UN Women: “Coming for your platforms!” | HBR Talk 371

UN Women’s complaints about the manosphere include typical mischaracterizations, and a familiar plan of attack. Tonight we’re going to do a bit more looking into one of the sources from their recent report, “What is the manosphere and why should we care?” We may also get to UN women’s follow-up article on “how to counter the manosphere.”

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome to HBr Talk three seventy one. You
and women coming for your platforms and they are. I'm
your host, Tanna Wallen here with nonsense annihilator Lauren Brokes
and the personification of perceptivity Mike Stevenson with the dog
in charge in the background making sure things work the

(00:22):
way they should. And tonight we're still looking into you
and women's behaviors. I can't just say it's complaints against us,
because there's shit they want to do, wanted to do,
and they brought it up a couple of years ago,
and some of it sounds suspiciously like the stuff that's
being done today using children instead of misogyny as the excuse.

(00:47):
So this is something that they've been pushing for for
a while and they just basically found which buttons they
could push to try to get people to shut up
about it and accept it. And it looks like using
exploiting children as the vehicle hasn't necessarily worked any better.

(01:08):
People are still talking about it, but in any case,
they're still still doing it. So we are going to
take a look at what they wanted to do. And
there's at least one thing here that I know existed,
So we'll get into it here in just a minute,
but before we get into it, we gotta do what

(01:29):
we got to do. As always, Honey Badger Radio dishes
out as morgas board of thought provoking discussions 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 onsen ice or

(01:51):
building our house in the path of a rapidly growing wildfire.
In light of this, we strongly encourage our supporters to
switch at least please their support for 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.
The link for that is feed the Badger dot Com

(02:11):
slash just the tip. We will be reading some of
those today from this weekend because we were not able
to see them during the show, so we'll do that
before we get into the today's show as well. As always,
the same risk applies to our social media platforms, especially
with considering what we're reading today, which is why you

(02:32):
should further provoke the thought police by tracking our thought
provoking discussions on Honeybadger Brigade dot com, where you can
find your way to all of our content, as well
as a link to feed the Badger dot com in
the drop down menu at the top of the page.
And so to look at our superchows that we got
during this weekend. Zapier gave us one thousand dollars and

(02:56):
au WoT mate what you do, which doesn't sound as
cool coming from Ohio as it does coming from London.
But you know, uh, konos, what kind of dollars is that? Yeah, yeah,
it doesn't say so. It's probably a thousand American dollars.
Good lawd Yeah, Vapier loves us. So I just wanted

(03:19):
to say, you're in to the cookout. There we go.
Now we have to have a cookout, guys. Yes, you
can realize that that if we invite people, we have
to have one.

Speaker 2 (03:30):
Yes, there we go.

Speaker 1 (03:34):
That's that's got to happen now, like sometime next summer.
But thank you very much, Zapier. We are very grateful
and we love you too. Knoko's evil twin gave us
fifty dollars and said uh. The assassination of Charlie Kirk
is one hundred percent in line with the Democrat policy

(03:55):
to destroy the nuclear family. Divorce is the usual method
of dominating fathers from families, but on this occasion a
bullet was used instead. Charlie just wanted to build bridges.
The takeaway lesson from his murder is that not only
can you not build bridges with equal evil psychopaths, you
cannot build civilization itself either. There's no middle ground for

(04:17):
compromise with evil that will see you dead merely just
because of the words you say. The ice flow beckons
for the hazardous hominid biowate that we must discard. And
you know my thinking on this is you know this.
This man was assassinated for the crime of reaching out

(04:41):
to young men and instilling in them the ability to
form convictions with strength and wisdom that they can be
confident in by using logic and reason and facts instead
of feelings, which is what the universities are pushing on him.

(05:03):
He made them less easy to manipulate, lie to, and
trick into voting for things that they that are against
their self interest, and he made them more capable of
forming strong families. By choosing a partner who has those

(05:25):
same qualities and forming a family with that partner and
not some flippant female who might you know, have have
very few trustworthy qualities. And I think that that was
really the reason there was a big target on his back.
He was taking the ability away from the establishment to

(05:49):
manipulate young men. Yeah, they didn't just want to take
him away from his family, They wanted to take him
away from their families.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
Well, hold on, honey, you need to turn down the temper.
I don't see anyone on your side even trying to
turn down the temperature on this divisive rhetoric that you're saying.
And if you don't turn down the temperature, then then
will we will keep firing guns at you. And don't
worry about the temperature of these guns. They're perfectly cold

(06:20):
blooded and we will keep them as cold blooded as
we can until you shut the fuck up. And I'm
doing the bird hands while I say this. You need
to shut the fuck up and turn down the temperature
on the things you're saying, or else we will keep
murdering you. Is that is? Does that please? And sparkle as?

Speaker 1 (06:40):
Okay? I swear I need to make a bird hands
video where instead of like the pointy fingers with the
bird beak, I'm gonna do, you know, the the intertwined
thumbs with the rest of the fingers sticking out for
wings and just like maneuver them back and forth across
in front of my face as I'm ting fucking listen

(07:01):
to me, I have bird hands. These are bird hands, right.
But when it when it comes down to it, these
people talking about turning down the temperature, bringing down the temperature,
there's something that they don't realize, right, too hot and
too cold can both lead to the same outcome. Mm

(07:22):
hm and uh. This is this is something that you
know when I when my temper gets to the level
where it's threatening to be out of control, it's there's
a thing you do with your temper in that situation
when if you're smart and you you you understand that

(07:46):
you're you're not going to bring down your internal temperature.
You are going to be that angry and it is
it isn't going to go away. It's not something you
can squish into a little compartment and say it's not there,
and it's not something you can diffuse because your anger
is legitimate. It's real and solid, and the reason for
it is valid. It's a valid reason to be angry. Right,

(08:09):
somebody was was wrongly murdered here, and and it was
done for very petty reasons that pretty much are an
attack on the entire public. And it's not just an
attack on free speech. It's an attack on a way
of life, and it's an attack on the country. And

(08:32):
what people don't understand is the temperature on that temper
can be flipped from hot blooded, where you would do
something maybe poorly thought out right two cold and calculated meticulous.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
Yeah, absolutely, yeah.

Speaker 1 (08:56):
And and when I when I get like that and
that's on the other side of it, should run yeah.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
Yeah. And that's exactly where we are right now.

Speaker 4 (09:07):
You know, there are people who don't understand or they're
you know, criticizing the right for lack of a better term,
for having this reaction. However, it's like how many times
can you poke the bear before the bear actually strikes out.

Speaker 2 (09:27):
And hits you. You know what I mean.

Speaker 4 (09:29):
It's the same fucking thing that they when it was
the left doing it, it was cancel culture, right, because
they were taking our words, twisting them and then using
that to attack our jobs.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
Attack our livelihoods, attack.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
Our families, and they don't so much like it when's
that pendulum swings right the fuck back in their direction.

Speaker 2 (09:53):
They don't like that shit at all. Well, too bad,
too bad.

Speaker 4 (09:57):
You open this fucking Pandora's by and you are getting
everything that is coming to you in spades, and I
you know, uh, it's just so frustrating, like, you know,
because this is kind of how I am.

Speaker 2 (10:16):
You know, I'm the nicest person in the world until
you fuck with me. Once you do that, then it's
all better over, you know what I mean. That's it.

Speaker 4 (10:28):
You want this, You wanted this attention, and now you're
gonna fucking get it.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
Now you all are gonna fucking get it.

Speaker 5 (10:33):
And oh my god, and wroth that man lost his
fucking life, that woman lost her husband, those children lost
their fucking father, and I don't care about.

Speaker 2 (10:45):
Your stupid woe is me cries, I can't even think.

Speaker 4 (10:49):
Yes, No, there are not very many companies who will
accept a representative of that company, which as an employee,
that's exactly what you are. They're not gonna take kindly
to you being still very public publicly dancing on someone's grave.

Speaker 1 (11:10):
Yep, you all remember dongle gate, dongle gate, dongle gate. There.
This was that I believe Python, which is for anybody
that's not a total nerd, that is a convention.

Speaker 3 (11:29):
Someone made a joke about a dongle and some and
some Karen got them fired, right.

