same.

Speaker 3 (54:16):
Okay, Chuck, Well, what happened is her ex husband?

Speaker 1 (54:20):
You want me to jump ahead in the time.

Speaker 3 (54:23):
Thanks for, by the way, for reminding me of that.
Can you can you just can you just help me
out with this? Which Christian nationalists would say, this is
actually pretty good.

Speaker 2 (54:34):
This is actually pretty good. I know it's horrifying, and
but he's He has once again pivoted to her, reframing
this in terms of her being aggressive and also targeting
innocence with what she said. Now, she probably didn't realize

(54:57):
that there was severe abuse occurring with Rachel's previous marriage.
But it doesn't matter. This is this is moving it
once again back into his position in terms of the
threat narrative is strong, is stronger anyway, She can still
break down in tears and then it's all over. But
let's let's keep going.

Speaker 4 (55:18):
All right, who's the dude that was berating his uh,
his his pregnant.

Speaker 3 (55:24):
You tell me you're just even crowder. You think Crowder,
who's one of Rachel's best friends, would tell her that
that was her best friend. I didn't say it was
her best friend.

Speaker 4 (55:36):
One of that's one of her best friends.

Speaker 3 (55:38):
Yes, and one of my old man.

Speaker 2 (55:41):
Oh man, this is good, Like he's he's reframing it
in terms of personal cost again, really really shoring up
his position. And I'm not I won't say dominance, because again,
she can always she can always do the uh, the
sudden death or the fatality, which is start crying, but

(56:02):
she's he's maintaining his position.

Speaker 1 (56:03):
Now.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
I'm glad he got out of the Oh. Any kind
of defensive response to her saying he's a useless man
like I got. He got out of that, like I'm
probably the best way to approach that would just be
laugh and continue. Yeah, he's not even not even reference
it at all, not even say anything that looks like
you're trying to defend your usefulness to this person. Okay,

(56:27):
let's let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (56:28):
So for context, so you're talking about Stephen Crowder because
this is interesting because Andrew laid out that Rachel was
with like abusive men in the past who were like,
you know, bad fathers, bad boyfriends, husbands. I don't know
if they were married to her, and I think they
were she was married before. Maybe don't don't quote me

(56:48):
on that. Not sure it doesn't matter, but essentially she
Rachel has abuse in her history, Andrew is her husband now.
And this woman brings up like, you know, these men
that are around Rachel that like whether or not they
are also like dangerous or violent, you know, like this
implication that, well, Rachel was with violent guys, so why

(57:09):
are you bringing violent guys around her? Right? And he's like,
they're not right, And so she mentioned Steven Crowder because
you guys, remember there was this viral video clip from
a ring camera that Stephen Crowder's wife Hillary Crowder, put
out on the Internet of them having an argument. Nothing happened,
they just had like, you know, strong words for each other.

(57:31):
I've had arguments like this with Lindsay. Everyone's probably had
arguments like this. It was pretty mild, but it was
emotionally framed by his wife, who knew they were being
recorded and basically like played it up a bit to
make it seem like she was in more danger than
she was. And on top of that, she was pregnant
at the time, So like canas Owan's made a big

(57:54):
thing about it and like said, you know, basically like
completely condemned for the clip. And all of these other
women online were like all on board. Apparently, according to
Andrew and Pearl, who infiltrated it, Hillary Crowder is in
like a secret like x Space, like a like a

(58:16):
friend group there. It's like a whisper network of like
her and like a bunch of other women like Lauren
Southern and Chrissy Mayer and stuff. And they were all
like talking about this and they were all in on it.
It was like the thing to expose him, but none
of it, nothing came of it. And and Crowder has
been very like, you know, upfront about everything that was

(58:37):
going on. He said he never laid a finger on
her and all that. But this is like important context
because the people like Charlie here will say that he
was violent to his wife, even though there was nothing
of the sort. It was an argument. Men have arguments
sometimes sometimes with women, and that there's nothing wrong with that.

(58:58):
But this is what she's trying to do, and Andrew's
going to defend Stephen, which I think is right.

Speaker 2 (59:04):
So yeah, well I'll give my interpretation here. She's trying
to claim Rachel's vulnerability and claim ownership of it now
that she's made the mistake of bringing all of this up,
and she's made a mistake by starting and attacking Rachel,

(59:25):
because that's actually in a threat narrative context where Andrew
is stronger, like, if you attack a man's wife, you
are going to be seen as much more of a
threat than if you attack a man. And now he's
done this thing where he said, well, you're bringing up
things that are hurtful to my wife. And now she's
trying to reclaim ownership over Rachel's vulnerability and by extension,

(59:50):
all women's vulnerability by framing him as a threat to
his wife because he's not safeguarding her safety with other men.
Do you see how that works?

Speaker 1 (01:00:00):
M hmm.

Speaker 2 (01:00:01):
Yeah. So she's she's now trying to position herself as
the advocate for Rachel's vulnerability, and that is pretty it's
a pretty you know, in the context of threat narrative. Me,
it's a pretty smart tactic. She's she looks very lazy,
but she's cunning. All right, all right, Jesus.

Speaker 4 (01:00:21):
Christ, I mean that's what I mean, man, as you was, no, no, no, man.

Speaker 3 (01:00:24):
What I mean man, is you just said that Stephen Crowder,
Stephen Crowder, you're saying that.

Speaker 4 (01:00:30):
Step you were telling your wife's like you were you
are talking about.

Speaker 2 (01:00:35):
She's really working it like that. She's working it. She's
working it. She's found he's dropped his guard. She's starting
to to push like he's hitting some ribs there, and
she is selling it. Notice she's pivoted to selling. Yeah, yeah,
she's she's trying. She's selling. I protect your wife better

(01:00:56):
than you because I'm a feminist, lesbian possible sayartist. I
don't know, but you know, like I am, I'm the
one who sees your wife's vulnerabilities. And you didn't even
see this. You let her be close to another man
who is who is who is aggressive or or or
a potential threat. And now she's just she's going with it.

(01:01:17):
She's she's taken a victory lap. Let's see what happens.

Speaker 4 (01:01:22):
Stephen Crowder.

Speaker 3 (01:01:24):
Stephen Crowder didn't lay a finger on his wife.

Speaker 4 (01:01:26):
You are hanging out with the grinning, grinning.

Speaker 2 (01:01:30):
Look at that. Never laid a finger on Okay, here's
a problem.

Speaker 4 (01:01:35):
As far as we.

Speaker 3 (01:01:35):
Fucking know, no, as far as she claimed publicly, you
fucking idiot, you don't even know anything about the case.

Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
Okay, stupid.

Speaker 2 (01:01:45):
Unfortunately, that feels very like a like a cathartic. But
when then this is this is how like psych psychos
get us. They'll accuse somebody of something, and then when
you address the accused accusation defensively, people think you're guilty.

