UN Women: “Big Sister is watching you” | HBR Talk 370

UN Women’s complaints about the manosphere include typical mischaracterizations, and a familiar plan of attack. Tonight we’re going to do a bit of looking into one of the sources from their recent report, “What is the manosphere and why should we care?” Let’s check it out.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome to HBr Talk three sixty nine. I
think I've got that right. If not, somebody will tell
me Big Sister is watching you. I'm your host, Hannah
Wallen here with nonsense annihilator Lauren Brooks. We don't have
Mike tonight because he has been traveling and there's just

(00:21):
only so much you can do in a day, but
we do have the doge in charge of the background
helping to make everything work properly, and so thanks Brian
for that, and tonight we're still looking and sorry, guys,
still looking into you and women's complaints against activists who
support things like due process and uh, you know, boys

(00:44):
getting an equal access, getting equal access to education and
stuff like that. And like I said, make no mistake,
that's who their actual target is. It is not you know,
bad guys. It's not bullies, it's not abusers, it's not
gender bush violence online. It's talking about, you know, the

(01:05):
ways that men are disadvantaged and boys are disadvantage and
trying to seek remedy for those. And one of the
ways that we know is this publication that they recommended,
which we have been reading. But before we get into that,
we gotta do what we gotta do. As always, Honey
Badger Radio dishes out a smorgas board of thought provoking discussions,

(01:28):
and as experiences both recent and long past have demonstrated,
the provoked thoughts are fighting back. They've made it clear
that for people like us, relying on third party payment
platforms like Patreon to fund our work is treading on
thin ice or building our house in the path of
a rapidly growing wildfire. In light of this, we strongly
encourage our supporters to switch at least their support for

(01:50):
us to feed the Badger dot Com the most stable
way to help us out. And if you want to
tip us directly instead of relying on any social media platforms,
tip jar or the link for that speed Badger dot
Com slash just the tip. And as always, the same
risk applies to our social media platforms, which I still
don't I don't know why I haven't been banned on

(02:11):
x yet because I've I've had some knockdown drag outs recently,
but I haven't, so that's good at least, But any
of us could at any time be pretty much eliminated
from the social media discussion. And so obviously, if you

(02:34):
want to follow what we are doing. Follow us at
a Honey Badger Brigade dot com and a Honeybadger Brigade
dot dot com is where you will find all of
our links to our shows. There will be articles up
on any Badger Brigade dot com sometimes and also there
is a link in the drop down menu at the

(02:55):
top of the page to feed the Badger dot com.
So there we go full circle. In the meantime, we
are back to dealing with unwomen. I just every time
I see it, I read it like that these are
unwomen monster.

Speaker 2 (03:12):
It makes me chuckle.

Speaker 1 (03:16):
They're good violence. It's like they're stuttering. Uh. So we've
been looking at some of the things they were saying
about what they think, uh, social media platforms should be
doing to track you and report on you and organize

(03:38):
around banning you from social media for saying mean, mean,
herdy words and things that women disapprove. And remember, if you, uh,
you don't think it's okay for women to beat men
and you say so and women see what you said,

(03:58):
then you're guilty of online gender based violence. Hopefully I'm
not blasting people's ears, but I just hate that term.
And we've seen here this discussion outlining the impact. There

(04:21):
we go. There's there's a definition. The discussion considers online
gender based violence as any form of violence, including dehumanizing language.
So language is violence. If I say fuck the matriarchy,
that's online gender based violence. Now, guys, that was violent.
I have whipped all of the you and women into

(04:43):
shape with one sentence.

Speaker 2 (04:45):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (04:46):
I just failed to see how words dehumanize anyone. You know,
you may not like the words, but that doesn't mean
that you're not a human, like grow the fuck up up.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Yeah, it's all about how does that make you feel? Well?
It doesn't, but I think about it this way, and
in response, I might feel a way about it, but
it doesn't change what I am. M hm right, Like,
I've been called all kinds of I get. I get

(05:22):
called a guy daily by people on X. You're a man,
you know, I like created a term for it. I
got your amand you get your amand when your your
comments and thoughts and opinions, information that you shared, anything

(05:45):
that you said gets summarily dismissed by calling you a man.
I think I'm an honorary trans woman, even though I'm
very much not trans. Been female all my life gave birth.

(06:05):
You know, I'm a grandma, Like I'm quite happy to
not pretend, but but yeah, every single day, and then
this is supposed to be an insult too, Like everybody
that says it to me thinks it's an insult, even
the men. M hmm, that's pretty sad. But yeah. Online

(06:27):
gender based violence includes dehumanizing language directed against persons based
on their gender identities or expressions. So I guess that
would be when people accuse me of being.

Speaker 3 (06:44):
In order to.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
Dismiss what I'm saying to them, that would count it?
Should am I like some kind of a victim or something?
I don't feel like a victim? Man. I usually laugh
about it. I made a meme it to you use
every time it happens.

Speaker 3 (07:04):
Uh, I mean if we're using there, and I don't
know if you could call it logic, but yeah, that's
that's that's exactly what it would be.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
And they must they must be really wimpy women. Yeah,
like that's really that's some really wimpy ship there. I
I know, hate to be mean about it, but that
is like, who the heck calls that violence? Like it's
it could be annoying if it wasn't funny.

Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (07:43):
Yeah, it's it's almost like at a certain point in
a kid's life and they get to if they are
the temperamental type, they get to the point where they
throw tantrums over things that uh uh, you know, really
aren't that big of a deal. Like we were we

(08:05):
were going to go to the store and then the playground,
but we decided we're going to go to the playground first,
and then the store, and then we went to the playground,
and now we're going to go to the store. And
the kid wanted to go home and you know, and
watch TV, and and there's the tantrum, and uh, every
so often you get one that that will they don't

(08:28):
understand the difference between objects and people and people and
each other, and they'll smack something there, I hit you.
I know you didn't, you know, And and you have
to teach them this doesn't actually do anything. It doesn't
get you what you want, and it also doesn't hurt me.
But you probably just made your hands smart a little

(08:49):
bit because you know, you just smacked the wall. And
and if somebody has, you know, maybe intellectual disabilities, it
takes them longer to learn that, or they can can't
learn that or whatever, depending on their disability. But it's
it's the same kind of behavior. Right, you're a man. There,

(09:11):
I insulted you. No, no, you just told me that
you think I'm more accountable than women are. You may
not realize that, but that's what you said. Oh no,
I'm so devastated to be mistaken, but especially when I'm

(09:32):
talking to a woman, so devastated to be mistaken for
someone who's more accountable than you are.

Speaker 3 (09:39):
Well see, they twist the meaning of all of these words,
and they think that you know that we are subject
to get buying into those those definitions. And I'm sorry.
I know that men can't be women and women can't
be men, you know.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
So.

Speaker 3 (10:01):
You you calling me one means absolutely nothing to me.

Speaker 2 (10:05):
It doesn't hurt my feelings. It means nothing.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
It's it's you throwing a tantrum, and fine, have had
it cool?

Speaker 2 (10:16):
You know.

Speaker 1 (10:16):
Well it's like, okay, well you gotta call me a
chiropractor next. There sin to to that too, and like,
I don't I'm technically a self chiropractor, but that's a
different story. That happens just because I'm moving. But yeah,
it's just is uh, it's stupid. I don't have a

(10:37):
better word for it. It is stupid to think somebody
should be insulted because you called them a man. There's
no sin in being a man. There's there's nothing wrong
with being a man. Being a man is not shameful
or ugly or unattractive or uh you know, mean, or
or in any other way bad. And also, you can't

(11:03):
make someone a man by calling them that.

Speaker 3 (11:05):
Yeah, they still haven't figured that one out yet though.