Speaker 1 (11:34):
Yeah, so Python is a convention for people who specialize
in using Python, which is a programming language. And I
don't know if it's still I know, programming languages sometimes
become outdated as new ones come along, and so I
don't know if it's still in action. But this was

(11:56):
a rather large gathering and there was a demonstration going on,
and there were a couple of guys in the audience,
and the joke was so mild. The one said, the
guy had a big dongle. And then dongle is anything
that you attach your computer. So your USB thumb drive,
that's a dongle. If you have a device to like

(12:21):
to to enhance the use of your computer, if you
have a second any any excess power that you're going
to add to it, or anything, if you're attaching it,
it's a dongle. And and uh, that's that's all he said,
that's a big dongle. And and the other guy kind
of giggled, and then one of them said something about
I'd like to fork his code, and that was the

(12:44):
entire conversation. Forking is like you you ifire, remember it.
It's you take the individual's existing code and you build
from it in a different direction than they were going
with it. For Vernon, it's still used as last time
he checked, so there's probably still Python is probably still

(13:06):
in existence. Yeah, this rites an open source language.

Speaker 3 (13:12):
It's not like this was something said on a like
public panel in this convention. It was said in the audience,
like in a private conversation between two guys and some
eves dropping feminists heard this, and she got them canceled
and she got them fired. This is where the leftist
feminists were ten years ago. They were getting people canceled

(13:35):
for telling that kind of silly joke in private in
an audience. Skipped to ten years ahead, and and they're
getting canceled for literally advocating murder. And then one's going

(13:55):
all we did was advocate some murder. Was the mind boggles.
There's not enough space in the mind for all this boggle.

Speaker 1 (14:06):
So yeah, yeah, yeah, manngaka ninety two on Rumble says
Python is one of the most popular currently used. So
h if I remember right, not too long ago at oscon,
which is Open Source convention, there was there was a
similar not quite the same, but a similar kicking out

(14:30):
of people who were the wrong political perspective, right on
the wrong side of history in terms of you know
what political perspectives. You couldn't be there and be conservative,
or you couldn't be there and be affiliated with the
the pro consumer side of gamer Gate, the gamer Gate controversy.

(14:54):
So U basically OSCAN said, go home, gamer girl. And
of course the one that hits closest to home for
us was Alison and Troupe, including at least two at
least two of us on this panel were kicked out

(15:16):
of a convention for suggesting that both sexes are equally important.
Men are as human as women, and if you're going
to talk about gender in terms of comics, it's only
right and fair to bring both sexes into that conversation.

(15:36):
And that was it. That was the controversial statement, terribly controversial,
that was considered harassment to get permission to speak and
then to say that, right, that was it. So in
that time period they were canceling people, destroying career right,

(16:02):
getting people fired from their jobs. I mean, there were
several of us at a Voice for Men who were
docked and harassed on Twitter for the crime of switching
from calling ourselves men's rights activists, which was actually started

(16:23):
as a feminist slur, to calling ourselves men's human rights activists,
to remind people that what we are fighting for is
simply an inclusion of men in the human rights dialogue.
That was it, that was the controversial thing. That was
the reason why, for instance, the kindergarten that was attended

(16:47):
by Jack Barnes's daughter needed to be published, The address
needed to be published so that he should be scared
that somebody would show up there and do something violent.
Why they needed to tell people where my parents lived,
my elderly parents. That was the way that they were

(17:10):
just a few years ago. Today today they're mad that
they cannot repeatedly post pictures of gore and celebrate the
murder of a human being. For being on the wrong
side of a debate about what is the right way

(17:32):
to handle certain circumstances, whether it's gay rights, trans rights,
how your education is progressing, or any other political issue.
The controversy was the existence of open debate. That's it.
And they're mad that they can't celebrate that this man

(17:56):
was murdered for promoting open debate and still have their
company want to be associated with them. That's who we're
up against. That's who's telling us to turn down the temperature.
We're allowed to be mad, but you're not, is what
we're being told. We're allowed to be violent, but you're not.
That's what we're being told. Meredith g gave us ten dollars

(18:20):
and said, there's a question out there because the rise
of political violence in the twentieth and twenty first century
seems to correlate to the destruction of men's roles in
society and the failure of them to have a place
in society. These lost men are easy target for radicalization,
and they become weapons for the proxy violence that women fulminate.
So I've sort of looked into the history of you know,

(18:46):
the gay rights movement in the past, and that includes
like the trans rights movement and everything, and something that
I found interesting and we did do a we did
a show on this a while back. You know, all
these rights, the right to be left alone, essentially, to

(19:10):
not be treated like a disease in society because you're
a little bit different on your own, alone in your
home or with the consenting adult in your home. That
was fought for on the backs of men. That was
men and biologically male individuals that may identify as female,

(19:34):
or men who cross dressed and still identified as male.
They were the ones that did the bulk of activism
of taking the brunt of government punishment, taking the brunt
of social punishment, and physically being harmed by people throwing

(19:55):
rocks at them, by being shot by rubber bullets, by
being shot with real bullets, by being rested and beaten
up and and incarcerated, and uh in in some parts
of history, by being executed for the crime of being
that different, being so different that they have nothing in

(20:15):
their lives that is done in service to women. They're
the ones that fought for it right. But the ones
that have played victim the loudest are those who are
biologically female, lesbians, bisexual women, and trans men and uh

(20:37):
it's it's just a historical fact that women co opt
men's places and men's issues throughout history. Women have done
that once once Lesbians took over when it when it
switched from the the gay rights movement to the gay

(21:00):
and lesbian movement, and then the LGB movement, and then LGBT.
It went from being about human rights, the right to
be left alone, the right to not be interfered with
as long as you're not interfering with someone else, to
all kinds of rights to interfere with other people with impunity,

(21:23):
basically without being told no, the right to erase other
people's boundaries. And from there you ended up in the
education system and in the position to brainwash youth, and
in the position to brainwash young people like the individual

(21:46):
who shot Charlie Kirk. Feminist intrusion into that movement, which
was not initially a feminist movement, but intersectional feminism took
it over. When sectional feminism took it over, it became
what shaped that young man into an assassin. So feminism

(22:09):
is to blame very much, to blame for the death
of Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
Then we have.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
Ok FS eighty seven. Underscore seven gave us eighty dollars
and well, thank you for that. Brex gave us eighty
dollars and said I buy Micah's shirt exclamation point. Well,
thank you very much, Brex, love.

Speaker 3 (22:39):
You Brex us so much for us and he asks
for nothing in return. Brex is a hero. He should
be protected at all costs.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
And Telnar gave us thirty dollars and said thanks for
the book marks, Allison, and then gave us another forty
dollars and thanks for the shirt too. OKFS eighty seven
Underscore seven gave us another fifty dollars. We didn't get
messages from OKFS, so I don't know if that was
on purpose or an accident. And then today Meredith g

(23:10):
gave us five dollars and said, HBr talk three seventy one,
honey for the badger, thanks for the thought provoking conversation.
So we are all cut up on our on our
super chows. I also have a story that I just
think is important to get out there because it is
something that you know, initially I was was very annoyed

(23:35):
when it was happening, and then but I, but I
you know, didn't complain because I figured there might be
a reason behind it. And ultimately the reason was men
were protecting me and everybody else on the on the
jet that I flew home on. So I I had
a twenty two hour layover WHOA in Chicago, which if

(23:57):
you're going to have a twenty two hour layover in
an that's a good one because they have everything all right.
The only thing that's not in the airport is hotels,
which if you're gonna pay to stay in a hotel,
take a direct flight at the expense is about the same.
But so I I got up to the the airport

(24:19):
in Calgary at like three am. I went in there
and waited for American Airlines to open their you know,
I registered my flight, waited for American Airlines to open
their system up, and then I got everything taken care of,
and you know, got into place, and you know, got

(24:40):
on my flight and get to Chicago. And about twenty
hours into my twenty two hour layover, my my flight
starts changing gates. God, you know that happens. I registered
way ahead of time, so it's it's expected sometimes this,
you know, like almost every time when I've had a
cheap light, there's been a gate change at some point.

(25:02):
So no big deal. So I go to the second gate.
About ten minutes later it changed again, and then there
was a flight delay, and then there was another flight
delay and a third flight delay, and in between the
second and the third flight delay. They bounced me back
and forth between three different gates for a grand total

(25:25):
of nine gate changes. Oh my god, I'm like, what
the fuck you know, I'm like walking back and forth.
My legs were already tired because we went up on
the mountain at vance, and I'm abyssmally out of shape,
like to the degree of like embarrassingly out of shape.
People were watching out for me because they thought I

(25:45):
was going to die.

Speaker 3 (25:48):
But she did make it to the top. Legend, gentlemen,
we all made it to the top eventually. It was
It's a glorious view. It's worth it.