(01:02:07):
So there's going to be a group of people who
thinks that something nefarious is happening with Rachel and her
husband and Stephen Crowder, which is ridiculous, but that's how
they get you. And that's why she's grinning and laughing
as a result of this, because in that context she
scored and going after her again her stupidity and reframing

(01:02:33):
her as vulnerable and weak only adds to her threat narrative,
framing she is stupid. Let's be frank, I'm not defending
her on that level, and I'm not even defending her.
I'm explaining what she's doing and how she's doing it.
So at this point, let's see what Let's see how

(01:02:56):
she responds to.

Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
This all right? Statistically though, as a lesbian, she's the
most violent person in that room.

Speaker 2 (01:03:04):
Yeah, that would have been a good thing to pivot to, Like,
you know, what are the rates of violence in lesbian relationships?
Why are you bringing this up with this?

Speaker 1 (01:03:16):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (01:03:16):
When Okay, that would be a good thing to pivot to,
to reframe it back on her potential threat and her
potential targeting of the innocent, So her bad intent. That's
not what happened. But he's sort of in a defensive space. Now,
let's see what Let's see what happens.

Speaker 3 (01:03:33):
Can you tell me, can you tell me that Hillary
Crowder has said that Steven Crowder ever touched her? Ever?
Because she's probably then why are you making those allegations?
Because he got into it. He got into an argue
that he spoke to Shock. You support that, you said Shock.
You've been in worse arguments and relationships than that. I
guarantee it.

Speaker 4 (01:03:54):
I haven't.

Speaker 3 (01:03:54):
Oh my god, you keeople are the worst liars. You're
the worst liars, the most uncharitable. But good, good, good,
you just made an accusation that Steven Crowder.

Speaker 2 (01:04:06):
You know why? I say that this is good for
for Angie to go into lying bad intent more more
imputations of bad intent. That is that is actually moving
it back into the threat narrative him or you want
to get it out entirely, but you can't because she's
a woman, right, She'll always have that that as of

(01:04:28):
persleeve of so neat.

Speaker 1 (01:04:34):
That's like, to her credit, she hasn't gone there yet.

Speaker 2 (01:04:39):
No, she hasn't, and as far as.

Speaker 1 (01:04:40):
I know, she never does, uh to her credit, but
it just yeah, it could just be she just doesn't
have the like instinct. I don't know, but let's let's
keep going.

Speaker 3 (01:04:53):
I said that he beat her up, total fucking lies,
said that he would hate Rachel Wilson, who's one of
his best friends. Right, you're a fucking idiot. You don't
know what you're talking about this whole night and you
you literally don't know what you're.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
Talking I like this. I like this because they're both
sort of exiting the threatnarrative frame and now they're just
slinging shit, which is always fun. Yeah it's not very productive.

Speaker 1 (01:05:18):
Though, No it's not. But but I mean he's look,
he's sticking up for Crowder, and that's good to see.

Speaker 2 (01:05:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:05:26):
I think that. Yeah, I think that Crowder was treated
unfairly and as somebody who cares about false allegations. And
I know how women weaponize that shit in family courts,
especially because Hillary and Stephen got divorced, like you know,
shortly after that happened, or that came out. Yeah, I mean, like,

(01:05:47):
I think it's absolute bullshit to go along with this
lie because it is a lie. Even Hillary Crowder didn't
make this claim. So like this video went out and
then like a bunch of women saw it and speculated
on it, and then that became the story, the speculation.

Speaker 2 (01:06:03):
Yeah yeah, And that's the power.

Speaker 1 (01:06:05):
That hight night men too, by the way, but.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
That's the power women have to spin a threat narrative.
And because not responding to a threat narrative is so dangerous,
like if men don't respond to saving women, you know,
women might die and they're pretty freaking vulnerable to the
natural world. So there, there's some there's some serious inborn

(01:06:29):
instinct there.

Speaker 3 (01:06:31):
Okay, all right, literally, Chuck, just stop.

Speaker 4 (01:06:35):
You're an embarrassment, Chuck, an evidence you would be like, no,
it's not. I watched your debates.

Speaker 3 (01:06:39):
Well, Chuck, I'm surprised you didn't learn from any of them,
because good lord, it was a terrible showing for you
the whole night, and you really ended it with a
flourish Let me tell you.

Speaker 4 (01:06:48):
I didn't come here to win.

Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
Yeah, I'm because that wasn't gonna happen, not with.

Speaker 4 (01:06:54):
Your fucking audience.

Speaker 2 (01:06:56):
It's all she's a victim of the audience.

Speaker 3 (01:06:59):
Yes, victim, a bunch of ditch licking horrors. What do
you want me to say?

Speaker 4 (01:07:03):
I like that better than you.

Speaker 3 (01:07:05):
Yeah you should.

Speaker 1 (01:07:07):
Okay, it got personal.

Speaker 2 (01:07:12):
Yeah, if you want an analysis Again, she is making
herself out to be a victim of his audience. So
in a threat narrative sense, she believes she won because
she she is the bigger victim, and he is again moralizing,
but from a position that she doesn't recognize moralizing is

(01:07:32):
the wrong way. She's he's he's saying that she is, well,
she's insulting. He's insulting her in a way that doesn't
reduce her vulnerability. So she is she's she's the queen
of the vulnerability hill at this point. But really that,
like I said, women generally occupy that space just by roads,

(01:07:54):
So who knows what she's really winning. Anyway, Let's keep going.

Speaker 1 (01:07:58):
Well, I can and this like, we can get because
I don't know if there's more of that, but I
can get to the part where Rachel calls in, or
we can.

Speaker 2 (01:08:07):
Yeah, let's get this too. Yeah a little before what
what what's what's the rest of this.

Speaker 1 (01:08:13):
Argument over there's like more where Andrew defends his worldview,
and then there's Andrew hypocrit.

Speaker 2 (01:08:25):
Is At any point, is she defending what she chose
to do? Uh, well, yeah, she attacked his family. Yeah,
and she attacked the by standard innocent bystander, and Rachel
wasn't involved in this, and she did it in a
way that actually was potentially harmful, right, because she's trying

(01:08:47):
to impugne this kind of moral failure. And then he
comes back with, well, actually she was severely abused by
her ex partners or one of the ex partners, you know,
and and she sort of steps in it there. But this,
like it's like Andrew has to answer for the hypocrisy
of his worldview. Andrew has to answer for whatever this,
that and the other thing, and she doesn't have to

(01:09:08):
answer for, you know, being meaned bystanders, like people aren't
even involved in this. Like that's just that's interesting to
me that it's always framed in terms of his worth
not hers. Okay, let's let's go to Rachel calls in,
because maybe maybe that this is all turns the time.