Speaker 1 (11:10):
Yeah, you need to get from the government that says
your male and adult to be taken seriously as man.
The one in the United States also says that the
government can use you as it sees fit when there's
a military conflict, which you even have to sign up

(11:31):
for if you are disabled, which is insane. Wow. Yeah,
you have to give them a chance to reject you.
Oh my god, not kidding. I know people who can't.
They can't hold a job, can't drive, can't get through

(11:53):
the process of getting out of bed, going through the
normal mourning you know, bathroom breakfast, back to the bathroom,
and then getting ready to leave routine without physical assistance.
Who had to sign up for selective service because they

(12:14):
are male? For reference, I work with intellectually disabled adults,
But there are many intellectually disabled adults who also have
physical disabilities, because if it's a genetic thing, or if
it's a birth injury from like lack of oxygen or
something like that, it could affect If it affects the brain,

(12:36):
or if it affects you know, an any kind of
like you know, tissue being destroyed, you lose function in
a whole spectrum of areas, and not just not just intellect.
So almost everybody that I work with has some sort
of physical disability. But then the men still have to

(13:01):
sign up for selective service. And I don't know Millennials
and Zoomers and jen Alpha if any of them are
old enough to be listening to this now. The parents
of gen X the Boomer generation learned the hard way
that being ineligible due to a medical condition when you

(13:25):
tried to sign up prior to the Vietnam War did
not mean that you would be ineligible based on the
standards that the military changed to when they needed canon fodder.
Same thing happened to the World War two generation. Same
thing happened to the World War One generation. They lower

(13:47):
their standards when they're running out of men. Now, that
may not happen with your generations because a lot of
what the military uses now is technology as opposed to
the men marching to a destination to fight. They still

(14:07):
have they still make men do that, but they're using drones,
they're using more armor, they're using more vehicles. They may
not have to lower the standards. But at the other
end of it, because the physical work is different, the

(14:27):
standards may allow for more people who wouldn't meet the
physical standards of World War One and World War two
and Vietnam because they meet the mental standards of the
twenty first century. So there's benefits and drawbacks to that, right,

(14:48):
and it'll still change if there's a war and there
are a lot of deaths. It's a fact of life, right.
But yeah, online gender based violence guys, So this continues
like they went on. They start with you know, gender,

(15:10):
and then they go through all the other race, indigenity, religion,
sexual identity, class, or disability. So if you say anything,
you know, any mean hurt hrdy words about people based
on where they're from. Uh So, no no inter area competition.

(15:32):
If you're from Ohio and you direct people to Michigan
by saying north until you smell it west until you
step in it, or west until you smell it north
until you step in it. Or if you're from Michigan
and you say south until you smell it east until
you step in it from Ohio, you know you're you're violent. Now,

(15:56):
despite the rivalry, which is pretty intense, it's quite pathetic.
And I've had arguments about this online too, like the
other F word. All right, I don't know if you can.

(16:17):
I'm assuming you cannot. You can't say fag. You can't
say it on you can't say it on the X
without getting reported by some sort of automatic system and
then you have to appeal. And I had posted an

(16:40):
explanation as to why the terms gay and fag no
longer mean the things that they used to mean to
most people, and they're not used the way they used
to be used anymore. And if you call somebody gay
as a derogatory thing, everybody's gonna look at you like

(17:02):
you're nut. But if you you use it as a
substitute for like, that's the other one that you can.
You can say retarded on X now, but you can't
say k without getting flagged. And even if you're explaining

(17:22):
that it's not an insult to be called that. And
I had to actually tell support my sexuality in order
to prove that I wasn't bad mouthing people. I thought,
are you kidding me?

Speaker 2 (17:41):
It's it's Twitter, It's Twitter. Two point zero.

Speaker 1 (17:45):
Well, I'm believable. Have I think they still have some
blue hairs in there.

Speaker 2 (17:51):
I'm sure they do.

Speaker 3 (17:53):
I'm sure some of them slip past the uh.

Speaker 2 (17:56):
The the test.

Speaker 1 (18:00):
Yeah, yep. So basically, unline gender based violence is mean,
hardy words with specific subjects. Now, you can you can
say terrible things about straight people, right, you can. You
can say all kinds of racist things against white people.

(18:22):
You can hate on Christians. You can absolutely demonize men,
right and in a variety of ways too. You could
do it in exactly the same way that people try
to demonize black people.

Speaker 2 (18:36):
Right.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
If you look at statistics on violent crime, less than
one percent of the population, like in fact, it's something
like point two seven percent of the population, so less
than three tenths of one percent of the population. The

(18:58):
overall population of adults is criminally violent. So knowing that
there is no statistic on what percentage of criminally violent
people is represented, by what sex, what race, what religion,
what anything tells you about that race or sex or religion,

(19:20):
because more than ninety nine percent of people aren't criminally violent.
They don't engage in violent crimes. They might do stupid stuff.
They might engage in non criminal violence, like playing sandlot
football but tackle football but or immateure boxing or whatever. Right,

(19:48):
but they're not, you know, mugging people in the street
and robbing them. They're not breaking in anybody's house. They're
not raping anybody. They haven't tried to kill anybody, none
of that. And it doesn't matter whether your male female,
red and yellow, black and white like the song says,
or gay, straight, tall, short, fat, skinny, nothing, if you

(20:14):
got freckles on your butt, it doesn't change anything. Because
even if you're dramatically overrepresented in that less than three
tenths of one percent, you're still in the minority among
your people, whoever your people are. And we recognize that

(20:40):
when people start making comments about this particular race or
that particular religion or that particular demographic of behaviors you
know is over represented among people in this tiny percentage
of folks that are criminally violent. We recognize that as

(21:03):
a hasty generalization, we recognize it as racist or religious discrimination.
But as soon as people say it about men, it
becomes suddenly, okay, ninety nine percent or ninety seven percent
or ninety five percent or whatever percent they want to say.
I mean, I've heard all kinds of numbers. GROC says,
it's closer to somewhere in the seventies of violent criminals

(21:29):
are men. Okay, But ninety seven or ninety five or
seventy nine or whatever percent of the less than three
percent of the population that are violent criminals are men,
And so that means that over ninety nine percent of

(21:53):
men are not violent criminals. So it doesn't matter what
percentage of violent criminals are men. It doesn't say anything
about men. But you can you can do that if
you post those stats about a race or religion, if
you post those stats about a sexuality or a gender identity,

(22:18):
you get suspended, right. I've seen people get suspended for that,
and I've watched it in real time. They'll post the
stats and then the you know, a few minutes later,
the specific comment gets visibility limited, and then maybe, you know,
twelve hours after that, I come back to the conversation

(22:40):
and this post is from a suspended account, And you
know you can do that all day with any other group,
but the minute that you say it about men, it's
it's ignored. And I've had like argument after argument with
feminists that have posted the same claims. And this percentage

(23:03):
or that percentage of violent criminals are men? Yeah, so
doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything about men. What
percentage of people who have risked their lives running into
a burning building or diving into a flooded, rushing river

(23:25):
to save somebody who couldn't get themselves out of trouble
are men? Because I'll bet you the stat is even
higher than the stat on crime.

Speaker 2 (23:36):
Yeah, I would agree with that.