Speaker 1 (25:55):
It is, it is, But apparently I've been to I
was white as a sheet, but I don't make false
teeth for people who know the song. But in any case,
you know, I was obviously annoyed walking back and forth,
back and forth, back and forth, with sore legs and everything.
But I thought, you know, there's got to be a
reason for this. They don't just do this. I've never

(26:17):
seen them do this before. So finally, you know, it
gets to where they're they're not changing the gate anymore,
they're not delaying the flight anymore. And I was able
to talk to somebody about what's what's going on with
this flight? Like is something wrong? Is everything okay? And
it turns out that the jet we were originally going

(26:39):
to be on had a problem and there was no
way that problem could be fixed in time for them
to use that jet to make that flight. So they
switched it to another jet, and that jet also had
a problem, but they could fix that one. That problem

(27:01):
was doable. They could handle it before you know, flight time. Well,
then the engineers decided that you know, no, the mechanics
that we're working on a plane, this is going to
take longer than you you told the passengers, and so
they changed the gate the first time to give them

(27:21):
a little more time, but didn't delay the flight. And
then when they did delay the flight, they delayed it
like at the last minute. And then the mechanics are like, no,
it's it's going to take this much time. Even if
you don't give us this much time, we're not going
to compromise. And so they took the amount of time
it needed to do the job right to make sure

(27:43):
the jet was in operating condition so that we wouldn't
crash on the way back to Dayton. So shout out
to the flight mechanics at American Airlines who protected everybody
on that plane for them from the bureaucracy because when
they they obviously had to fight for their right to

(28:08):
do their job correctly. And this is this is why
you should be glad that a lot of mechanical engineers
and other mechanics are a little bit autistic, right, And
they'll put this down and say this is going to
take an hour, whether you want it to take half
an hour or an hour. So they just go ahead

(28:28):
and tell them it's going to take an hour. That's
I'm glad for that, right, And the bureaucrats don't always understand, so.

Speaker 3 (28:38):
It's it's not the most efficient way to travel, but
this is why they call it the safest way to travel.
At least it was until it got flooded with DEI.
But that's another story for another day. We don't off,
we don't. We haven't been affected with all that bullshit.

Speaker 1 (28:54):
Yet You're still more likely to encounter the type of
accident that will cause you to die if you're in
a car than you are if you're on a jet,
because being on a jet, accidents are much less forgiving.
They work much harder to prevent them, because there's a

(29:16):
whole lot of accidents you can have in a car
that are just very annoying and and don't result in
injury or death, just some that are, you know, potentially fatal.
And people are more careless with vehicles, I think because
they feel safe being surrounded by this cage and all

(29:39):
of the safety features that have been added and so on,
where you know, when you're thousands of feet in the air,
you know that there's not very many things that can
go catastrophically wrong without killing you, or at least that's
the way it feels, right, and so you're a lot
more careful. So there we go, men doing their jobs.

(30:07):
Women most affected, but in a good way. But that
all said, let's let's get into the meeting.

Speaker 3 (30:16):
We have to talk about you and women now we do,
which we could just delay the inevitable by talking about
anything else.

Speaker 1 (30:25):
All right, So let's see we have to go here.
This is where we were right. We had this this
discussion about this article what is the mainosphere and why
should we care? Blah blah blah. We read this and uh,
it ended in a discussion about digital abuse in real

(30:48):
world stereotypes and misogyny, uh and so on, and we
we got to the risk of radicalization. We read the
rest of this right, but we got to the risk
of radicalization, and we're told about this research from the
Institute for Strategic Dialogue. So we looked up the Institute

(31:10):
for Strategic Dialogue and this is them powering solutions to
hate extremism and authoritarianism. Oh my, I don't want your
fucking cookies rejected. There we go, and of course we
looked at who they are and what they do. Let's
see that wasn't here, but it gave a brief explanation

(31:34):
of who they are, and then most of the pages
for what they do and how that manifests didn't lead anywhere.
There were no links. So then we found the actual
study and opened it up and we read their definitions.

(31:55):
Last week they how they define or not last week,
but last the last episode, how they define things like
misogyny and online gender based violence, which I still can't
take seriously, right, online violence. I had a conversation with
a feminist during my wait time for I want to say,

(32:22):
for my first leg of my first flight or the
flight to Calgary, and in that conversation it might have
been during the layover, but in that conversation, she repeatedly

(32:43):
inserted video and images of gore from the Charlie Kirk murder,
from the Charlie Kirk assassination into the conversation that were
completely unrelated to what was under discussion. These were not
we weren't discussing Charlie Kirk. We were discussing something else,

(33:04):
and she just invaded the conversation from outside there was
she wasn't tagged into it, she didn't need to be there.
She's kind of invited herself in and started posting that shit.
Two strangers on the Internet with no connection whatsoever to
the conversation. Right if we did that, two feminists who

(33:29):
were discussing some you know, something to do with maybe
custody or child support or something like that, and just started,
I don't know if there's any such gore related to them, honestly,
but just started took a woman who had been murdered,
that that that there were images of this woman being murdered,

(33:50):
and just started posting that gore in that chat. You
can guarantee, without a doubt that would be deemed online
gender based violence.

Speaker 3 (34:05):
We have examples very recently of a woman being brutally
murdered and a man being brutally murdered. They've been the
two biggest stories in the news over the last week
or so, and I guess showing either of them would
would be unacceptable anti feminist nonsense. And we're talking about

(34:28):
Irina Zariska and Charlie Kirk, and you think that they
would present as opposing examples of violence against women and
violence against men, and yet they're both being presented by
the quote unquote right. And until Charlie Kirk was murdered,

(34:51):
I was like, yeah, well, the murder of Iriana Zariska
is an example of the right sort of taking up
the mantle that the left refused to take up because

(35:14):
you would expect.

Speaker 2 (35:17):
That.

Speaker 3 (35:19):
Hang on, I have a write up somewhere that I
didn't get to do in the other thing. Where is it.

Speaker 6 (35:27):
Yeah, I'm going to be a little bit controversial here,
but I feel that you need to notice how the
quote unquote online right is so ready to adopt the
ostensible positions of the legacy left as and when the
legacy left neglects to adopt them.

Speaker 3 (35:47):
As we know, the virtue signalers of the icophobic, missandric
left are usually very vocal about protecting women, and in
the current decade, they're also very vocal about protect acting Ukrainians.
But it shouldn't be surprising that they're all radio silent
when it comes to the brutal, senseless murder of a

(36:08):
Ukrainian woman, as and when they can't find a way
to blame it on native men i e. White men,
in this case, American men. We've all been here doing
this for long enough to understand perfectly why they don't
give a shit, because they never did give a shit
about protecting women or Ukrainians. They're only interested in demonizing

(36:35):
European men, especially European American men. What seems odd to
me is that the quote unquote online right is so
ready to pick up the slack of the legacy left.
They're supposed to be the ones who give a shit
about men, especially their own countrymen, but they don't seem
to give a shit about the countless examples of their

(36:56):
own countrymen getting publicly shanked and shot and sucker punched
on a daily basis in every major city in every
Western country. And they have the nerve to make the
story about how the legacy media isn't covering this whatsoever. Yeah,
and you never covered the stories of the exact same

(37:18):
shit happening to men all the time, unless it's a
celebrity like Charlie Kirk, and then you give a shit.
And yes, I realize, I realize it's not news when
it happens to men, because it happens all the time
to men. It's like people taking illegal drugs or exceeding

(37:39):
the speed limit. These are crimes that are committed all
over the place, all over the time. If we made
a news story about it every time it happens, it
would make up ninety nine percent of the news. But
that doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged about innocent men
getting killed or injured. Harden my anus. But I think

(38:00):
men's lives are just as important as women's lives, and
we ought to be, if anything, a hundred times more
outraged about their lives being callously disposed of, what with
it happening one hundred times more often approximately, And the
fact that we're not is to me the story. If

(38:22):
you think the fate of Ariana Zarutzka is symbolic of
the decline of society because half of the country doesn't
seem to give a shit. Well, I have some shocking
news for you. This shit happens to men all the time,
and almost the entire country doesn't give a shit. And
it's been this way for longer than anyone can remember.