Speaker 1 (01:09:29):
That yeah, well this is like how you turn the tables, yes, tables.

Speaker 2 (01:09:36):
Now that the turntables turn Rachel, can you hear me?

Speaker 1 (01:09:41):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:09:43):
I don't know why discord wasn't working, So we're just
gonna do it via the phone.

Speaker 1 (01:09:47):
Do you want to say anything?

Speaker 2 (01:09:49):
Okay?

Speaker 7 (01:09:50):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (01:09:51):
Am I coming to through? Okay?

Speaker 1 (01:09:52):
Yes?

Speaker 6 (01:09:54):
Okay, Well I guess I'm just going to ask her
the same question kind of that Andrew asked her, which
is I mean, she's said all this stuff about me
that she got completely wrong.

Speaker 5 (01:10:04):
But what is it that you think and her or
I are doing that is wrong or hypocritical?

Speaker 2 (01:10:11):
Ah, she's pulling it back into where she was weak.
And this is woman to woman combat, so this should
be fun. I'm excited. Let's see. Let's see Rachel's chops
and the threat narrative for Rena.

Speaker 4 (01:10:25):
Okkay, I do feel that with your guys's platforms, what
you do is Rachel, I'm gonna be honest with you.
I'm not familiar with your platform. I'm only familiar with
your husband's. But well, hey man, I was trying to
prove my point.

Speaker 3 (01:10:42):
I was, well, no, no, you weren't.

Speaker 2 (01:10:44):
You were attacking somebody in But she's pivoted. She's pivoted,
you know, she's pivoted to reframing Rachel as a threat
your platforms and what you're doing, the evil that you
are perpetuating with your platform that's framing Rachel is a threat.
So it's a it's a it's she's so like lazy,

(01:11:06):
it's hard to say that. It's like a good salvel
because she's like, I don't know, the lazy master of
threat narrative, Like she's trying to barely make an effort,
like life is exhausting her.

Speaker 1 (01:11:16):
So well, communists are lazy. So yeah, it's it is,
it is what it is.

Speaker 6 (01:11:20):
Okay again, did you know did somebody tell you that
Andrew like hates on single moms and like ships on them,
and so you thought that because he's married to me
and I had kids before I marry him, that like
he's a bad Christian, Like I don't understand what that's.

Speaker 2 (01:11:39):
A little defensive.

Speaker 5 (01:11:40):
What did he do wrong? And what did I do wrong?

Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
Okay, that's maybe, but like before she wants to counter argument,
she needs to understand what Charlie's argument is, and maybe
she's going to like orter in or not, because if
Charlie was just saying, you know, well you're with a
single moms and that implies that Andrews has hate single moms,

(01:12:08):
which I don't hate single moms. I think that there's
data that says that single motherhood is bad, but that
doesn't mean I hate single mothers. That's an important distinction.

Speaker 2 (01:12:21):
Can you honestly say that a single motherhood is an
abusive choice? Like if you choose, if you are, go ahead,
If you are not, like you're not having a child
with a man who is committed to you and committed
to the idea, why are you having a kid?

Speaker 3 (01:12:44):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:12:44):
I get that, but like in Rachel's case, it wasn't like,
you know, I'm not saying that that's the case.

Speaker 2 (01:12:49):
Like it sounds like she's talk about, yeah, she got
a commitment, man wanted a child, and something really went sideways,
and that happens. But that is not the no.

Speaker 1 (01:13:03):
No, And again I can condemn behavior without hating the person.
But we're talking about that, right, hate to say not
the sinner so but but I mean that's what it
is though, because like, ultimately, whether or not a single
mom made the choice to become a single mom was irresponsible,
was you know, immature? And this is like, yes, this

(01:13:26):
is a very common problem. And I think that there
should be ways to like curtail that behavior. And I
don't like that behavior, and I don't like the consequences
of that behavior. That doesn't mean I hate them. So
if somebody says to me, you hate single moms, I'm
just saying, no, I hate single motherhood. I hate the
idea that there are children being raised without fathers, But

(01:13:48):
I don't hate those women, even if they did it
to themselves. I think that there there should be, you know,
some acknowledgement of this as a reality. There could be
shame if that will help to tail the behavior, and
but then ultimately there has to be something done about that.
And once the child is in the world with the
single mom, there's something has to be done about that

(01:14:10):
situation too. So if if someone if there's a way
to take care of it so that that child grows
up and they're semi functional and they don't end up
joining a gang or getting pregnant as a teenager or
going to jail or whatever, then that's we're all better
for that. So yeah, I mean, it's a it's like
it's it's not as simplistic as Charlie makes it out

(01:14:31):
to be. But Charlie's trying to score points. She's not,
you know, that's that's what she's doing.

Speaker 2 (01:14:36):
So well, can we like it can be I mean,
you can at any point decide to change the trajectory
of your life, yes, and be lauded for that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:49):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:14:50):
And you can be a person like like Andrew who
decides to help somebody out who is sort of put
themselves in or through no fold of their own, has
ended up in a bad situation. You can be lauded
for that too. Okay, let's let's hear what goes on,
all right, So.

Speaker 4 (01:15:08):
The basis of anyone, the basis of Andrew's platform is
essentially to make women look stupid and humiliate them.

Speaker 2 (01:15:19):
A threat narrative right there, bad intent, aggression. And of
course we can't acknowledge Andrew's vulnerability. Remember that one instant Kathy,
I think Kathy Young wasn't you know Kathy Young Kathy
Newman versus Peterson. Yes, yeah, you're confused, And he said, well,

(01:15:42):
what about my experience? You know, it's been very uncomfortable,
and she was just like sat there and blinked for
a while. That's because he threw his vulnerability into the ring.
And that's like not something that women expect from men,
because men are not allowed to do that, because that
means you're threatening your identity of useful to women and

(01:16:03):
that and men are always supposed to be beholden to
that identity. They're always supposed to be defensive around that identity,
and to treat any kind of threat to that identity
is more important than anything else, which is maybe a
little bit why Andrew pivoted into defending it. But yeah,
that was that was like, that is the first time

(01:16:25):
I think that might be the only time I've seen
a man force a woman to acknowledge his experience of
her behavior in public like that. And again, like Kathy
Newman nearly went total blue screen of death as a
result of it. It's fascinating, but that's not what's happening here.

(01:16:45):
But what's happening here is that she's reframing everything again
in terms of threat, that Andrew's a threat to women
because he deliberately goes out to humiliate them, et cetera.
So let's let's let's see what how Rachel responds strongs,
he doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:17:05):
Even need the help, but go on, sorry, sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:17:13):
What the heck? They have their own technical difficulties.

Speaker 1 (01:17:17):
He has a soundboard like I do. That's all.