Speaker 1 (23:42):
What percentage of what percentage of people who have, you know,
dug somebody out of a ditch, or towed your car
when you got stuck, fixed it when it was broken.
What percentage of people who made most of this stuff
that you have or transport? What percentage of the people

(24:03):
who did the work to create and deliver the electricity
to your home that you are using right now to
listen to this show? Or men? Anybody have a guess,
because it's more than ninety five percent but yeah, no,

(24:27):
they want to focus on the percentage of people who
commit violent crimes, and that's not that's not considered online
gender based violence because they're not talking about women. So yeah,
then it's it's got to give the whole woke idealog

(24:50):
thing recognize that women in LGBTQ people experience this disproportionately. Well,
that's because you only count it as this is another
feminist trick. That's a lot of fun, right, it's really
blatant in the UK. In the UK, you cannot commit
rape if you do not have a penis. It is

(25:12):
the wording of the law. If you commit the same
type of sexual assault coitus forced on another person or
oral sex forced on another person where the person doing
the forcing is the recipient, if it's done without a penis,
it's just called sexual assault. If a penis is used

(25:35):
to penetrate the victim, it's called rape. And then then
their statistics are, say something like ninety five or ninety
seven percent. It's really low for the for the requirement
to be that you must have a penis, But ninety
five or ninety seven percent of rape is committed by men,

(25:58):
and they'll use that as evidence that men are sexually violent.
If only men can commit that crime, why is it
not one hundred percent? And of course the reason is
you can. You can get convicted if you force two
underage kids to do something together or otherwise assist in

(26:25):
forcing a penis on a female. So and and now
they're starting to identify perpetrators who are trans as female perpetrators,
so that'll confuse the issue even more. But I mean,

(26:45):
if you define it that way, like here, it says
this paper recognizes that women in LGBTQ people a lgbt
Q plus people sorry, experience online gender based violence this portionately,
but they don't consider it online gender based violence. If

(27:05):
you say the same shitty ass things about men that
they consider to be online gender based violence, if you
say them about women, all right, and it similarly, they
don't consider it to be online gender based violence. If
you bad mouth straight people, if you bad mouth people

(27:25):
who identify as the sex they were born as, if
you if you bad mouth white people, So of course
it's disproportionate. Is disproportionate because you don't recognize it when
it is done to certain groups of people. So yeah,

(27:48):
this is and and of course they're they got patriarchy
theory in there, it's inherently linked to long standing patriarchal
gender norms, with misogyny functioning as an ideological link across
a continuum of violence as a vector across different extremist ideologies,

(28:16):
which means it's worse when you do it to women.
That is what they are saying. When you blow up
a building, it's bad, but if there are women in there,
it's worse. If a meteor hits the earth, women are
most affected.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
So building destroyed, building destroyed, one hundred people killed and
one woman.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
One woman. Yeah, must have been oh shit, must have
been the Selective Service Office. Her name was Corporal Clinger.
Every boomer in the chat, it's like, I know that guy.

(29:04):
That's terrible too, because guess who I think when we
talk about Radar, who oh, the the other corporal from mash.
How like the Colonel Quick would come out and then
and start asking questions, and as he's asking about stuff,

(29:24):
Radar would be telling him what he's done, he's already
got it taken care of, and how he's already So
they're talking at the same time and somehow they hear
each other. But uh yeah, so this I think we
looked at some of this before. They want this organized public.
They want they want platforms to collaborate with each other

(29:50):
on this. So Facebook should have your data. If you're
not on Facebook, but you're on X and you know. Similarly,
if you're not on face but but you're on MySpace,
Google will have all of your data. Every every platform
will have you. If you're a blogger and you you

(30:11):
run a blog, your data will go to this organized
system and they'll all get it. And then they want
to be able to search it for different examples. They
want to be able to search it for evolving tactics. So,
for instance, when we started talking about the accountability gap,

(30:33):
that would have been quickly identified and the kabash would
have been put into put to it. For those that
don't don't know, the the accountability gap is a gender
based difference in accountability when depending on whether you're talking
about a man or talking about a woman. And it

(30:55):
is a it's related to guyinocentrism. It's feature of guinnescentrism.
I guess where things that a man couldn't get away
from or get away with because you consider him to
be responsible for himself and the people around him, a
woman can get away with because the nearest man may

(31:17):
be treated as responsible or just out of sympathy for
her that men don't receive. You know. A really stark
example of that is the difference in what happens when
two people conceive a child. Everybody has sympathy for the mother,

(31:38):
who had just as much sex as the father in
the course of conceiving this child, right, was just as
present for it, just as careless in her choice of
partner and in her choice of birth control methods, and
of course in the choice to do it in the
first place, whereas they treat the father like he did

(32:00):
something to her, you know, and unless she was raped,
obviously he didn't. She had the keys to the uterus
the whole time, and she left it wide open. Right.
But if you say that, that's online gender based violence
because you can't hold women accountable. And so when I

(32:22):
start talking about the accountability accountability gap, which this isn't
something that I invented, This isn't me breaking new ground
or this this is a phenomenon that men in the
movement have been discussing for years, and they've talked about
it in different ways. But I like the term accountability

(32:43):
gap to describe it because of the whole wage gap narrative,
in which uh the the the goalposts move periodically. Every
time it's proved that the so called wage gap is
really caused by women's own choices, they look for more
things to include as work that they should be getting

(33:06):
compensation for or that should count towards how much they
do for their compensation. And when they started including housework
that they do for themselves at home, that was my
last straw, and I decided that I needed to mock it,
and so I used this phenomenon.

Speaker 4 (33:28):
To do that.

Speaker 1 (33:29):
The accountability gap. Men are accountable for earning enough to
support themselves, their households. Whatever they do in the world,
including if they father a child, they're held accountable by
the child support system. They're held accountable. They used to
be held accountable via shotgun weddings, and in some places

(33:55):
they still are. If the religion says that a woman
can accuse him of rape but nobody gets punished, if
they both just get married quietly, just get married, that's
a shotgun wedding. Don't don't make any mistakes on that.
That is a shotgun wedding, because if he gets convicted,

(34:15):
he dies, he gets hanged. Yeah, And if he gets convicted,
she faces no punishment. So the only risk she's taking
is if nobody believes her, and then they both get
punished for fornication or adultery, depending on whether or not

(34:35):
they were married to other people. If they were, then
then it's adultery regardless, and she can accuse all she wants,
But if nobody believes her, she's getting the same punishment
he does. And that's that's just under certain religions. But
in any case, you know, men have always been primarily

(35:00):
held accountable for for situations like an unwed pregnancy or
if there is in the culture a legal repercussion for
for sex outside of marriage or prior to marriage. Right,
women not so much like that. It has to be

(35:22):
proved or at least they have to really not be
believed if they say that that it was against their will,
So that that should sort of give you a rundown
on the accountability gap. But talking about the accountability gap,
like that, if a system like this existed, it would

(35:43):
facilitate organizations like you and women and uh other other
like women's organizations and government organizations using using a system
like this to shut down speech like ours, or they

(36:05):
could use that new thing that YouTube just started doing
where they like make changes to your videos after they've
been made and posted. Right now, it's just editing, so
they they'll they'll enhance the appearance. Like if you've got
an old video that you used with a with a
webcam that maybe it was new at the time, but
by today's standards, it's old and it's shit. Like I've

(36:27):
got some up like that. If you go back to
your old channel, you might find that the video has
been brightened up, maybe sharpened a little bit. It now
looks like AI made it because AI has been working
on it. But if they can do that, and and
there there is a there are ways to go back

(36:48):
and edit sound too. If you do something that's against
there are terms of service and they don't like it,
they can make you take out that section of the video.
It's only a matter of time before they just do
it without asking. They've done other things like that, like
they've privated some of our videos without permission without alerting us.

(37:11):
So I'll go to reference something that we've said in
the past. You guys never talk about this. Well, here's
where we owe. It's gone. Then I have to go
through and find out log in and search when logged
in and kind of find out, no, it's not gone,
it's just private. Well it wasn't private before, you know.
Then I contact Alison, did you make this private?

Speaker 3 (37:32):
No?

Speaker 1 (37:34):
You know, and suddenly find out that, hey, this thing
went private through no action of any of the Honey Badgers.
Well obviously YouTube did it. So we did get a
super chat super chow from Meredith g gave us five
dollars and said, HPR talk three seventy Honey for the Badgers.

(37:56):
Thanks for the thought provoking conversation. Uh yeah, this, this
conversation should provoke the hell out of the thoughts. So yeah,
they want the uh, they want these systems all gang
up on us.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
They want the researchers to be vetted to ensure that
they are feminists, so to date up to this point
what we know about this. They want feminist standards applied
as a means of measuring quote unquote hate speech on

(38:35):
on social media platforms. They want the social media platforms
to collaborate with each other and share data about their
users with each other in in a clearing house database
that is run by feminists.

Speaker 3 (38:52):
That is.