(38:44):
The left doesn't care about anyone or anything. We've established
that what the left claims to care about is actually
what the right cares about women, especially photogenic women, especially
Ukrainian rep. Geez. Meanwhile, what the right claims to care
about is actually what nobody cares about men. It's what

(39:09):
nobody cares about, except, of course us. A handful of
shadow band space lepers on the Internet. Now that the
psychotic left is finally acknowledging this, a lot of them
are going, well, this is what you white people can
expect after four hundred years of oppressing black people. And
the right is responded to this by going, but she's Ukrainian,

(39:35):
as if to insinuate that if she was American or
Western European, it would somehow be a valid point for
these psychos to be blaming the victim, or at least
it would be a more valid point. Sorry, but fuck you,
actually sorry, not sorry, and fuck you. Nobody deserves to

(39:55):
be shanks in the neck, not even people of Northwest
European descent, not even men. But yeah, we've got the
left continuing to blame everything on Northwest European men, while
the right is defending everyone else. It's been completely normalized

(40:16):
for this to happen to us. For every ninety nine
men who get brutalized, it happens to one woman. And
then everyone gets outraged and they think they're addressing the problem.
You're not. This is a symptom of the problem. The
complete indifference to white male lives and their disposability is

(40:37):
the problem. You only demonstrate your compliance with this problem
when you ignore all the male lives and you clutch
at your pearls on the odd occasion when that callous
indifference happens to affect a female life. If you want
to address this problem, try addressing the other ninety nine

(40:58):
percent of it. If you want to preserve life, see
if you can briefly glance in the direction of the
vast majority of lives that are being unthinkingly disposed of.
Dare I say, systematically and institutionally, namely your own countrymen.
The left needs to stop demonizing them at every opportunity,

(41:21):
and the right needs to at least acknowledge them. That
would at least be a start. We still haven't even
got to the start. I don't pretend like you give
a shit about innocent lives when you can't even comprehend
that men have innocent lives. Yeah, sick of it, man,
fkaing sick of it.

Speaker 1 (41:43):
Very much so. And you know, as a result, like
there's there's a lot of men who are simply choosing
to walk away and their right to do so. I mean,
when you consider it right engaging in violence on someone
else's behalf, even if it is the mildest form of violence.

(42:06):
You bear hug somebody, for instance, to keep them from
doing something more violent, that's risky. There's a physical risk involved.
That individual may switch their violence effectively to you. If
they're ineffective, okay, may seem like no big deal. If
they're effective, then you're injured. Right, So, every time someone

(42:33):
expects a man to step up on behalf of the
victim of a violent crime, they're saying, you need to
put yourself at risk to protect this other individual. You
do make this other individual's safety more important than your own.
That is the message that men are getting. They're getting
that message every day. They get that message every day

(42:56):
from early childhood when they are told to get into
between bullies and girls, even if the bully is another girl.
And the best advice you could give a guy is
if the bully is another girl, you stay out of it.
If you see two women fighting, two girls fighting, stay
out of it. It's gonna get vicious. There's nothing, literally,

(43:20):
nothing you can do to help that isn't going to
result in some sort of splashback on you of some
sort of consequence, whether it's physical or social or legal.

Speaker 4 (43:37):
And even when they hear that, you can literally say
the words to these men and it's just like natural
instinct for them.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
To just be on this. Well, No, I must protect.

Speaker 1 (43:48):
Those wah yeah to it. Yeah, like I said, from
early childhood, then other people's safety is more important than
their own, and it's their job to risk their safety
for other people. It's not it's no, that's a job.
Security staff does that job, bodyguards do that job. They

(44:09):
get paid, police do that job, they get paid.

Speaker 4 (44:13):
Right, and and it's not even that day, it's not
even that. It's not your job, it's not your responsibility.
And on top of which you could end up risking
your own life or jail time because you wanted to
help this woman because she said she was in danger.

Speaker 2 (44:31):
Oh my god, this guy wrong.

Speaker 1 (44:33):
Yeah, like the incidents, there's been a few incidents that
have been made public online where some woman stole a
man's bag shopping bag or whatever, like you know those
grocery shopping bags you can buy to reuse, Yeah, and
and tried to run off with it, and everybody thought,
because he was chasing her, that he was the perse
snatcher and tackled him. And there's been a couple of

(44:56):
instances where the person, the actual bag snatcher, got away.
There's been instances where, you know, the the individual that
was the victim of the bag snatching got injured by
the people trying to protect the bag snatcher from him.
And you know, people have been sued for this, people

(45:17):
have been jailed for assaulting someone because of this. So, yeah,
if you don't understand the situation, you could actually do
something wrong by trying to protect a woman. Women do
commit crimes, and women do commit violent crimes. They may

(45:40):
not be the majority arrested for violent crimes, but when
you see a violent conflict between a man and a woman,
you don't know what's going on, and the best thing
to do is either stay out of it or to
try to talk it down to let's wait for the

(46:02):
police and let them decide what's going on instead of
you deciding what's going on and engaging in violence. And
the other thing that I would say is in those circumstances,
even if you take pictures or video for evidence purposes,
don't put that shit on social media. No, all right,

(46:24):
because whoever the victim is probably doesn't want to be
on social media being the victim of a crime. That
is a moment of embarrassment and humiliation. For a violent
crime victim, it's horrible being dominated by another person and

(46:44):
not being able to stop them from doing to you
whatever it is they want to do to you, or
taking from you whatever it is they want to take
from you. It's not just humbling, it's humiliating. And nobody
wants their most hue a miliating moment on on social
media for everybody to see that they couldn't defend themselves.

(47:08):
So yeah, this is it's not You don't become a
hero by putting that stuff on social media. You don't
become a hero by jumping to conclusions about a circumstance
and then acting on those without without evidence. So in

(47:28):
any case, yeah, that's that's real world violence, and that
violence is real. Right, this is an entirely different story.
So what where we are now? We're we're talking about
what they want to do? What do they want to

(47:50):
do about the situation. And the first thing they came
out with their introductory paragraph to this section, which I
guess they put the label for each section. They just
they just just put the section up. Let me see
if I have this again. We'll just duplicate this tab.

Speaker 2 (48:17):
We are on.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
This will be page twenty one. But let's see if
I can go. No, I don't need that go all
the way back to the top. We don't need to
view a summary. We need to view the title. The
thing that I'm looking at is we talked about how

(48:43):
they want to enable API access to platform data. So
they want Facebook and x dot com and Reddit and
YouTube and all those different platforms to share with each other.
Here is what the people on our platform are saying
and doing, And here's what we are what we are doing,

(49:06):
what our algorithms look like, what our information coming in
looks like, and so on and then we talked a
little bit about how they want to when they say
apply a victim survivor centered safety and privacy by design

(49:27):
like by design approach, what they're saying is you're guilty
until proven innocent, and then sometimes even if proven innocent
in terms of what you have said and done on
social media and it's impact on the individual who is
reporting you, and whether or not that that impact makes

(49:50):
you guilty of something that doing something wrong, whether there's
wrongdoing involved, you're guilty unless proven innocent, and sometimes even
if how they feel determines your your guilt. So even
if you say something or do something that is completely innocent,

(50:11):
if someone feels harassed by it, you can still be
considered guilty by that reason. And I think we've also
talked in the past about how some of those platforms
back when X was Twitter, for instance, would take the
exact same behavior and it would be it would be

(50:34):
against terms of service if people with the wrong political
outlook did it, But if people with accepted political outlooks
did it, then it was okay. So feminists could call
me a bit and a cunt and call me a
gay man as a form of insult, use slurs anti

(50:56):
gay slurs, all kinds of stuff and conversation and get
away with it. But if I said it was idiotic
for somebody to think that somebody with the name Hannah
was mail, that would get reported and I would get
a twelve hour suspension for insulting the individual or for

(51:18):
for hate. You know, they could say, well, you're you're
calling them stupid, right, so that would be that that
would be basically that unequal. But you know, if you
reported the stuff they said, they would no wrongdoing would
be found. And to a degree, Trust and Safety is
still doing that. Case in point, the word retarded. Depending

(51:41):
on which side of the political aisle you're on, you
can use that word over and over again and no
wrongdoing is found. But if you use that word once
on the wrong side of the political isle, it's it's
a suspension. So there you go.

Speaker 3 (51:57):
It should always be acceptable because we're todd it just
means slow, and it was simply used as a euphemism
after all the other euphemisms worked. The word imbecile used
to be the scientifically appropriate word, and and then that
was overused by people calling calling their mates imbecile whenever

(52:22):
they did something im basilic and then it got changed
to moron. Moron used to be the equivalent of the
word retard. It was what it used to be, a
scientifically applicable word. But but then people got hold of
that and started using it to call their friends whenever

(52:44):
they did something retarded, and then they had to change
it to retard it. It's been called the ah the
euphemism treadmill that no matter no matter what word you use,
it keeps, it keeps getting overused, and then we had

(53:06):
to use a different word, and then we had to
use a different word, and no matter what word we use,
it goes from politically correct to politically incorrect. And it
doesn't matter what word you change it to, it keeps
getting added to this fucking treadmill. And it's the same
problem all square words have. The fact that they that

(53:28):
people are offended by them is why people keep using
them because it's it's it's because it's offensive that we
make jokes about it, and it covers so many of
these things. People make jokes about women because we know
it's naughty, because we know we're not supposed to do.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
That well, and what you get when people go too
far in the other direction is kind of hilarious. Like,
I used to have a boss that went to Catholic
school when she was growing up, and she was that
kid who always got pulled to the front of the class.
You're gonna sit up here by the teacher's desk because
you're misbehaving, right, She had pretty sure. She had add

(54:12):
she was very, very hyperactive even as an adult, and
like she couldn't sit still for a minute. But she
wouldn't if she she didn't like something. You know, a
lot of people would oh, that's retarded. She wouldn't say that.
She would say that's redundant. And I used to raz
her about it, like somebody would do something and she'd
be like, Oh, don't do that, that's redundant. And I

(54:34):
would say, no, they only did it once. She'd be like,
shut up, shut up.