Speaker 4 (01:17:24):
Yeah, okay, I lost my train of thought.

Speaker 3 (01:17:30):
The whole world, the little world.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
You were saying that Andrew's whole purpose is to make
women look dumb and stupid.

Speaker 4 (01:17:38):
But that's how his like, that's how his his thing
works as he goes on debate shows. A lot of
the time it's young women, people with no formal debate experience,
such as mine, why do they.

Speaker 1 (01:17:48):
Go into it? So now she's putting herself in the
same category as those are the women, the people with
no debates experience, such as myself. So now she's one
of those hoes whatever podcast. But that puts her in
the vulnerable position even though she chose to go on
here and do this one on one.

Speaker 2 (01:18:08):
It doesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (01:18:09):
Yeah, it matters. It does not.

Speaker 2 (01:18:10):
And this is why they always go after Oh, you
can't you can't talk about women putting themselves in a
vulnerable position because that reframes a woman's vulnerability from a
power in and of itself to something she needs to
take responsibility for, not men. Right, that's and so it
does like her mindset, it doesn't matter that she's putting
herself into that position. What matters is that she's vulnerable,

(01:18:34):
and Andrew isn't responding the way a useful man should respond, right,
And that's the narrative framing that she's creating, and it
is powerful. But let's see how Rachel responds.

Speaker 4 (01:18:47):
Looks stupid, clip farm and then gain money and notoriety
this way, he doesn't engage in real, thoughtful debate. I've
seen people walk off from debating him because she's.

Speaker 7 (01:19:00):
You can't just shot down five hundred things.

Speaker 2 (01:19:01):
So, okay, did you not have agency?

Speaker 7 (01:19:04):
The do you not have agency when you accepted this
debate with Andrew?

Speaker 1 (01:19:08):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:19:08):
I did?

Speaker 7 (01:19:10):
Okay, How then what did he do wrong?

Speaker 5 (01:19:13):
Do you want him to treat you like?

Speaker 4 (01:19:14):
Oh?

Speaker 6 (01:19:15):
Like because you're a feminist, So do you want him
to only debate men? Because if he did that.

Speaker 7 (01:19:19):
You'd say, oh, he's a misogynist.

Speaker 6 (01:19:21):
You won't even debate women because he doesn't take them seriously.

Speaker 7 (01:19:24):
Enough or whatever.

Speaker 3 (01:19:25):
Like you guys, Yeah, this is.

Speaker 6 (01:19:29):
This is.

Speaker 2 (01:19:33):
She doesn't give a crap about principles or hypocrisy. She's
just operating on a threat narrative frame. So she's thinking
about what's going on and how to reframe it in
terms of I'm vulnerable, Andrew is a threat and he's
also the devil. But let's see, like and Andrew, like
I understand the impulse that Rachel is doing because she

(01:19:53):
probably is a woman who wants to operate in the
position of honor and logic to a degree at least now,
you know, like whatever has happened to her in the past,
I don't know. I don't. What I meant by that is,
I don't know, you know, at this point in time,
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:20:10):
I mean like I don't know, Like like it doesn't matter.
We're not We're not to get into Rachel's whole history
like people exactly have in their past.

Speaker 3 (01:20:18):
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:20:19):
You know, there now is logic, reason and accountability. And
that's not the framework that she's that this woman is
operating in. She is purely operating in the threat narrative
framework of I am vulnerable, and I'm going to present
everybody I don't like it's a threat who has negative
intent and thus destroy them socially. So let's see what

(01:20:42):
she how her responds to that, how she responds to that.

Speaker 7 (01:20:46):
Stupid Andrew can't make you look stupid if you're not.

Speaker 5 (01:20:50):
And I would go on here, and I would.

Speaker 6 (01:20:51):
Make you look ten times stupider because you're really really uninformed,
but really really confident about everything you say.

Speaker 5 (01:20:59):
You do sound like a person with.

Speaker 7 (01:21:01):
A college education.

Speaker 6 (01:21:03):
My homeschooled thirteen year old can.

Speaker 5 (01:21:05):
Explain, per capita. Okay, you are not a very smart person.

Speaker 6 (01:21:09):
You're the one who put yourself in this position, and
since you lost and you got humiliated, you thought the
thing to do would be attacked me.

Speaker 5 (01:21:17):
And okay, so let's go there.

Speaker 6 (01:21:19):
Where did you get the idea that I'm permixed you with?

Speaker 1 (01:21:23):
All right? So she said, you know you were losing,
so you came after me. So you tried to attack
Andrew through me?

Speaker 2 (01:21:32):
Yeaheah, go ahead, No, no, Sirry, I apologize.

Speaker 1 (01:21:36):
No, no, it's okay. I'm all I will say, like
real quick though, this is a real like this is
what a good woman will do. He like goes to
bat for him, And that seems like a very rare thing. Wow,
just like saying, whatever you think about Rachel, you know
she's got Andrew's back, and that's kind of like that
seems to be a rare thing, at least in this space.

(01:22:00):
You know, I mean, I know that Allison has Jonathan's back,
and Karen has her Man's back and Hannah. But like
generally this is rare, a rare thing.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
Yeah, I mean, and you're right, even rare for like
a red pill space. Yeah, red pill groups have been
imploded by a psycho woman.

Speaker 4 (01:22:19):
Okay, well, that you're promiscuous. Sorry, you just also said
a bunch of shit that I was trying to keep
track of.

Speaker 7 (01:22:28):
You said that I'm promiscuous.

Speaker 1 (01:22:30):
So she's looking with a.

Speaker 4 (01:22:34):
Lot of people, right, I would say that I think
that having children with multiple men is uh. I think
that that is more significant then.

Speaker 7 (01:22:46):
Okay, well, I think I.

Speaker 6 (01:22:47):
Think it would be if and I know why people
are humans.

Speaker 7 (01:22:51):
I do understand why people are human. They're just wrong
in your assumption.

Speaker 5 (01:22:54):
It would be wrong if I had been sleeping with lots.

Speaker 6 (01:22:57):
Of people, if I had been carelessly getting with random people.

Speaker 5 (01:23:01):
That's not the case.

Speaker 7 (01:23:02):
I just spent my entire adult life.

Speaker 6 (01:23:04):
Only in three long term committed relationships, one of which
is an almost twenty.

Speaker 5 (01:23:10):
Year relationship with Andrew.

Speaker 7 (01:23:11):
Now we're like eighteen years then. I've been married since
twenty twelve. Prior to that, I was married for four
years as Andrew had to.

Speaker 5 (01:23:19):
Unfortunately explain that ended not.

Speaker 6 (01:23:22):
Even because I left, but because he beat the crap
out of me and was being pursued.

Speaker 5 (01:23:27):
By the law and left the state. Until it was
like a band.