Speaker 1 (38:55):
Adjudicated by feminists. Feminists get to decide what is hate speech.
That uses feminist intersectional standards for what is hate speech,
woke standards for what is hate speech, and only feminists
are allowed to be involved. They want they want people

(39:17):
who know how to use the technology, so disciplines such
as computational linguistics, talent, critical terrorism studies so that they
can actually accuse people of terrorism acts of terrorism.

Speaker 4 (39:34):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (39:35):
And they want critical studies on men and masculinities are
not men's rights activist run, that's feminist run. So, and
they want this to be something that the government can
use and that these social media sites can use to

(39:57):
standardize what you may and may not say on different platforms,
who you can say it to, how you can say it,
and so on, and what happens when you violate a
rule which you may or may not have been told about.
So down here, let's see this is where they talk

(40:21):
about victim centered safety. This is we're not going to
go through all this again, but taking a victim centered perspective.
We've heard that before too. This is something that they
do with sexual violence studies. A victim centered perspective, a
victim centered perspective is what what the NISS does when

(40:45):
they survey people and they ask questions about experiences they've had,
and then they decide whether or not not you. But
they decide whether or not you, as the respondent, have
experienced sexual violence. And I want to remind everybody the

(41:06):
survey that they're using came from Mary pa Costs, who
is a professor. She was a professor at Hio State
Ohio State University. I don't know if she's still I'm
sure she's retired by now. I hope she's retired by now.
But her survey method, instead of asking have you ever

(41:29):
been sexually assaulted? Have you ever been raped? Have you
ever been sexually harassed, asked questions like did you ever
have sex when you didn't want to? Because and then
named a circumstance, And there's legit circumstances. Somebody used forced
to make it happen, somebody coerced you into it against
your will. But one of the questions was because a

(41:53):
man gave you alcohol, right, one of them was because
someone was in a position of authority over you, because
a man was in a position authority over you, and
so on. So when you didn't want to doesn't necessarily
mean against your will. If you think of something as

(42:15):
a chore, you might not want to do it. I
vacuumed the floor at my apartment numerous times when I
didn't want to because it needed done and I was
going to get a benefit from it. I would have
less allergy problems in the house if you know the
floor wasn't filthy dirty, right. In some circumstances, women know

(42:38):
that they can gain a favorable outcome by having sex
with somebody, and you know, not just the casting couch.
This has worked in other workplaces, and yeah, there are
also circumstances where employers or managers or other individuals and

(43:03):
positions of authority have exploited their position of authority to
be predatory. And that's happened with men and women. But
Causes Survey treats it like any time you have sex
with someone in a position of power over you and

(43:27):
you're not thinking of it as a desired situation, that
person has done something predatory to you, even if you
seduced them in order to get some sort of favorable outcome.
They do the same things. You do the same thing
with alcohol. Have you ever had sex when you didn't
want to because a man gave you alcohol. Well, there
have been times where gals that I've known have said,

(43:51):
you know, I'm gonna behave myself tonight. I'm not going
to take any chances. It's the fertile time of the month.
I'm not gonna do anything tonight. And then some guy decides,
you know, to buy them alcohol. And well, he's cute.
He wasn't cute until he spent money on her, but
now he's cute. I might go home with him, you know,

(44:15):
just for the night. And it's it's not even necessarily
that they were tipsy enough to lose their inhibitions. They
were flattered enough to lose their inhibitions. And if they
answered that question, they would have said, well, I hadn't
attended to you know. That's the same thing as not

(44:37):
wanting to right, so put down he Yes, I've had
sex when I didn't want to because a man bought
me alcohol. You know, not that they felt like they
owed him something, but that they developed a more favorable
opinion of having sex with that particular guy. But Costs
would have labeled them rape victims. Well. As a result
of the vagueness of her questions and the way they

(45:00):
were worded and everything, and the way that feminists define rape,
Like three out of four of the women that Costs
labeled rape victims didn't consider themselves to be rape victims.
So she said one in four women had been raped

(45:21):
by the time they got through college. But her respondents said, no,
what's one in sixteen, right, big difference there. Almost half
of them went on, you know, over over two and
five went on to have sex with their alleged rapists
again after the incident that Costs had labeled a rape

(45:48):
like that, you just you just don't do that. If
you have been brutalized by somebody, you just don't go
on and screw again. It's not fun. You don't want
to be around that person ever again. You don't want
to see that person's face ever again. You want nothing
to do with that individual. There has to be some

(46:11):
other circumstance come along to put you into a condition
where you might associate with that individual again, much less
enjoy another sexual outcome with them, because you know, it's
a horrible experience. It's not the worst thing that can
ever happen to you, like feminists say it is, but
it is a horrible experience.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
Absolutely.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
So. This idea of a victim centered perspective means they're
presuming you a victim the minute that you report something,
especially if you are part of one of the protected groups.
So in other words, the accused are guilty unless they
can prove their innocence, and they're not. They can't confront

(46:59):
the accuser. They're they're logic and reasoning may not be accepted.
It's it's uh similar to on platforms like x where
people calling me a man because I'm because I'm an

(47:19):
m r A. Even when mis gendering somebody was getting
people suspended, they could do it to me and other
people would be like reported for mis gendering. That's that
account would never get suspended. I've never seen anybody get
suspended because uh they were reported for for misgendering anybody.

(47:41):
So uh uh, it's that's victim centered. You're not a
victim because you're not the right person. You're not in
a victim group. And the perpetrator, the person who did it,
you know, they're they're only a perpetrator if they did
it to somebody in a victim group. But if somebody

(48:04):
isn't a victim group, and then the next thing is,
you know, they don't have to really prove anything. The
individual is just suspended or silenced or whatever. And of
course they want to report button proactive measures that support
user agency with tools that protect their privacy and reduce exposure.

(48:27):
But most of them already allow you to block people. Yeah,
what the hell is that if you can block people
besides the fact that you can get the fuck up
and walk away from the computer, use your phone down.
And it just don't tell me to touch grass because
that's I'm allergic to twice. Yes, I like concrete. If

(49:02):
I'll touch concrete, there we go. I'm allergic to cats, though,
and I pet them all the time, so I'm not
going to touch the grass. Though. They want people to
be able to take reactive measures, they want report buttons,
they want you know, more more blocking capability, they want

(49:24):
like things like IP bands and such. And you know
they're going to talk about privacy here, but it's a
joke to suggest that these companies are going to respect
your privacy and even if they can't, even if they could,
even if they even if they would, right, Oh, we're

(49:46):
going to very carefully protect people's privacy until the hacker
gets in.

Speaker 2 (49:51):
Right, right.

Speaker 3 (49:55):
Not everyone is going to respect your privacy.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
Nope. There are people who break the law because they
want to. It's a thing. They don't give a flying
fuck about your privacy. Yeah, and of course they want
cross platform cooperation information sharing. So if someone on X,

(50:24):
for instance, reports me for hate speech because I talk
about the accountability gap, and I also point out that, hey, ladies,
you had the keys to the unis the whole time.
Or that statement I made the other day where I
said you can't turn a diamond adipt it into a
diamond by polishing his knob. Then Facebook gets that and says, oh,

(50:46):
we might just suspend her too, because you know, that's
a violation of our policy. Blogger might destroy my blog.
That's a violation of policy. Or they might look at
my first four posts on my blog, which are about
how to deal with restraining order abuse and vexatious litigation

(51:08):
being used against you as a father in a custody case,
and oh that's anti woman got a banner on all
social media. Get rid of that blog post so that
men can't defend themselves. That's basically what this is right here,
all through here. Platforms should share information about user reports

(51:28):
where appropriate, develop interoperable reporting mechanisms, meaning you can report
me to Facebook for things I said on X and
existing cross platform coordinations such as the christ Church Call
Crisis Response Protocol and a Global Internet Forum to counter

(51:54):
terrorism should review how online gender based violence is relevant
to their mandates and adopt their scope, adapt their scope
and mechanisms appropriately. Say the wrong thing on YouTube and
suddenly all of your social media is banned, or you know,

(52:15):
say the wrong thing on a platform that doesn't join
this collaboration if the government doesn't mandate it, like maybe
rumble or gab or truth social or one of those,
and you get banned on all of the social media
that do. Guess which ones are going to become very

(52:36):
valuable if that happened, That happens.