Speaker 2 (54:39):
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Speaker 1 (54:43):
Well, I mean, she knows what it means. She just
couldn't say retarded because it was programmed out of her
in school. They probably wrapped her on the knuckles with
a stick repeatedly, a yardstick, repeatedly for saying stuff like that.
So you know, you have the She had another word
she used for it. Everybody knew she meant retarded, right,

(55:05):
And then there's there's the other end of it in
the industry, because I'm a direct support professional right now.
I've been a direct support professional for eleven years. And
you know, we work with intellectually disabled adults. We do
not work with retarded people. We don't call them that

(55:25):
because not everybody who has an intellectual disability is retarded.
I have an IQ on paper at least, and and
this this has a range, all right. The lowest score
I've ever gotten on an informal test has been one
hundred and forty five. The official score I was given

(55:49):
in a medical setting was one hundred and sixty five.
At one point when we thought I had a physical
disability caused by a car accident, and I started the
process of going for disability very grudgingly. Their first rejection,
they sent me to a psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist said

(56:09):
that my IQ was off his chart. He didn't have
a number for it, which his numbers went at least
up to two hundred. So different days I might have
different results, but I'm sticking with one hundred and sixty
five because that's what my doctor found, right. I have
an intellectual disability. I am autistic. If if I see

(56:34):
something happen, like a crime, and I want to tell
the police what happened, and they want to take me
in and have me sit with an artist to draw
a picture of the face of the person who did it,
I can't do that. I won't be able to tell
them what shape the eyes were, or whether the nose

(56:54):
is wide enough or not, whether they were smiling or frowning,
whether they like I can tell you if they sounded angry.
I can tell you if their words were angry, But
unless their facial expression was exaggerated, I won't remember it.
If you tell me your name five minutes later, I
won't remember that either, and I'll struggle for it for weeks. Right,

(57:22):
if you give me a puzzle to work on and
then the building catches on fire, you better drag my
ass out of there, because I'm not gonna notice. But
even though I might not notice that fire alarm going off,
if there's a beep in the background from something else,
it will drive me fucking nuts.

Speaker 2 (57:44):
Like a smoke alarm.

Speaker 1 (57:46):
Oh god, alarms, I absolutely and they go off so
at my work in some of the houses like they're
they're owned by an organization, so there's instead of an organization,
instead of an individual like us being able to just
go in and change the batteries, you have to report

(58:08):
it to maintenance that the battery has died in the
fire alarm or the smoke alarm is going off, and
of course that's not an emergency. They will come in
during the day. So if it starts going off at
ten o'clock at night and I come in at eleven thirty,
it's going to continue to do that every so many
seconds throughout the entire night while I'm there, and there's
not a single room you can go into where you

(58:30):
can't hear it. So like I can handle that. I
don't like it. I really don't like it, So I'm
not as bad off as some people. This kind of
thing can really interfere with an individual sometimes, but it
will help prevent me from being as effective in any
kind of like problem solving, because every time I hear that,

(58:54):
I lose track of my thoughts. Right, So, intellectual disability
covers a much broader spectrum of things that happen to people.
If you have attention deficit disorder, you are on the
intellectual disability spectrum if you legitimately have it, if your
teacher didn't just decide that an eight year old acting

(59:14):
like a normal eight year old had ADD, because ADD
is a lot more rare than it looks, because it's
over over diagnosed. Autism is a lot more rare than
it looks because it's over diagnosed. And and then of
course autism also has a spectrum. And then there are
other brain disorders that get diagnosed as autism when they're not.

(59:40):
So that's another problem, right, But to simplify the entire thing,
the entire spectrum to retarded is retarded. Yeah, only idiots
do that. Only morons call everybody on the intellectual disabilities
spectrum retarded. Nobody with any real intelligence would do that

(01:00:06):
because they have to know that they are lumping people
in who probably have a higher IQ than they do
uh and and probably could could outperform them in certain
areas of life in their lumping them in with people
who have such a low IQ that they wouldn't be

(01:00:28):
able to handle a hypothetical question. So so there you go.

Speaker 3 (01:00:34):
But well, now at the point, now, at the point
where the appropriate word for such people is slow. Oh
my god, you're being so slow and we're going to
get to the point where it's uh politically incorrect to
call someone slow. You can't call someone slow. I have
a cousin who is medically slow. How dare you take

(01:00:55):
phone of a medical condition like being slow? And now
we'll need to call it something eeh else I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:01:04):
Meanwhile, while the industry has moved on to referring to
intellectual disabilities, the state is still using mentally retarded slash
developmentally delayed as if you always catch up later. So
it's it's kinda and they they may never change that, right,

(01:01:26):
just like euphemisms for being black went through a whole
variety of different You can't call people this, you can't
call people that. At one point, you can't use the
word colored to describe somebody who is black, and the NAACP,

(01:01:47):
the c in CP is colored colored people.

Speaker 3 (01:01:50):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:51):
That never changed. And I think it's because a lot
of times these organizations are fully aware that those euphemisms
are going to change, and it's it's too much trouble
to try to keep up. And I think the public
should take that same attitude, it's too much trouble to
try to keep up. My opinion is the word stupid

(01:02:15):
only describes people who could do better but choose not to.
And so if I call you stupid, I'm insulting your behavior,
not your intelligence. I'm suggesting that you are smarter than
you are acting. And I think that that's shameful. There's

(01:02:36):
no shame in having a handicap. You can't choose that,
and you can't do anything about that, and you know
you can only try to mitigate its effects. But if
you act handicapped when you're not, that should be embarrassing.

(01:02:57):
But so where we are now in this we are
looking at believe let's see. Yeah, this is review and
update content moderation policies, processes and systems and audit and
mitigate misogyny and AI based systems. So the first thing

(01:03:22):
I thought of is are they worried about Grock being
misogynist or what? And the first thing that they've said
here they've introduced is this this first paragraph, which is
very vague and didn't make any sense. The first sentence
didn't make any sense to me until I looked it up. Right.

(01:03:42):
Legislative frameworks, they say, have identified the need for user
agency and empowerment and started requiring platforms to be more
accountable and transparent about their design and policies. So what
the heck is the legislative framework? I understand, for instance,
wors legislative bodies would be say Congress in the United States,

(01:04:07):
Parliament in other parliamentary systems, and and in course in dictatorships.
It's all the same, like if the king runs everything,
the king is the legislative body and the executive. But
what the fuck is legislative framework? Because when I think
of a framework, I think of a set of rules,

(01:04:29):
a set of conditions that that that determine a particular
factor or issue. So I looked, I did a Google
search here, and of course Google's AI overview gave me
a definition which looks interesting and it it came from

(01:04:55):
sites that seemed to be well, we'll ignore YouTube, Natural
Resource Government Governance Institute and this exs here which if
we look this is this came up easier before. But

(01:05:22):
we'll give that a minute, right, Legislative framework is a
comprehensive system of laws, regulation, and legal principles that governs
a specific area or issue within a country, state, or organization.
So it's not the legislative body, it's the body and
the existing laws, the existing regulations and the principles on

(01:05:45):
which they are acting and the importance of that is
in the United States and in several other first world nations,
there is this legal principle upon which a huge amount
is determined called feminist juris prudence. And let's see feminist jurisprudence, which,

(01:06:12):
by the way, it's not just countries like the United
States and the UK. Countries that have traditionally been thought
of as in between first and third world, which many
of which are our first world with some third world
conditions like India, still have a significant infection of feminist

(01:06:34):
jurisprudence in their legal systems. But feminist jurisprudence or feminist
legal theory analyzes law from the perspective of women's political, economic,
and social experiences. So it is essentially legal or legislative
or policy based ginocentrism. It is putting women first in

(01:06:57):
law policy and you know, regulations and and and also
in the justice system in jurisprudence. So if you walk
into a court you get an advantage just by being
female starting out, that would be that would be feminist jurisprudence.