Speaker 7 (01:23:31):
The first one was my high school boyfriend, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:23:33):
So she explains that it's not because she's promiscuous, and
that she just is one of these people that, like
you said, was in a committed relationship and it went
sideways for whatever reason. Now she's not even trying to
defend her part to play in this, so we can
get into, like, we don't have to get into whether
or not she chose a man for the wrong reasons,

(01:23:56):
because we know women do that as well. They get
involved with men who are probably you know, antisocial, violent, whatever.
But the point is, though, is that she is basically
like explaining that her situation is nothing for Charlie or
Chuck here to make assumptions about, and it's incorrect. And

(01:24:17):
the thing is, too is it completely sort of dissolves
the what was implied by her suggesting that you know,
this whole marriage thing to Andrew, which is, you know,
you're a hypocrite because you got involved with a promiscuous
woman who has three kids from you know, different baby daddies,
and that makes you a hypocrite. And the red Pill

(01:24:39):
should you know, kick you out. And the Christian Nationalists
could kick you out or should kick you out, and
the Orthodox Church should kick you out. And you're fake,
and I don't need to listen to you. And I'm
also a victim of you, by the way, even though
I chose to come here. Yeah, debate you.

Speaker 2 (01:24:55):
Well, she's just waiting for a way to reframe this
again in terms of Andrew's threat and his ill intense
So let's see what she does. Let's see how long
she with her five years, We had two children.

Speaker 5 (01:25:08):
He had his own personal problems, and that did not
and that did not work out.

Speaker 7 (01:25:13):
So I understand why people make the assumption. But the
truth is, I'm not promiscure.

Speaker 5 (01:25:18):
I have an extremely low body count.

Speaker 7 (01:25:20):
I've never had one right fance. I've never cheated on anyone.
I've never just carelessly or casually had sex ever.

Speaker 5 (01:25:28):
So I've only ever been.

Speaker 7 (01:25:30):
With men that I, at least at the time, felt
certain I was going to.

Speaker 5 (01:25:34):
Be with forever and have a family with.

Speaker 4 (01:25:36):
Maybe you should have nerved on the first two.

Speaker 5 (01:25:38):
I didn't even nerved on the first two. I will admit.

Speaker 3 (01:25:42):
I did wonder her hang on, Rachel, I did wonder
one thing.

Speaker 1 (01:25:45):
If we're pausing there for the banana real quick, she had.

Speaker 3 (01:25:49):
Slept with three men but had aborted all of the children,
would she still be promiscuous?

Speaker 4 (01:25:54):
M she would have lived her life. It would have
been better for her if she if.

Speaker 3 (01:26:00):
She had only slept with three men but aborted her children,
which she hang on, Rachel, Oh.

Speaker 1 (01:26:06):
This is good. Rachel is gonna get this is good.
This is good. Alse I think you're gonna like this,
So he says to her. The wait, let me ask
you hypothetically, if Rachel had gotten pregnant three times, because
she has, but she kept the children. But if she
got pregnant three times and instead of having the children,
she aborted those children, would you still consider her to

(01:26:28):
be promiscuous? And Chuck here says, well, I think she
would have lived a better life, like it would have
been better for her if she had aborted those kids.

Speaker 3 (01:26:39):
Okay, well shop for a second. It would it be
the case? Was that too abusive? Shut up?

Speaker 1 (01:26:46):
Rachel?

Speaker 3 (01:26:47):
Was that too abusive? Charlie? So, Charlie, this is good too.

Speaker 1 (01:26:52):
He told his wife to shut up. Obviously they have
a good thing going, so he can do that. And
he's trying to like invite Charlie to like frame this
as a threat narrative with his wife in the room. Right,
So what do you think, I'm I'm I just told
my wife to shut up? Is that abusive? Like you
third party that doesn't know anything about my relationship? Are

(01:27:12):
you gonna tell us like that we're wrong for that?
I think that's pretty good.

Speaker 3 (01:27:16):
But anyway, tell me if she had aborted her children
with those three relationships, would she be less promiscuous or not?

Speaker 4 (01:27:25):
I think that frankly, in my opinion, her life would
have been better school.

Speaker 3 (01:27:29):
Would she be less promiscuous Charlie, Yes, yeah, she'd be
less permitted. Yeah, these people, Rachel, Rachel, you should have
killed You should have killed our kids, Rachel.

Speaker 4 (01:27:41):
Maybe she should have.

Speaker 7 (01:27:43):
I wouldn't have been so it's less promiscuous if I
kill the children.

Speaker 4 (01:27:50):
I mean, you're not killing children, You're having an abortion.

Speaker 5 (01:27:53):
Did you just say to me? Did you just say
to me that my wife would be.

Speaker 7 (01:27:58):
Better if I had born my children?

Speaker 4 (01:28:04):
I mean, and if I were in your shoes, I
would have had a better time doing that.

Speaker 7 (01:28:11):
Wow, I regret to inform me or that I love
all of my children. I would never on a.

Speaker 6 (01:28:20):
Wive groom, I would never wish that they weren't born,
even if there was some mild inconvenience to me along
the way, or maybe I had to do a little
work to raise them.

Speaker 7 (01:28:31):
I love my children. I would never wish that they
had not been born, and I'm certain my life would not.

Speaker 4 (01:28:38):
Would you deny? Would you deny that under patriarchy you
were seen as like a I hate that narrative.

Speaker 2 (01:28:46):
She figured out where she's going in with a threat narrative.
Mm hmm.

Speaker 1 (01:28:50):
Would you agree that under patriarchy?

Speaker 2 (01:28:53):
Okay, she's trying to Again, what's interesting is she's and
this is what the sisterhood does. She's trying to herself
in a position of adjudicating or being responsible for Rachel's victimhood.
That's what she's doing right now. She's trying to say,

(01:29:13):
I understand your victimhood better than you do, which essentially
that's the way you neutralize another woman's opinion in the
threat narrative scheme of things, is that you can recognize
the victimhood of the other woman. So when you're creating
a threat narrative, you want to amplify your victimhood, your vulnerability.

(01:29:35):
If you say I am in position of being able
to see your vulnerability better than you do, that's like
a knockout in a threat narrative. In the threat narrative
battlefield between two men two women, you're basically saying to
that woman, you don't understand your own mind, and I

(01:29:55):
take your victimhood as my own. I have claimed you
the king on your chest page like you know, you
know what I mean, all right, I have claimed your
territory for my own. Okay, let's see what Let's see
what happens. Well, how the Rachel responds to this?

Speaker 4 (01:30:11):
Would you deny that? That is, unfortunately the common the
common perspective.

Speaker 5 (01:30:17):
I actually think it's people like you who think that
about me.

Speaker 6 (01:30:20):
Andrew is a patriarch.

Speaker 7 (01:30:22):
He is a patriarchist.