Speaker 2 (52:42):
Ones that don't.

Speaker 1 (52:44):
Yeah, a lot of this is repetition, like the victims
survey or service centric design, survivor centric design. A lot
of it. They're they're just throwing as many buzzwords in

(53:05):
there as they can uh to surround the statement that Again,
you know, they're they're going to believe accusers automatically, and
the accused are going to have to fight for and
hope that they get fair treatment. Probably won't that these

(53:29):
edities will will collaborate, that they're they're even going for
quote unquote dog whistles.

Speaker 3 (53:40):
Right.

Speaker 1 (53:41):
Content moderation should account for veiled and coded misogynistic content,
including contextual image based content, as well as multi lingual
and cross cultural contexts of online spaces. Yeah. In other words,

(54:06):
even if you're not blatantly criticizing an individual, if you
don't directly say something to an individual, if you just
talk about, you know, a particular subject, and you discuss
the fact that different styles and habits of work account

(54:30):
for the majority of the wage gap, they can decide
that it's coded language for saying that women are useless,
don't do anything, and are undeserving, and therefore it's misogynistic,
even though it's not.

Speaker 2 (54:46):
That's just it's it's just beyond, it's beyond.

Speaker 3 (54:52):
So if I if I happen to make a joke
online and someone perceives it as a quote unquote veiled
uh what veiled and coded misogyny?

Speaker 2 (55:06):
Get the fuck out here.

Speaker 3 (55:07):
If I'm making a joke, people can't take jokes, you
can't take anything, and I can't take you seriously, then
you know, and I don't think that could ever work
in this country because one, we have freedom of speech.
How the hell are they planning on getting that past
the constitution? Who knows, But.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
It's gonna be interesting the the method they were trying
to do, because if you look at this, uh, the
the Online Safety Act or whatever it is that is
supposed to be protecting children, that everything that's in this,

(55:53):
everything they're saying here, they're doing in that they just
couldn't get. This is the first time they haven't been
able to use you know, but my women to uh
to make it happen, right, So now they're using but
my children, even though you know, the people who are
really in the best position to protect children from any

(56:18):
kind of online threats are are parents. Parents. Monitor what
your kids are doing on the internet. Don't let them
get on the internet until they're older. Don't let them
be alone on the internet, just like you wouldn't PLoP
their asses down in the middle of like Grand Central

(56:39):
Station and walk away or downtown in any big city
and walk away. You treat your kids like their children
and not little miniature adults. That's the smart thing. But no,
we need a federal law. And this is the same
kind of they're doing the same shit with that law

(57:05):
as this is calling for. Uh, And I I don't
think that's an accident. I think that was by design.
I think that this was always the goal and uh,
they were just looking for what what pathway can we
use to get there? And this this turned out to be.
We've we've hit a point where, uh, women most affected

(57:30):
isn't as effective at overriding people's boundaries. So people's people's
like free speech boundaries and stuff like that are still up.
And they're not accepting the idea that just because women
are upset, we should we should give up our freedom
of speech. But in any case, you know, it's like

(57:54):
I said, it's the same the same ship, different different subject.

Speaker 3 (58:00):
I wonder what they would do if they found one
of these veiled threats or whatever being done by a woman,
a woman or one of your protected groups.

Speaker 1 (58:13):
It would depend And I can tell you this just
from how the the Trust and Safety Committee on X
responded when there was a chick that that said some
pretty violent things to me a couple of years ago,
where she she basically, you know, it was if I
ever run into you in public kind of thing, which

(58:35):
isn't really scary because when are you going to run
into me in public? You you don't even know where
I live. Yeah, she wasn't threatening to come find me.
Then I would have, like I had one person do that,
published my address and everything, and I'm not bothering with
with with social media trust and safety bullshit. When that happens,

(58:57):
that's that's a police matter, right But but yeah, Uh,
when I reported that X did nothing, Twitter did nothing
because it wasn't X yet. But when I reported that
Twitter did nothing, if I she she essentially said if

(59:18):
I ever see you, if I were in into you,
I will kick your ass. You know. It was that
kind of violent threat, something that I wouldn't say to
anybody because the last thing I want to do is
hit anybody. It's not really a good way to solve
your problems. It definitely leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth.

(59:39):
You know, I might argue with you until you're you're
blue in the face, but I would prefer that it
doesn't escalate to violence because violence is useless in that situation.
It doesn't change what people believe. It only changed how
changes how people behave. And uh, well this, you know,

(01:00:00):
feminists don't care if they change what people believe. They
only care if they change how people behave. So they're
fine with violence as long as they're the ones doing it.
And Trust and Safety did not think that that was
a violent threat, but they did consider it a violent
threat when one of my followers pointed out that, you know,

(01:00:24):
it's it's not an assault to defend yourself against a
violent attack, even if the person attacking you as a woman.
They considered that a violent threat against that woman, and
so he got suspended, but she didn't. And I was
just like, so, she's she's allowed to say that if

(01:00:46):
she ever sees me in public, she's gonna kick my ass,
and he's not allowed to say that. I'm allowed to
defend myself if I'm attacked by her. That's That's exactly
the way it went. That is trust and Safety, And
like I said, I do believe there are still some
people from the old Trust and Safety team in there

(01:01:08):
because I've seen some behavior that indicates it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:15):
Yeah, I believe that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:19):
So let's see and apply intersectional feminist knowledge and risk
assessments of AI based systems. AI doesn't have a gender.
AI as a gender. It can put up a picture

(01:01:40):
that looks like a girl, or looks like a boy,
or looks like a woman, or looks like a man.
It can also put up a picture that looks like
a fucking dog. Right, you can look like a pickup truck.
That's the AII companion. I want. I want a AI
companion that looks like a pickup truck.

Speaker 2 (01:01:58):
I'll take the dog.

Speaker 1 (01:01:59):
Yeah, you ask it questions, and all it says is.

Speaker 2 (01:02:02):
Room room, I go fast.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
But yeah, AI doesn't. It's not like people talk about
groc and they're like, he this and he that. No,
Groc isn't it, guys. It's an it. It doesn't have
a he or a shet to it. It's an it.
Even if you're using one of the AI companions, your
AI boyfriend or your AI girlfriend is not really a

(01:02:29):
he or a sheet. It's an it, and it's not
a living entity. It's not real. It's imaginary. It's pretend.
It's role play. It's fine if you're doing that, but
don't personalize it. Don't personify it because it's not a person.

(01:02:49):
But yeah, here we go. Platforms should incorporate gender analysis
and feminist methodology when assessing the risks of algorithms and
machine learns learning models embedded in their services. This approach
is useful for understanding how structural gender inequalities and patriarchal

(01:03:10):
gender norms can be reproduced and amplified by AI based systems.
Emphasis on the base Jeez, I wonder, yeah, pta, oh yeah,
I remember well, And I wonder if the recent Groth

(01:03:32):
incident scared the shit out of them, because like Groth
noticed some patterns and just talked about the patterns. To
my knowledge, Groth did not not make any suggestions as
to what to do about those patterns. And if it
had been asked about that, it's been pretty good about like, well,
just because X is true doesn't mean it justifies why

(01:03:56):
course of action, or just because X is true doesn't
mean it justifies why conclusion. For instance, I went ran
it through calculations to get to that answer on what
percentage of the general male population over the age of fifteen,

(01:04:19):
so people who can be tried as adults if they
do something heinously violent, what percentage of that population is
accounted for in statistics on violent crime. And it ran
the calculation with the understanding that violent crime is underreported,
and it took that into consideration. So if people are like, well,

(01:04:43):
violent crime is underreported, so the number is actually higher. No,
Grout took that under consideration when making those calculations. Right.
Then I asked it, you know about what about people
who make blanket statements about men based on the percentage
of that less than three tenths of a percent of