(01:07:18):
And that is a of course, it's not coming up. Now,
I wonder what the heck is going on with that site.
So initially I had looked this up. But it's an
intelligence hub. It's essentially a communications hub for a variety

(01:07:43):
of organizations. So this is sort of a consensus website.
So this legislative framework that considers, like the the things
that are influenced by legal principles, and then the legal
principles themselves governing a specific area or issue. It works

(01:08:05):
as a blueprint. So when they say legislative frameworks have identified,
what they are saying is the blueprint we are currently using,
which is to say, our current, guyinocentric blueprint. So the
interpretation of this as I'm reading it is modern feminist

(01:08:29):
jurisprudence based systems have identified the need for user agency
and empowerment. Starting started requiring platforms would be more accountable
and transparent in their design and policies. User agency in
this context then would mean women's ability to control who

(01:08:53):
can talk to them and how they can be spoken to.
That is essentially what this is about. And then the
first thing it mentions Australia's Online Safety Act twenty twenty one,
which refers to basic online safety expectations which require platforms
to put in place clear and readily identifiable mechanisms that

(01:09:14):
enable users to report and make complaints about content, as
well as terms of use, policies and procedures. So this
is essentially what they are saying here is, you know,
modern feminist jurisprudence requires that we impose upon social media,

(01:09:40):
various social media websites, an obligation to give women tools
to silence other people if women don't like what those
other people are saying. That's essentially what you and women
have asked for. So if you're if you happened to

(01:10:00):
be an anti feminist, or if you happen to be
a men's rights activist or both, because I'm both, and
there's there's quite a bit of overlap there in motivation,
then they want the right to tell you to shut
the fuck up. They want the right to get you

(01:10:21):
suspended for your political opinions. So the first thing they
mentioned Harassment Manager, developed by Google's Jigsaw. So I didn't
know what. I never heard of this Jigsaw thing.

Speaker 3 (01:10:36):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:10:37):
Harassment Manager, it says, is an open source codebase for
web application that allows users to document and manage abuse
targeted then targeted at them. On social media, starting with X,
who partnered on the project. Now, I haven't heard of this.
I've been using X since it was Twitter. In fact,
i've been using I was using Twitter since two thousand nine,

(01:11:01):
and I never heard of this system. Nobody came to
me and said, hey, you can use our harassment manager.
Twitter is partnered with it, so apparently if they're doing this,
they're not making it user controlled. And essentially this is
intended to allow users to keep track of abuse targeting

(01:11:28):
them on social media. The tool intends to help users
identify and document harmful post muter, block perpetrators of harassment,
and hide harassing replies to their own tweets. Now X
does some of that, right you You can actually if
you make a post and it's you're the op and

(01:11:51):
not posting a comment under someone else's op. You can
select who can reply, but you can't just exclude one person.
You can decide that people who follow, people you follow
can reply, nobody can reply, people with a check mark
can reply, or everybody can reply. You don't get everybody

(01:12:15):
except for at takes down MRAs can reply right for instance,
or got I can't hear her name? The one that
we used, to every time she replied, we would post
a picture of Gladys from Bewitched, But no, she was

(01:12:37):
this is crazy lady on Twitter that for the longest time.

Speaker 3 (01:12:41):
She was Oh, she had mice.

Speaker 1 (01:12:45):
She was obsessed with Deborah Pawnee in every place that
and she was also obsessed with Alison. Every place that
either one of them posted, she was in their replies,
And eventually we all like blocked her and she started
tagging us in her posts. She would tag this whole
set of us. I was included in the set, unfortunately,

(01:13:09):
and she'd make these posts and then people would get
into arguments with her and we would be flooded with
replies from these And so it was nice when X
allowed people to just leave the conversation where you could
click leave the conversation and mute the conversation and you
don't get any more replies. Gladys from Bewitched was the

(01:13:30):
neighbor that used to spy on the family to try
to prove you know that they were witches. So for
for anybody, that's an old TV show, So for the
Gen xers, they'll know it. Millennials might know from the

(01:13:50):
movie that was made, but zoomers are gonna have no
clue who I'm talking about. If you look up Bewitched,
it was. It was just an old TV show from
I think the sixties. So anyway, and the lead actress
on that show, by the way, did an episode of
The Twilight Zone with Charles Bronson where she played a

(01:14:14):
Russian soldier and he played an American soldier or a
British soldier or something, and and they there had been
World War three and everything was completely gone, completely destroyed,
and they were the only people left in the world.
And a great episode. So just just an aside there.

Speaker 3 (01:14:34):
That was the true That was the true origin of
the Mary Sue, just having a female character who could
do absolutely anything and yet has no real agency. Yeah,
it comes to the to the moral of the story.

Speaker 1 (01:14:50):
Yeah, well that would be which not the not the
Twilight Zone episode, because women on the Twilight Zone did
have some agency, and there were some episodes that really
showed that. But yeah, so all this stuff, there's stuff
you can see that they're doing here that can be
traced back to this, but clearly nobody told us about this.

(01:15:13):
The code is available on GitHub open source for developers
and non governmental organizations to build and adapt for free,
so you can actually see this being used on other websites,
other social media, and essentially all of the ways that
you can report someone. And yes, mang Gotka ninety two,

(01:15:34):
that is exactly what Nattie is doing in regard to
Brian's posts. I'm about to start every time I see
her show up in a conversation, I'm in posting that
picture again because that is basically what's what's happening. And yes,
Samantha from be which John Doe is the nose wiggle Woman.
She would wiggle her nose and uh it would cast
a spell. She didn't have to actually say any words,

(01:15:56):
so people didn't know she was casting spells, but she
did face consequences. It's just it wasn't necessarily always direct.
Things would go horribly wrong. It's the same trope that
this goes back to vaudeville. The trope is you're you
have a goal or a thing that you want, or

(01:16:17):
a problem that you're trying to solve, but everything that
you do makes it worse until the end of the
show or the episode, when everything gets all wrapped up
by some problem solving thing that undoes all of the
damage that you did. Or most of it, UH, and
that that's that's not new, it's it's eons ago. It's

(01:16:40):
probably probably goes back to ancient Greek tragedies and so on.
But it's the main formula used UH in comedy. For
first sitcoms in the United States. Pretty much, you name
a sitcom, that's the formula. And some people have been

(01:17:03):
stellar at it. Like Lucille Ball for instance, that her
sitcom was stellar at it. That's so Raven was stellar
at it. Friends was stellar at it. Seinfeld stellar at it.
They're just different, and those sitcoms stood out because of that,
but very different. Like there's there's a lot of sitcoms

(01:17:27):
that they don't do the work and so it doesn't
stand out, but they still skate by because that trope
is always entertaining, even when it's done poorly. So it's
the easy bet basically in any case. Back to this,
what we're seeing here basically is this coordinated attack on

(01:17:54):
the ability of people to argue on social media, to
hash out ideas in a thought provoking and a method
that hones ideas down to what are wise choices good
ideas as opposed to poor choices or bad ideas. There

(01:18:16):
you go night motorcyclists married with children stood out because
it was stellar at this as well. And yeah, every
man can relate to al Bundy, not every women. Women
can relate to the women in the show, though some
of us relate more to al Bundy than any other
women in that show. But we all know those women

(01:18:39):
in real life in any case, So we're seeing a
coordinated attack on your ability as a man to defend
yourself against. Say feminist comes out and says all men
are bad because or ninety nine percent. They give different
numbers of violent crime is male perpetrated, and they'll give

(01:19:02):
you conviction statistics or crime reporting statistics from like, they
don't count all the crimes that are reported. They count
all the crimes that the police acted on in crime
reports statistics, so the the crimes that the police then

(01:19:22):
made a case file for. And also well ninety nine
percent of those or ninety seven percent of those are
male perpetrated. Well, the big problem with.

Speaker 3 (01:19:32):
That is.