Speaker 6 (01:30:24):
As you said, He's the one out here representing the patriarchy,
and he looked at my situation.

Speaker 2 (01:30:30):
Yeah, so okay, now again I think that she's Charlie
is actually being successful here because it is patently true
that people men on that particular side of the aisle
do judge women like Rachel, Right, there's like, don't don't
marry single mothers, don't date single mothers, et cetera, et cetera,

(01:30:52):
et cetera. Now she could reframe it in terms of
her agency, in that I am happy that Andrew stepped
in and helped me, you know, overcome this aspect, you
know the mistakes that I made, or that if it

(01:31:13):
like the first relationship sounds like it was more of
less of a this is of a clearcut thing than
the second relationship. Like she could say something like that,
or she could say, you know, I don't think that
men on our side would judge me because of the
domestic violence that I experienced. But let's see, let's sorry,

(01:31:33):
let's let's see what she says. Let's see how she
frames it.

Speaker 6 (01:31:36):
She is worth marrying because if I had been divorced
because I was a bitch, or because I was not submitsive,
or because I was a cheater, or because I was
mentally interestagious.

Speaker 2 (01:31:48):
That's where she's going.

Speaker 7 (01:31:49):
Normal reason that you do have a one I happened
to be an outlier.

Speaker 2 (01:31:57):
Boredom is the usual reason. Boredom is literally, boredom is
the usual reason why women divorce. Boredom they just get bored.
They call it irreconcilable differences, but when they're in a
state with shared parenting, suddenly the very reconcilable differences become
very reconcilable. So I just want to put that out

(01:32:17):
there's boredom. That's the primary reason why women get divorced.
They get bored.

Speaker 5 (01:32:22):
Okay, situation and despite the fact, and I've said this before,
I thought Andrew was way too this for me.

Speaker 6 (01:32:29):
I tried to break up with them multiple times because
I thought he's got a great.

Speaker 7 (01:32:33):
Life with no baggage.

Speaker 6 (01:32:34):
Why was he you know, he could pick anybody, He
should pick someone else other than me.

Speaker 5 (01:32:37):
That was my opinion.

Speaker 6 (01:32:39):
He was the one who wood at me and said, no,
I really think your great wife's.

Speaker 5 (01:32:44):
Material, great mom material. I know that based on the
fact that you're already a great mom.

Speaker 6 (01:32:49):
Yeah, your situation isn't the best, but all things considered.

Speaker 2 (01:32:54):
So she did, she did go there. She did express gratitude,
which is very powerful when it comes to threat neartives,
because threat nerves.

Speaker 1 (01:33:01):
Are like and humility. Because she didn't, you know, it
wasn't like she was like, well this, these men need
to step up, and no, she said, I didn't think
I deserved this, Like I there was like, no, I
shouldn't have gotten this. I tried to break up with
him because it's like, no way is he gonna want
to be with somebody like me and all the baggage
that I have, And yet he still did. So I

(01:33:24):
think that's commendable and I think that that's got a
lot of value.

Speaker 2 (01:33:30):
Hm anyway, sorry, oh sorry, yes, next, I'm the cats
making me not fine?

Speaker 6 (01:33:42):
Was that awesome?

Speaker 7 (01:33:43):
Isn't that cool?

Speaker 6 (01:33:44):
What a good guy? And he was a great success
and he loved all the kids.

Speaker 5 (01:33:50):
He never treated the older ones like they were any different.

Speaker 6 (01:33:54):
Uh you know, he never there was never any drama
with him, like, you know, talking bad about their gay
or anything. He was a great Night's a great guy.
And it turns out that you're the one who thinks
I should have killed my kids. You would rather party
and have fun and get bullshit degrees than creation and
beings are going to go off.

Speaker 3 (01:34:13):
And create the pature.

Speaker 4 (01:34:14):
Yeah I would.

Speaker 6 (01:34:14):
It turns out it turns out that you are the hateful, selfish,
awful one to lie about people.

Speaker 2 (01:34:24):
She's making herself the victim again.

Speaker 1 (01:34:27):
Yeah, but but Rachel also sort of like framed her
as the aggressor on her children.

Speaker 2 (01:34:35):
Yes, well yes, yes, threat narrative. She's an aggressor on
my children. She wants them dead. She is the hateful one,
right like this is this is she's she's she is
actually fighting back the way women do. And let's see,
let's see if Charlie can salvage this or if she's
going down with her ship.

Speaker 6 (01:34:57):
All right, you don't know what saying multiple people of millions,
you're willing to lie millions.

Speaker 7 (01:35:05):
I know.

Speaker 4 (01:35:07):
It that you did not shows merely go that far.
I've also already had people spread clips around me that
got hundreds of thousands of yews, and it.

Speaker 3 (01:35:19):
Was okay, fine, I'm just just letting you know that
she was saying something accurate that millions of people would
likely see this.

Speaker 4 (01:35:27):
Yes, and forget tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (01:35:31):
No, here we are a month later and we're still
reacting to it.

Speaker 2 (01:35:36):
Yeah, although we get, we get, we we we end
up we're pretty slow on the uptake. So yeah, yeah,
maybe we should be faster about that. Get on the
hot takes a little bit more quickly.

Speaker 1 (01:35:48):
Oh yeah, you start by watching other videos. Yeah, you
start by consuming content. Okay, so.

Speaker 2 (01:36:00):
I read, I read research articles. You know I'm doing
like I'm trying. I spent like a couple of weeks,
well maybe a week downloading c cv csv files from
like the New New York Times on bestseller list. Like
I'm consuming stuff. It's just not pop call. Yeah, I know,

(01:36:22):
it's not pop culture stuff I need.

Speaker 1 (01:36:24):
Well, this is in pop culture stuff. This is like
these are like debates and conversations happening in spaces that
are parallel or even connected to ours, and people send
us stuff. Who's did somebody send you this?

Speaker 4 (01:36:38):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:36:38):
I found I located it sort of came across it.

Speaker 1 (01:36:42):
Yeah. The reaction to this, yeah, which.

Speaker 2 (01:36:47):
Like I put it through Coral and I was like, yeah, yeah,
is there any actual.

Speaker 1 (01:36:50):
Course, No, it's just it's it's just Hassan Piker. He
doesn't he doesn't have anything to add. He's he has machines.
That's all. He's got these machines. So, and he's black pilled.
That's another one I got to add to my soundboard.
So yeah, yeah, but I'm sorry right now, that's fine, Okay,

(01:37:17):
So do what do we?

Speaker 4 (01:37:19):
What do we?

Speaker 1 (01:37:19):
Is there more? I think is this the endless?

Speaker 5 (01:37:22):
Here?

Speaker 1 (01:37:23):
I think we're like getting to the end of Charlie.