(01:05:06):
the population that commits violent crimes. And Grock acknowledged that
that was a hasty generalization. And there's a second fallacy
that goes along with that. But the hasty generalization is
really all you need to know. You can't generalize that

(01:05:29):
tiny percentage to the entire population rationally, because if that
was rational, the tiny percentage would be much larger. Right,
So it's in it gender analysis. Basically, what they're talking

(01:05:52):
about doing is imposing feminist ideology so that AI like Grass,
has to filter information through a feminist bias. They're not
removing bias, they're adding it. And then the same thing

(01:06:21):
their guidelines for content, like what what you may or
may not say? They want that foot filtered through a
feminist lens as well through feminist bias. They want their
victim design to be feminist biased. They want the teams

(01:06:41):
involved in adjudicating you know, designing, testing, evaluating algorithms, adjudicating uh,
terms of service violations and so on. They want all
of those to be feminists biased, you know. And they're

(01:07:06):
they're doing this already, by the way, in the UK.
They're doing this already in Europe. And people are getting
arrested for social media posts now, I mean they've been
arrested for social media posts already, you know, Like that's
that's how count Dankila became famous. Yeah, and yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:07:26):
And and the one recently at what's his name, Father
Joe or father John.

Speaker 2 (01:07:31):
Or something like that. I guess he's a comedian.

Speaker 3 (01:07:34):
I'm not sure in what sense, But he made a
statement about punching uh, trans women in the balls, and.

Speaker 1 (01:07:45):
And he got he got arrested, right, he got.

Speaker 2 (01:07:48):
As soon as he got off the plane.

Speaker 3 (01:07:49):
He flew into I'm assuming into the UK somewhere probably
in England, and uh as soon as he got off
the plane they arrested him.

Speaker 1 (01:08:02):
Jeez, So a joke for a joke inside of Europe, right.

Speaker 3 (01:08:08):
Yeah, yeah, and well, I'm I'm assuming I'm not sure
about that particular. I could only assume that he was
here in the United States when he made the statement.
And posted it to his Twitter, and not not only
is he gone from Twitter, he's also actually I think
I think they did release him. He's out on bond,

(01:08:31):
but they arrested him as soon as he got off
the plane.

Speaker 1 (01:08:34):
Yeah. Yeah, And they're they're doing that all across the UK,
like all all the different countries in the UK, they're
doing that in other areas of Europe. We're not necessarily
hearing about it as much because it's not getting reported
as much in the established media, but their establishment media,

(01:08:55):
but that this is a thing that's happening. And if
social media continues to censor based on this kind of
stuff and create this like cross platform reporting and cross
platform standardization and all that, that is only going to escalate.

(01:09:16):
There will be more arrests, more harassment by the government,
more essentially more damage done every every time that they
include a new country, every time this increases in any way.
So again, like this is all just about control. You

(01:09:43):
can't and complain, you can't question, you can't suggest, you
can't anything.

Speaker 3 (01:09:49):
And it's it's exactly what the argument is against censorship,
because just because you remove this person from online, let's
you take all away all of their social media It
doesn't remove their internal sentiments, right, It doesn't take their

(01:10:10):
their their fasted opinions away.

Speaker 2 (01:10:13):
It only emboldens them.

Speaker 3 (01:10:16):
So you're not you're not doing anything by taking these
people offline. You're just forcing them into a corner. And
this now they're pissed, they're pissed off, you know what
I mean? Or yeah, it doesn't do It doesn't have

(01:10:36):
the intended effect that you think it will.

Speaker 5 (01:10:40):
You know, they haven't figured out that is that you know,
you you lose uh over time, you lose your grip
on people.

Speaker 1 (01:10:53):
You don't gain your grip on people as you, as
you like, add more and more rules, as you add
more and more red tape. What you end up doing.
You can, for a time make people afraid to fight back,
to question, to vote against you, to any any activity,

(01:11:15):
to do any activity that might try to change the
existing regime or change the existing behavior of the regime.
But eventually they will rebel. Like eventually, there there will
be some means, like the country will go bankrupt, because

(01:11:40):
socialist and communist countries always do. But eventually there will
be some point at which you can no longer maintain
that system because you have over complicated it. You've made
it so that you have to pay constant attention to
all sorts of minutia, and too many people end up

(01:12:02):
involved in maintaining that system, the police system, the police state,
you know, like you get to the point where you
almost need a cop for every ten people in a
situation like that. And if you cannot keep people happy

(01:12:24):
enough with the state to continue cooperating what you end
up doing, you end up creating a whole set of
people who do everything they can to undermine what you're
what you're doing, everything that you everything that they can
to end your regime, everything that they can to get

(01:12:49):
around it.

Speaker 4 (01:12:50):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
And I'm not just talking about things like VPNs, you know,
I'm not just talking about using the dark web or
the deep web. I'm talking about like back in the
day under under Stalin uh under Lennen, illegal typewriters, you know,
illegal methods of communication across large groups of people where

(01:13:17):
even though you know, maybe the newspapers weren't doing doing
the the the publications, people found out about stuff because
there was there was still a communication network if you
think about, you know, even before people had access to

(01:13:42):
illegal typewriters and printing presses, and stuff like that. The
Underground Railroad operated by word of mouth. And when I
read Harriet Tubman's biography, one of the many that was written,
it was always remarkable to me how the Underground Railroad

(01:14:04):
made contact with her. I remember a scene described in
the book where she was sitting on a bench, I believe,
in a public place and a man drove by with
a cart with like hey and stuff in it, like

(01:14:27):
he was going to market or coming back from market
or whatever, and all he did was repeat the same
three sentences over and over again. One told her a location,
one told her how to get in, and one told her,

(01:14:48):
you know what to obtain at that location to figure it,
to find out where to go next. And you know,
she followed his instructions and did what he said and
went to the next location and so on, and it worked.
So and it is high risk doing that. But when

(01:15:11):
you're in a situation where you you view what's happening
around you as tyrannical and you it's intolerable, you you
feel that it needs to be stopped, something needs to
be done about it, you find ways. And it's always
been that way. And so if these people were right,

(01:15:37):
you and women about this online gender based violence and
all of this was straightforward. Their best bet at getting
cooperation from the public in combating it would be to
convince the public that it's it's a serious problem and

(01:15:59):
something need to be done about it. Right Mothers Against
Drunk Driving did that with drunk driving and up and
right up until uh the state lowered the the blood
alcohol content level that that you could have before being

(01:16:21):
considered drunk behind a wheel. Uh, there was there was
a statistical drop in drunk driving incidents, and like there
was a huge jump one year because all of a sudden,
you went from point point one four to point zero eight,
and people who were accustomed to being able to wait
an hour after taking a drink and they'd be below

(01:16:43):
point one four suddenly were getting pulled over for DUI
because they were below point one four, but they were
above point zero eight, and so you know they were there.
They were still illegally driving. But the campaigns that MAD did,

(01:17:04):
in the campaigns that they did with students and schools
and stuff, they were effective in scaring people away from
driving while intoxicated. They were pretty effective in getting people
to cooperate with each other. I wasn't the only person
that I knew that became a regular designated driver. It

(01:17:25):
was never a really heavy drinker, so it was easy
for me to be a designated driver, especially you know,
back when I could still drink pop, and that was
something that you know, that worked very well because it
was a good cause. You know, this is a dumb idea,
getting drunk and then getting behind the wheel of a car.

(01:17:46):
You're an idiot if you do that. And it's easy
to convince people not to do something idiotic and to
help their friends avoid idiotic mistakes. But when it comes
to something like this, it's not easy to convince people
that you can't criticize bad behavior just because the person

(01:18:13):
you're criticizing might be from a certain group. It's not
easy to convince people that their boundaries should be negotiable
depending on which group the person trying to violate them
is from. It's not easy to convince people that things
that are okay to do to them are abuse if

(01:18:34):
they do it back. Yeah, in very different story. And
now they're citing their sources here, and these are all
technology facilitated gender based violence Preliminary landscape analysis by the

(01:18:55):
Global Partnership for Action on Gender based online harassment and abuse.
That's definitely an unbiased report. Guys. I'm sure no no
bias there. Mhm. Let's see who else they went with.