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
When you do the math on what percentage of the population,
the adult male population is represented by perpetration of violent
crimes as as determined by those crime reports. So essentially
the idea that crime if we took all those reports
as valid and then also supposed that crime is underreported

(01:19:58):
by a certain percent, and then added that percent in
and said this many violent crimes occurred, according to the
math that I just described, less than one percent of
the population, something like three tenths of one percent of
the adult male population, or at least the male population

(01:20:20):
that can be charged as an adult for committing such
a crime, is actually accounted for by perpetrators or potential
perpetrators of violent crimes. So the other ninety nine point
seven percent is represented by the number of people who

(01:20:41):
have never committed a violent crime. And if you argue
that and a feminist is offended because she was a
violent crime victim, she can report you for harassing her.
And I know this because I've been in that argument,
and I had a feminist using her claim to be

(01:21:06):
a rape victim and have had an experience as a
rape victim. Her allegations against the general male public and
her allegations against the police that they don't do anything
about this problem, that men don't care about this problem,
that rape is prevalent and most men are rapists, because
such a percentage of rape is perpetrated by men, and

(01:21:29):
so on. When I pointed out my experiences in which
the police do everything they can for you, but they
do need evidence to prove that the crime was committed,
that was considered harassment. Just saying that I had a
different experience with being victimized and how the police and

(01:21:53):
the people around me have responded to it. That was
considered harassment of this woman. And I was suspended for
twelve hours for saying that's not what happened in my
case and providing statistics that demonstrate that the majority of
men are not perpetrators and that it is unfair to

(01:22:13):
call all men potential rapists When less than three percent
of the population or less than three tenths of one
percent of the population is represented by all violent crime perpetration,
that's harassment, right. But if I had spoken first and

(01:22:38):
which which is what actually happened, and then reported her
for harassment because she brought up sex crimes, the conversation,
by the way, was not about sex crimes because I'm
on the wrong side of the political fens. That's not harassment.
Even though being a being in a survivor myself, I

(01:23:02):
don't really like hearing about sex crimes like I talk
about the situation, the subjects and everything, because it's needed.
There's a lot of exploitation of the subject to push
through attacks on due process rights and attacks on other
civil rights, and that's wrong. But and it has to

(01:23:28):
be talked about otherwise it'll just happen and it'll be
too late after the fact to undo that stuff. It's
it's a lot harder to undo bad laws than it
is to stop them from being passed in the first place.
But but yeah, So this is their their idea of
testing a tool for for gender based violence. All these

(01:23:52):
different platforms based on feminist jurisprudence as a as a
legal principle that governs this area or issue. All these
different platforms are obligated to give women the ability to
shut you up when they make negative stereotype characterizations of

(01:24:16):
men as a population, because you know, women's feelings might
be hurt if you prove them wrong. You guys still there.

Speaker 3 (01:24:33):
Sorry, I'm eating while I listen.

Speaker 1 (01:24:35):
Okay, So here's how they plan on doing this. The
first thing is again enhancing cross platform cooperation. Platforms they
say should recognize that what occurs on other platforms may
make its way to their own service and vice versa.
This is not only true of TVEC, which is technology.

(01:25:03):
Something like this is they they've used TFOGBV to say
technology facilitated online gender based violence, So this is probably
a technology technological violence and then some other bullshit, but

(01:25:24):
also of the actors and tactics of online gender based violence.
Online harassment campaigns targeting and individual may be coordinated on
one platform, with the content or URLs to this content
cross posted to other platforms where the targeted users may
or may not have accounts. So an example of what

(01:25:48):
they're talking about well known example. This happened years ago,
and consequences have never been the same. There was this
kid eleven years old that was a fan of a
local I don't even know what kind of music the
guy played, but some people in four chan decided that

(01:26:11):
this musician was a peto, and they decided they were
going to prove it by demonstrating how many of his
fans were underage, which is really kind of stupid because
most musicians have underage fans. People start enjoying music when
they're very young, and they really get excited about music

(01:26:36):
in like junior high and high school and start wanting
to go to concerts. And stuff like that. And of
course at those ages, you know want you want to
be involved in what your kids are doing. So smart
parents do not send their children to any type of concert,
musical concert, or performance without an adult chaperone, because crazy

(01:27:01):
things happen at concerts. But of course, yeah, this, this, uh,
this doesn't always pan out for local musicians. And so
this this young lady, young girl, eleven year old Jesse
Slaughter was a fan of this local musician and she

(01:27:22):
would she would go to all of his concerts that
she could go to and got a picture taken with
him and put it on her social media and four
Chan found it and used it to smear the guy.
And she responded that there was no such relationship happening,
that she was just a fan. That's that's silly. Cut

(01:27:43):
it out, you know, pretty pretty tame stuff. At on
the outset, the individuals that were uh in this conversation
decided to start trolling her as a result of this,
right uh and and and it escalated when she made

(01:28:05):
a YouTube video calling them out for the trolling and
the the idiocy. And she acted like an eleven year
old girl, So she made a bunch of empty threats
and uh got you know, graphic with her descriptions of
violence and you know, basically stupid ships ship that kids

(01:28:28):
do with the playground, like you might tell somebody you're
gonna rip their head off. She threatened to throw to
to get a glock and uh uh blow their brains out.
I think she used the phrase brain slushy and that
that set of you know, trolls or trolls that set
off the trolls. So they went ballistic and they docked her,

(01:28:52):
and they went through a process of everything from vandalizing
and destroying her social media to sending things to her house,
calling her home phone. The family actually had to send
her someplace else for for a time like it. It
really was over the top. And the thing that made

(01:29:17):
it worse was when they started doing this, her father
got on her YouTube account and made a video lecturing
them with a bunch of empty threats, and some of
those became that these are memes that again, gen x
will know these memes, Millennials will probably know these memes.

(01:29:38):
Zumer's probably never heard of. Consequences will never be the same,
which is one of the things he said. He threatened
to send a cyber police after them, which you know,
everybody knows didn't exist, and and so on, like there
are a bunch of things that came out of that
and that that set them off even more. But the

(01:29:59):
reality is the parents just didn't realize, didn't recognize that
you shouldn't let your kid be on the internet unsupervised.
Your eleven year old should not be making unsupervised YouTube
videos and honestly shouldn't be putting his or her face

(01:30:20):
out there on YouTube because there are not just trolls,
there's also predators and so on, and it's just it
escalated into something absolutely ridiculous and I think it impacted
her life pretty heavily. That is something that has happened

(01:30:45):
throughout the history of the Internet. As long as there's
been a web, worldwide Web, and as long as there's
been discussion forums, that kind of thing has happened. And
I guess you could call swatting and outcropping of that.
But in any case, so that's a that's a real issue.

(01:31:07):
It's not not denying that that's an issue. What I
am suggesting is this is not a good way to
handle it.

Speaker 3 (01:31:15):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:31:18):
For one thing, not everybody involved in that harassment campaign
was from the US, right, that's there. A site like
four chan has traffic from every English speaking country in
the world, and so it's not like you can call

(01:31:38):
the cops and report to them that someone in Australia
is harassing you if you're from some state in the US. Right,
we all know that, and so you don't poke a
hornet's nest like that. But if something like that happens,

(01:32:00):
you can hold the people in your own country accountable.
The singer in question, which people who have said the
name and the comments and everything. I'm not going to
go that far, but if he was really concerned about
his reputation being damaged and stuff like that, all he
had to do was go through and identify people from

(01:32:20):
the US who were involved in that and sue them
for defamation. You know, it's like that there was really
something going on that put him in danger. Otherwise, the
best thing to do in a circumstance like that is
to ignore it and it goes away. They're not gonna
do it if it's not fun, like they can see

(01:32:43):
anything they want, and if nothing comes of it, if
they don't get any kind of feed back from you,
like a narcissistic feed there's most trolls are a little narcissistic.
That doesn't work for them, and they quit, They go
somewhere else, They look for that feed somewhere else. What

(01:33:08):
do they want? Instead, platforms should develop and operate exchange
channels between relevant teams, including safety and content moderation teams
like Trust and Safety to proactively share information about cross
platform harassment, such as perpetrators using multiple accounts, including where

(01:33:32):
relevant user reports of multi platform harassment. So, for instance,
during the gamer Gate controversy, some websites banned the hashtag
and any conversation about the consumer revolt. You couldn't talk
about it, you couldn't post information about it, and you

(01:33:56):
couldn't post memes about it. So it was kind of
limited to Twitter at the time. You didn't really see
there was a little bit on YouTube. There's a little
bit maybe taking place on Facebook. I think four Chan
completely banned it, which is funny because that used to
be the place to go to discuss things that you

(01:34:18):
couldn't discuss anywhere else. There were other platforms that banned
as well. But under this system that they want to create,
all these different social media platforms would circle the wagons
because the opposition to the consumer revolt was using the

(01:34:46):
false allegation that the entire result or the entire revolt
was just an active harassment some programmer's ex girlfriend to
try to silence it. That would be able to silence
it on all platforms. You wouldn't be able to talk
about advertising being disguised as real news stories because that

(01:35:12):
would be part of the harassment campaign against this girl.
You wouldn't be able to talk about contests being rigged
because that would be part of the harassment campaign against
this girl. You wouldn't be able to talk about any
kind of pay for play journalism, right because that was

(01:35:34):
part of the harassment campaign pain against this girl didn't
have anything to do with her, like she exposed it
by accident, but other than that, it didn't really have
anything to do with her. But she was more than
willing to capitalize on it for attention and to be

(01:35:56):
used as a means of silencing people who are having
that discus session.