Speaker 2 (01:37:25):
Actually rejoins with anything all right, because she has anything
after this?

Speaker 1 (01:37:30):
Yeah okay, but that wasn't.

Speaker 4 (01:37:32):
But again, at the end of the day, do you
guys feel that the work that you do.

Speaker 2 (01:37:37):
Women? So she's just pivoted away from what she did.

Speaker 1 (01:37:41):
Well, no, well yeah she's yeah. So now she's just saying, like,
do you think that what you're doing is good? Like
do you think women will actually listen or something? Yeah,
maybe it doesn't.

Speaker 4 (01:37:55):
It's Christian nationalism. Then being repulsed and disgusted.

Speaker 3 (01:38:00):
It's not all about women, is it. It's all about women.

Speaker 4 (01:38:04):
I mean, if we're talking about helping women.

Speaker 3 (01:38:06):
We're not just talking about helping women.

Speaker 1 (01:38:08):
Though.

Speaker 3 (01:38:08):
I think helping men is.

Speaker 4 (01:38:09):
Helping helping men. I think helping men way from from well,
hang on healthy partners.

Speaker 3 (01:38:14):
Normal healthy partners, which is too high or they've done that? Yeah, yeah,
you chance.

Speaker 1 (01:38:21):
Okay, I'm just pausing there. Okay, was going to say something.

Speaker 2 (01:38:24):
Yeah, no, let's listen to who.

Speaker 5 (01:38:26):
Why I do this?

Speaker 6 (01:38:27):
Yeah, go ahead, if I may, so the reason I
do what I do, which you said, you don't know
what I do, so I'll tell you. I write a
history book about the history of women's liberation, and I
regret to informing.

Speaker 5 (01:38:39):
That you don't know anything about it.

Speaker 7 (01:38:41):
You don't actually know how.

Speaker 5 (01:38:42):
The movement happened, why the movement happened. You were under
the impression that women couldn't get educated.

Speaker 6 (01:38:48):
I'm sure you're the average dope who thinks women, you know,
were change to.

Speaker 7 (01:38:52):
The stove, couldn't leave the house.

Speaker 6 (01:38:54):
You were just use and abuse by the evil patriarchy
who just for some reason wanting to.

Speaker 5 (01:38:58):
Enslave them and make them in decide up.

Speaker 6 (01:39:00):
With blah blah blah, the stereotypical bullshit. Did all you
female liberals and everybody else pretty much believe?

Speaker 3 (01:39:07):
Well, I wrote a best.

Speaker 7 (01:39:10):
Selling book correcting the historical record, and that's what I do.

Speaker 5 (01:39:13):
I'm more of a historian.

Speaker 7 (01:39:15):
And then I do argue with feminists like you, because
what you'll do to men like.

Speaker 6 (01:39:19):
My husband and to Brian is instead of win the arguments,
which you cannot. You can't win the debate.

Speaker 7 (01:39:24):
You don't know what you're doing.

Speaker 6 (01:39:26):
You're an absolute boneheaded. So what you do is attack
them personally like you did Steven Crowder.

Speaker 2 (01:39:32):
What she does is meritis.

Speaker 1 (01:39:35):
Yeah, you can see right through it.

Speaker 6 (01:39:37):
Yeah, Brian and Andrew, because that's what all of you
do after you leave the show, after you get your
ask kick, go over the place.

Speaker 4 (01:39:44):
Well, BRI's ben So I'm not going to say about Brian.

Speaker 1 (01:39:47):
I know it's just.

Speaker 3 (01:39:47):
Andrew smokingmand bad.

Speaker 5 (01:39:50):
I'm here to defunct your nonsense and keep families togeter.
I don't give a shit.

Speaker 6 (01:39:54):
I'm not willing to sacrifice children's and children's lives on
the altar of.

Speaker 5 (01:39:59):
Women's feelings anymore.

Speaker 7 (01:40:01):
Women like you who think.

Speaker 6 (01:40:02):
They're expendable, who think they need to be killed in
the wounds so that you can party, Women like you who.

Speaker 7 (01:40:08):
Think that the family can be a bunch.

Speaker 6 (01:40:10):
Of gay dudes having designer babies together, women like you
who destroyed society.

Speaker 5 (01:40:15):
And made this world a nightmare.

Speaker 6 (01:40:18):
I'm here to quit your ideas in the grave where
they belong, once and for all.

Speaker 7 (01:40:24):
So I'm here to support the patriarch, and how like
kind of like the secretary to help the patriarchy.

Speaker 5 (01:40:29):
And I just happen to be really fucking good at it.

Speaker 7 (01:40:31):
So if you ever want to talk more.

Speaker 5 (01:40:33):
Shift let me no one. I'll set up a debate
with you, and.

Speaker 7 (01:40:36):
I'll make you look ten times stupider. Than even anger has.

Speaker 5 (01:40:40):
Okay, you should put you're the one.

Speaker 6 (01:40:42):
You're the one who should get back in the kitchen
because you're useless.

Speaker 3 (01:40:45):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:40:47):
Oh wow, she can cook ramen. I don't know anyway, Yeah,
it gets it gets spicy.

Speaker 2 (01:40:55):
But I wonder, I just I'm curious if she has
any rejoinder for this.

Speaker 5 (01:41:00):
Okay, what do you contribute to society?

Speaker 7 (01:41:03):
Nothing?

Speaker 4 (01:41:04):
Well, I can't book, so they should probably not put
me back in the kitchen because I'd burn the house down.
You can learn, no no interest in it.

Speaker 6 (01:41:14):
I'm gonna let you guys finish her off because I've
said everything that I need to say.

Speaker 7 (01:41:17):
But ye know, well you shouldn't lie that's up about
people that you.

Speaker 4 (01:41:20):
Don't know, Rachel, that's not very probably would well, I'm
not a Christian, Rachel. I would be interested in talking
to you if you ever wanted to debate, because I am.
I am interested in what you have to say about
women's liberation and the history of women's right.

Speaker 3 (01:41:38):
Why is she going to debate you? Second you're out
of here. All are you going to do is talk
shit about her husband like he did Stephen Crowder when
he wasn't here.

Speaker 4 (01:41:44):
Well, she said it, Yeah, Stephen, what am I going
to get the chance to talk to Stephen Crowder?

Speaker 3 (01:41:48):
But why would I ever write to Steve? Why do
you think it's okay on a public podcast that has
thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people watching right this
second to make those disparaging and horrible fucking reference to
Stephen Crowder. He's Look, maybe you can say that I'm
a bad man, that's Smoky Man bad, but you can't
say that about Steven Crowder. He's the opposite. Like that

(01:42:09):
guy is fucking He's one of the greatest guys I've
ever met in my life.

Speaker 4 (01:42:13):
Well, first off, my misconsented, all.