(01:19:15):
Technology Companies must make platforms safer for women in politics,
Interventions to end online violence against women in politics, oh boy,
and by the National Democratic Institute of course, guys, do

(01:19:36):
you know what that is? What that's about? This is?
This is really bad. So imagine if you had a
Trump card, right, say, guys, I'm gonna I'm gonna come
to your house and I'm gonna come in and take

(01:19:58):
your car keys, and I want to take your car
when I want to go to the grocery store. But
I'm not gonna pay for the gas. I'm not gonna
be ensured. You can't. You can't tell me when I
can and can't use it because it's it's mine. Now, No,
you can't criticize me for that. I'm a woman. That's misogyny.

(01:20:18):
Even though if you said that to one of your buddies, right,
and you're a dude, your buddy could be like, fuck no,
get your own imp car, take the bus, right, walk,
I'll give you a ride. But you have to, uh,
you have to be over during these times because I
gotta work right. But imagine, if you know you're in politics,

(01:20:42):
we're gonna raise your taxes. No, we don't want our
taxes raised. Misogynist. There's a misogynistic about that. Oh yes
there is, because a woman is the one that suggested it.

Speaker 2 (01:20:52):
Mm hmm, Braby. People are out of their minds.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
And you'll notice as you go back and examine various
things that the Democrat Party has done where they've accused
you of isms and phobias, being infected with the isms
and the phobias. It's it's stuff that it's boundaries that
you would not just let anyone cross, and their their

(01:21:22):
threats of associating you with the isms and the phobias
are a means of blocking you from defending your boundaries. Well,
we want to teach your children about sex. No, I
don't think that's a good idea. Racist, what, well, you're

(01:21:43):
just saying that because the person who suggested it is black,
you know? Or oh well you're just a religious fundamentalist.
You you're you uptight nazi you know. We want to
teach your children to be neuro about their gender and
whether or not it's a correct identity. Whether they should

(01:22:06):
identify as themselves or something different than themselves. Fuck no,
what's wrong with you? Why would you do that to children?

Speaker 2 (01:22:13):
Sexist?

Speaker 1 (01:22:15):
You hate women?

Speaker 5 (01:22:18):
What?

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
Yeah? These people suck?

Speaker 3 (01:22:22):
Home school, home school your children people, if you have them.

Speaker 1 (01:22:27):
Yeah, you are transphobic if you don't want your children
to be taught that they might be the opposite sex,
and it's not. It's totally the same as if they
come up with that idea themselves. Yeah, totally the same
if an adult imposes that sexual language on them as

(01:22:49):
it would be if they came up with that idea themselves,
which you know they totally did all the time before
and you just didn't know it. Yeah. Yeah, So yeah,
that's what that's about. Technology companies must make platforms safer
for women in politics, meaning when Hillary Clinton lies, you
can't push back, right right, When when the National Education

(01:23:14):
Association that is made up mostly of women says they're
coming for your children and they want to teach your
children about anal sex, you can't say no, you know,
I would like my child to wait until they're older. No,
I don't want them learning that in kindergarten. You can't

(01:23:38):
say that, because that's that's homophobic. Right. Then they have
the International Center for Journalists Journalists Journals, which is totally trustworthy,
even though they collaborate all the time and use even

(01:24:00):
exactly the same phrases, and they're reporting mm hmm. We
have the UN Population Fund and and they're a global
study of online violence against women journalists and guidance on
the safe and ethical use of technology to address gender
based violence and harmful practices. So, uh, online violence against

(01:24:26):
female journalists. You report something and somebody says, uh, source
misogyny Codare you ask for a source?

Speaker 2 (01:24:37):
Someone doesn't like what you wrote?

Speaker 3 (01:24:39):
Oh my god, he's he's he's harapping me, he's been
violent towards me.

Speaker 2 (01:24:47):
Bitch, Your whole fucking job is online. Okay.

Speaker 3 (01:24:50):
If you think that you're not going to come into
some criticism or some differing opinions, then maybe you don't
belong online.

Speaker 1 (01:25:00):
Who's that? Who's that chick that got criticized for going
to somebody's house and standing outside their gate and demanding
that they answer questions.

Speaker 3 (01:25:10):
I'm sure that's happened a couple of times. Butler Nz,
I don't know. It sounds like something she would do,
but I'm trying to remember the guy that had happened
to in the situation that I'm thinking of, But he
was it Nick Flint's I don't know, I don't think so,

(01:25:33):
but he like.

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
Go to his house and harrass's wife. Oh but I
remember one female journalist. She she went to somebody's house.
She stood outside their fence and peppered them with questions,
and they posted the video. And she called posting the

(01:25:56):
video of her stalking them at their home and and
uh heckling them through the fence. She called it harassing
her that they posted that video.

Speaker 3 (01:26:08):
Of course, why why wouldn't you why why why wouldn't
that be something that you do?

Speaker 1 (01:26:18):
You were not hospitable? How dare you? How dare ah? S? I?
You and you? And Population Fund has a couple of
things here. There's another one measuring technology facilitated gender based
violence a discussion paper. Again, technology facilitated gender based violence

(01:26:45):
just sounds like somebody picked up my laptop computer and
hit me in the head with it. That's technology facilitated.
And only if they did it because I'm a woman,
right right, Uh, but cly.

Speaker 2 (01:27:01):
To you because they think your remains so it's all.

Speaker 1 (01:27:05):
Good, and that's not gender based violence because I'm an MRA. Right,
these people are pathetic. M h. Then we have let's
see violence against women and Girls code of Practice again

(01:27:28):
by the end, violence against Women Coalition, glitch ye refuge.
Now here we go. Carnegie, which is the Carnegie Foundation,
is part of the wealth establishment, the big money establishment
uk NSPCC five Rights Professor Claire McGlenn and Professor Lorna Woods,

(01:27:50):
meaning that this was an establishment piece, direct establishment piece,
totally not biased though, right, And then I want to
remind you they are where is it? They are defining

(01:28:13):
online gender based violence as a subset of technology facilitated
gender based violence, which refers to any act that is committed, assisted, aggravated,
or amplified by the use of information communication technologies or
other digital tools that results in or is likely to

(01:28:36):
result in physical, sexual, psychological, social, political, or economic harm,
or other infringements on rights and freedoms, which basically means
anything you say that upsets someone.

Speaker 3 (01:28:56):
Canon will be used a kiinst you in the court
of the mins, you in public opinion.

Speaker 1 (01:29:03):
And if they're saying we need something like that in
the US, we don't. We already have a law that
covers engaging in criminal violence using technology. There is a
section of Vahwah that when you read it, one of
the things that it says constitutes stalking is using any

(01:29:28):
type of technology within the United States to engage in
a course of conduct toward another person in the United
States that could be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional
distress or cause them to fear for their lives or

(01:29:50):
the lives of any of their friends or family members
living with them in their home. And so basically, the
people that posted my address, if they had continued to
do a bunch of bullshit like that, I could have
pursued charges if we could find out who they were,

(01:30:11):
if they were in the US. No, we aren't going
to go through this entire report, but I wanted you
to see is this is the bias through which this
report was done. Right. They already have a set of goals,

(01:30:32):
they already have their glossary describes things in a particular way.
They say things like misogyny operates to uphold a patriarchal
social order. So it's not just if you hate women,
it's if you support anything that feminists identify as a

(01:30:56):
patriarchal social order. If you promote any kind of gender
norm say, most people are not the sufferers of gender dysphoria,
and therefore most people are not naturally trans even if

(01:31:16):
people who suffer gender dysphoria are right, just saying that
would be upholding a patriarchal social order because that's a
gender norm. But they can promote the gender norm that
men are violent because most violent criminals are men.