Speaker 1 (01:42:16):
Right, So I mean he is. It is good too,
because again he's sticking up for a guy who isn't
there to defend himself, yep, and he is putting her
in the He's basically saying, you have a platform that
millions of people are going to see, and you're using
it to slander a man who can't defend himself. And

(01:42:37):
I think that's you can say it about me because
I'm here, but you can't say it about him because
he's not.

Speaker 2 (01:42:43):
So yeah, well, I think the threaten narrative is over.
I guess she just gave up on it or something
or descended into her own lacissitude. She doesn't seem like
she wants to make an effort for much, So that's uh, yeah, well,

(01:43:03):
I mean I think that it's uh, I don't think
we can actually get to the to the arguments that
were actually made in this.

Speaker 1 (01:43:14):
Uh sorry, I mean I didn't really want it to
just be about this, but like the I just told
you that this is like what everybody was talking about.

Speaker 7 (01:43:23):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:43:24):
The thing is is that a lot of the other
stuff doesn't have a ton of substance. I mean, I guess,
or let's put it another way, it's not like it's
it's not like it's something that we haven't talked about before. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:43:38):
Well, I mean we're gonna be doing a lot of that.

Speaker 1 (01:43:41):
We could do another one on some of the more
subsistuente claims from earlier in the video.

Speaker 2 (01:43:46):
Yeah, exactly. Maybe we can do that on Friday. So
I don't want to belabor this go too late. I
did a lot of work on actually reconstructing any kind
of an argument, because apparently this is just a fire
hose of not substantive points and I'm not calling out
Andrew because I don't think he's the reason why that's

(01:44:09):
that's the case, shall we say? But yeah, I managed
to reconstruct, you know, like a nine ten substantive arguments
that we could respond to and also look at from
a threat narrative framework as well to see what Charlie
Charlie is actually up to, because I don't think people

(01:44:29):
really get a good grasp on what she thinks she's
doing and what she's actually at what she's doing in
terms of framing things in terms of like the social
understanding of these issues. I don't think she actually is
failing as much as people think she is in that context.

(01:44:50):
But that's that's for another day. I want to give
a big thank you to everybody. I'm gonna do the
unless you have some final thoughts. Brian. While I struggle with.

Speaker 1 (01:45:01):
My mouse, no, I got a super chat from the
Zerix thinking Zaranks gave us five dollars and said, I'm
glad she admitted she'd burn the house down. I would
have said she burned the water trying to make Ramen.
Thank you. She probably just orders in. You know, she
lives in California, so I'm sure she just gets carry
out or you know, despite being a lesbian, she probably

(01:45:23):
has guys that'll buy food for her. She's not a
bad looking young lady, so you know, there's no reason
why she wouldn't exploit it regardless. You know, there's a
simp born every minute. But yeah, thank you for that,
Zaraenx And I think that's it so well.

Speaker 2 (01:45:39):
I mean, like what I would say about this is,
I think it's important to look through because I believe
that at least I do come from this from a
different perspective than Andrew or Rachel or Red Pills. I
don't think that conservatism or whatever brand of traditional and
I don't want to say traditional because he's in paleo patriarchy,

(01:46:01):
I think it was. I don't think that the umbrella
of conservatism or the umbrella of liberalism is going to
solve the issues that our society is facing. I think
men's issues, addressing men's issues is going to solve that.
Like I am a men's issues purist, I think that

(01:46:23):
it's not an issue, not just an issue of solving
these issues for men. I think our society has these
problems and we need to solve them, and we need
to focus on that or we are not going to
make progress. So I believe that other people from different
political positions, they say, my particular belief system is what's
going to solve the issue facing the world, and somebody

(01:46:45):
else might say my issue. But I think that that
occurs within a functioning, productive system, and I'm not sure
if we have that anymore. So I think that the
solution to what we see and the problems we see
is addressing men's issues full stop, like we got we gotta,
we got to addressmen's issues. We got to look at

(01:47:07):
the situation with a full understanding of what those issues are,
and we've got to start treating men as a resource
that deserve to be respected and cared for, and not
just because they're a resource, but also because they're half
the human race. And I don't I don't think it
speaks very well of us if we're incapable of extending

(01:47:29):
compassion to half of our numbers. So anyway, that's that's
my approach. I know it's different than conservatives, it's different
than other political positions because they would say the solution
is a branch of conservatism, whatever that is. A solution
is liberalism. Nope, the solution is actually taking care of
the men who are primarily responsible, the group of people

(01:47:50):
who are primarily responsible for the functioning of our society
at this point in time. Okay, having said that, I'm
going to do a big thank you to the great
indoors who put in one k.

Speaker 1 (01:48:05):
Wow, thank you, great Indoors.

Speaker 4 (01:48:08):
You did that.

Speaker 2 (01:48:11):
He did that because the writer's retreat and I people,
and I just went through and watched the most horrendously
awful feminist film that I do not recommend anybody watch.
I think it's called Julian Dillman. It is three and
a half hours of as excruciating boredom punctuated by a

(01:48:34):
few moments of intense missingry. Don't watch it. I think
Sound and Lighting late voted it its top movie for
twenty twenty two. Do not believe them, my friends. It
is a terrible, terrible movie. Sight and Sound voted it

(01:48:55):
the top movie for twenty twenty two. Is not a
good movie. Don't watch it. If anybody, yeah, if if
anybody is in a position, well yeah, if anybody is
in a position where they have to gnaw off an
arm or watch this film, just consider that you have

(01:49:18):
two arms. So anyway, thank you. To the great indoors
for that, and thank you to everybody else to support it.
If you want to send a message, if you want
to tell voidcat to to you know, not do this,
you can do so it feed thebadgery dot com slash
just the tip at any point throughout the after the

(01:49:39):
show is over. You can also support the show at
feedbadger dot com slash support if you agree as I
do that what we need right now is to address
men's issues, because they're not just men's issues at this point.
There are society's issues, and society gonna go very far
if it keeps beating its plowhorse to death. And also,

(01:50:00):
so you know, a compassionate, truly compassionate spec you should
probably be able to extend compassion to half of its numbers. Anyway,
Feed the Badger dot com slash support to support us
if you want to do that, and you want to
keep this little guy this little girl in cans of food,
and I'll head it back to you Brian while I
attempt to do a squish.

Speaker 1 (01:50:19):
All right, Well, if you guys like this video, please
hit like subscribe. If you're not already subscribed, hit the
bell notification, 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 We'll talk to you guys in the next one.

All Episodes

Team Andrew vs Team Charlie: Hit or Miss on Men’s Issues? | Deep Cut (Whatever Podcast)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Team Andrew vs Team Charlie: Hit or Miss on Men’s Issues? | Deep Cut (Whatever Podcast)