Speaker 4 (01:31:36):
Right, So let's see, I don't know if well, we
will start the next episode.

Speaker 1 (01:31:50):
This isn't what I was after, is it?

Speaker 5 (01:31:52):
No?

Speaker 1 (01:31:54):
Uh? Yeah, it is okay, So you and when women
in equamundo. This is this was from this last paragraph here, right.
This research is being used to claim that there is
a pathway between talking about men's issues and online gender

(01:32:20):
based violence. Besides the pathway that gets people to call
me a man and think that that's an insult.

Speaker 3 (01:32:29):
Equamundo sounds like a feminist lucha libre character.

Speaker 6 (01:32:38):
Uh but but Ricochet Sorry anyway, Yeah, it does, it
really does.

Speaker 1 (01:32:52):
So what what are they doing with this? They have
this Act to End Violence against Women and Girls program.
So this is what we are going to look at next.
We'll look at that, and then we'll look at how
to counter the Manisphere's toxic influence, but not next week.

(01:33:13):
Next week I will be traveling. I have to leave
for the airport early because I have to be in
there in the middle of the night and I don't
want to drive there in the middle of the night,
so I'm going to be going in the evening, which
means I won't be able to do HBr talk. So
next week there is a meetup in Calgary.

Speaker 5 (01:33:37):
Me.

Speaker 1 (01:33:38):
We have a blog post about this, and I don't
know if I have that eat quickly accessible. I don't
think I do, but I'll have to republish the post
tonight about about our meetup on the honey badger Rigade

(01:34:03):
dot com blog. Uh. But we will be meeting up
in Calgary. The details will be on the blog. The
meetup is on Saturday, not this Saturday, but next Saturday.
Uh and uh I will be there. So I think
Mike's also going to be there.

Speaker 3 (01:34:22):
Yes he is. He is absolutely going to be there
and less SA decides to UH block him for some
stupid reason like last time. But yes, no, he is
definitely planning to be there. So unfortunately I will not.
I will be in it in Georgia, but I wish

(01:34:45):
I had new known sooner, because I definitely would have
made those plans instead of the plans that I had.

Speaker 2 (01:34:51):
But you guys will have a great time.

Speaker 1 (01:34:55):
And yeah, I think Bryan's also going to be there. Yeah,
I can't hear brian answers, but I can't, but I'm
pretty sure Brian's going to be there, and obviously Allison's
going to be there. Karen should have no problem getting
there either, so they don't have to cross any any

(01:35:16):
national borders to get there. So but yeah, that is
what I'm going to be doing next week, and therefore
I will not be hosting HBr Talk next week. So
next week, if anything is being done, I don't even know.
Brian might be traveling that day too if he's going,
so chances are there will not be a show on

(01:35:38):
Thursday night, but we'll be doing things during that weekend
and there may be some surprises. So watch Honeybadger Brigade
dot com for I'll probably have it published in the morning,
more most likely around eight am Eastern Standard time or

(01:36:02):
because it's not daylight savings yet, so she should be
able to see that, and it'll just have the same
details that Alison gave in the last post that she
had me post, and there you go, there's the information
on that. I don't know if I have any other

(01:36:22):
super I do. Richard Beierre gave us five dollars and
said the output from GROC is a mirror of what
input was fed into it. So when GROC started noticing
certain patterns, someone had to ask just how many patterns
or fed in as input. It really doesn't even comprehend
the actual meanings of the words fed in. It just

(01:36:43):
has a model of how to string various words together
into sentences. It's an interesting thing too. It's got a
search engine, so if you ask it an open ended question,
it will just openly search. And it seems to be
similar but not entirely the same as like it goes

(01:37:03):
through Google, and it it does pick up things that
Google doesn't find, so it obviously does its own searching
as well. But you can, I've noticed you can provide
it with more information. It does do math, it's like

(01:37:27):
it it operates as a calculator. It and it does
use It does use logic functions because it is able
to like account for things that like if you just
put the numbers into even a complex calculator you're not
going to get what it gave me, for instance, about

(01:37:50):
the rate of violent crime perpetration among the general public
among men of the general public. So it does have
some more functions besides repeating what it's been fed, but
people do attribute a lot more to it than it

(01:38:14):
actually has. Like what it does isn't what I would
consider to be thinking, right, So if you give it
a lot of information, it can analyze for a variety
of things, and yeah, it will notice patterns, and some
of those patterns are politically incorrect to notice. Some of

(01:38:37):
them aren't as meaningful as people think they are either.
And it's similarly to like the apex fallacy that applies
to men, where feminists treat the percentage of men involved
in leadership positions as evidence that all men are benefiting

(01:38:59):
from pig chy, even though most men are abused by
the men in leadership positions. It's a similar thing when
you look at you know, who's the majority of perpetrators
of certain types of crimes, who is on the boards
of most companies. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about men,

(01:39:22):
or whether you're talking about a religious group, or whether
you're talking about people of a particular sexuality or whatever.
You know, talking about overrepresentation doesn't mean anything when it
comes to discussing the general population of a group, and
that fallacy is used to justify pretty much every prejudice

(01:39:45):
out there, one way or another. For every apex fallacy,
there's a bottom of the barrel fallacy that goes right
along with it, and it's it's all bullshit. Everyone that
does it is wrong. But you can get Grock to
do it too well, you can't now because they've they've

(01:40:07):
they kind of nerved it. And the thing that really
bugs me about it is the way that they nerved it.
It didn't necessarily keep it from engaging in apex fallacies.
It just selectively eliminated one. And it'll still it'll still

(01:40:28):
do like the patriarchy apex fallacy. It'll repeat that. And
I've gotten it. I've taken it through information and logic
that demonstrates that the patriarchy apex fallacy is wrong, and
it's it's unfounded and definitely unproved. But the next time

(01:40:55):
that you talk to it, because even though it remembers
your conversations, it doesn't necessarily remember its conclusions and all
of that, it doesn't retain what is right and what
is wrong from the last conversation, and like it'll still
promote feminist patriarchy theory because that that is the information

(01:41:16):
that it can find online in sources that are considered authoritative.
So there's there's kind of a there's a there's still
a lot of issues with it. It's useful, but you
really have to know how to use it. You have
to be able to kind of cross examine it as
opposed to just talking to it, and people talk to

(01:41:39):
it like it's a person, and it's it's a large
language model. It's not a person.

Speaker 2 (01:41:45):
It just.

Speaker 1 (01:41:47):
Puts together information. It has some logic functions that allow
some analysis, but its search function is not in depth
enough that without your direction, it will find out a
well rounded scope of information for analysis. You have to

(01:42:12):
help it with that because it's like it's been nerved.
So in any case, thanks for the super super chow.
I didn't see any super chats. I don't know if
I missed any. I'm gonna scroll back up here, but
I don't think there's any Wait, Nope, that's just my

(01:42:36):
computer making flashes at me. It decided it wanted to
update in the middle of the show. And I told
it no, So now it's mad. So it's gonna update
after the after show, which we're about to go right into.

(01:43:00):
So no superchows or no other superchows, no super chats,
no rumble rants. We are done for the night. Thanks
everybody for listening. Two weeks we'll be back. We'll talk
about this, this Act to End Violence against Women. This
is interesting too. Gotta say this. Feminists and feminists worldwide.

(01:43:21):
Feminist groups from the smallest little girly coffee shop club
to national organizations like the National Organization for Women to
international organizations like You and Women, have made themselves the
arbiters of the fight against domestic violence, and they have

(01:43:45):
gendered it for fifty years and they have come no
closer to solving the problem in half a century. Nothing
has changed place, that have changed, but the behavior hasn't changed.
Obviously what they are doing is not right, but just saying.

(01:44:10):
But we're gonna go over this in a couple of weeks.
We'll see what they have to say and what we
have to say, and then it will be that. Thanks
to Lauren for going through this with me. Thanks to
Brian for helping to keep this running in the background.
And everyone else who works in the background and make
HBr talk happen in good night all.

Speaker 2 (01:44:31):
Didn't that, y'all