Speaker 3 (01:36:01):
As they say, free speech ends where where my fist
meets your nose, but it doesn't end where this bitches
vagina meets my nose or something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:17):
Horrible experience.

Speaker 3 (01:36:20):
It was a horrible experience, but that's what. As soon
as a woman gets involved, Oh, her fist can go
wherever the fuck it likes, including up her vage, and
then write up your nose. Let this be a lesson.
Is a gentlemen, and especially gentlemen, you may think you
have free speech until you give women the vote, and

(01:36:41):
then they'll stick their pussy up your nose. However the
fuck that works, So yeah, don't don't give women the vote,
all this ship will happen.

Speaker 1 (01:36:52):
Just imagine, right, just imagine today, if you're on Twitter
X and you wanted to talk about you know, what
can we do to protect public speakers from what happened
to Charlie Kirk from being assassinated in public for talking
about ordinary things because everything he talked about was pretty ordinary, right,

(01:37:17):
And somebody was able to say, you can't say that,
you can't talk about that because the alleged assassin was
revealed to be a gay man dating and a pre
trans transition trans woman, and therefore it's transphobic for you

(01:37:40):
to use the word assassination to describe the death of
this man, and it's transphobic for you to be upset
that he was assassinated. So imagine if you couldn't have
that conversation because it might offend the assassin or the

(01:38:00):
assassin's girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever the individual is identifying as. That
would be about as rational and logical as saying that
you can't discuss the idea that you should be told
an ad is an AD and not be told that

(01:38:23):
it is a legit news story because you're offending some
chick that was accused of sleeping with journalists to get
favorable coverage for her work. It doesn't even matter if
she really did it or not. It's not related. None

(01:38:44):
of that is related, and it doesn't make that subject
off limits. It shouldn't make that subject off limits. But
that's the equivalent that they want, So what they want.
Platforms need to develop interoperable reporting mechanisms. You should be
able to report to a inter platform government basically that

(01:39:12):
governs Facebook and x and Reddit and YouTube any other
social media platform. Should be able to report to that
inter platform government that somebody harassed you on platform A,
and that individual should be affected on platforms b CD,

(01:39:34):
e FG all the way through the alphabet Exchange channels
may facilitate faster action. For example, when a prominent actor
is identified to be linked to repeated harmful behavior. You
get banned on X for bothering somebody on X, you

(01:39:56):
are also banned on every other social media platform. Such
efforts are important for understanding the scope and nature of
online gendermased violence, but also to coordinate mitigation actions by
platforms and other stakeholders, including governments, civil society, or even
law enforcement. Get into the wrong argument on X and

(01:40:21):
the cops show up at your door. Why are you
harassing gladys? How dare you have conversations without including her?
And how dare you mock her with pictures of her?
Her character un bewitched every time she shows up in

(01:40:43):
a conversation uninvited? What is wrong with you? You're under arrest?
Then this is an interesting bit, right This was published
two years ago. Already existing cross platform effort and crisis
protocols such as the Global Internet Forum to counter Terrorism's

(01:41:07):
Content Incident Protocol and the christ Church Call Crisis Response Protocol.
So these are two protocols that involve social media reporting
to them and then them assessing these reports and reporting

(01:41:27):
back to social media. What they should be doing should
consider how online gender based violence is relevant to their
scope and mandates, and how to strengthen mechanisms appropriately, which
means they want these cross platform efforts and crisis protocols

(01:41:53):
to be able to tell various owners or founders of
areas social media, so maybe gab.

Speaker 3 (01:42:07):
Or truth.

Speaker 1 (01:42:10):
Or any of the other alternative platforms rumble. They want
to be able to tell them what rules have to
apply to their users. Relevant voluntary commitments or coregulatory framework

(01:42:31):
work should also be reviewed. It says, oh, I skipped
something here recognizing misogyny is a radicalization factor for violent extremism.
So here's the that's actually kind of the meat of
this right here. They want essentially to be able to
label all anti feminist speech and all speech that women

(01:42:55):
take offense at which there's a lot of overlap, but
it's not all the same. They want to be able
to take that and use it as a speech that
can be controlled, speech that has to be controlled, and
an excuse to block you from speaking, so they don't
even have to say, for instance, you can't talk about

(01:43:20):
the fact that this ad that you read was presented
as if it was a legit news story, and you
think that the ad should be identified as an ad
instead of presenting it as a legit news story. It
doesn't have to even be associated with Quinn. All they

(01:43:44):
have to do is take the shortcut. It's misogynistic to
talk about anything that has to do with the game
or gate protest because it traces back to information that
was revealed by this woman's infidelity. And you can't talk

(01:44:07):
about a woman's infidelity, and therefore everything connected to this
woman's infidelity is off limits. Discussing it as misogynistic. If
you talk about any of these subjects, you are engaging
in online misogyny. Now, let's translate that to discussion of, say,

(01:44:29):
the Russia conspiracy theory that the Democrats put out to
try to stop Trump from becoming president of the United States.
That Russian conspiracy theory traces back to Hillary Clinton's infidelity
to the United States, where she took risks that people

(01:44:53):
in her political position are not allowed to take and
then used allegations of misogyny to cover for that. Oh,
you're only upset about this because I'm a woman. You
just don't think women can handle positions of authority. You
put sensitive information on an insecure server and then thirty

(01:45:20):
thousand pieces of it disappeared. We don't know which one
this contained. Information that could harm the country because they're gone,
Oh no, you're only upset about that because I'm a woman.
So under what they're trying to do here, any effort

(01:45:44):
to debunk the Russian conspiracy theory, which turned out to
be completely invented by the Hillary Clinton campaign, by the way,
complete and utter fraud. Any discussion of that fraud would
be silenced on social media. You couldn't argue about it,
you couldn't talk about it, you couldn't share evidence. Even

(01:46:07):
news outlets that reported on it their stories, their news
stories couldn't be shared on social media. You couldn't inform
people about it. Your vote could not be informed by
that information because misogyny, right, think.

Speaker 2 (01:46:32):
You just hate women.

Speaker 4 (01:46:34):
No, it's not the actions of one specific woman that
we take issue with. No, it's just you hate all
women and period.

Speaker 2 (01:46:44):
Plump plank. That's it.

Speaker 4 (01:46:45):
That is all the argument that they needed to make.

Speaker 3 (01:46:50):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:46:51):
So in the UK they had a men's rights party.
I think they still do. In the US we don't
have a men's rights part I think in India they do.
We should, by the way, have a men's rights political
party and there should be candidates and they should be men,

(01:47:12):
like a lot of people have, you know, jokingly in
in chat and throughout history, name different ones of us
at Honey Badger Radio for president, and of course my
name's been put out there. Fuck no, I have not
qualified for that job, and I would not do that
job if if elected, right, and I don't think that

(01:47:34):
the country is ready for a woman to do that job,
and I'm sure as shit wouldn't take it. As long
as the media uses you can't criticize this candidate because
of her sex, regardless of which media it is. I
don't care if it's left, right, up, down, back and forth,

(01:47:55):
it doesn't matter. Nobody should be using that argument in
any election should you can't criticize what this person says
or does because because of her sex, that disqualifies all
women from politics. As long as it is a.

Speaker 3 (01:48:08):
Thing, well, in your case, you'd get murdered.

Speaker 1 (01:48:13):
I probably would.

Speaker 3 (01:48:14):
It's something it's an inevitability stability we've been encountered with. Yeah,
if you're if you're too far out, if you if
you've said some spicy, too many spicy things over the years,
then there will just simply thrust those spicy things in

(01:48:36):
in into the news cycle to to bully you out
of ever having any office. But if they can't find
enough spicy things, they'll just murder you, as we've recently discovered,
Like if you're middle of the road but effective, they'll
kill you. If you're ahead of the road, uh and effective,

(01:49:00):
then they'll just shadow man you. And that's what happened
to all of us like ten years ago, and that's
why it's never going to happen for any of us,
because we were ahead of the curve. And as as
we've discovered all two colorfully, if you will never be
a you'll never be thanked for being ahead of the curve.

(01:49:21):
The fact that we were talking about this years before
anyone else was meant that we were already pushed out
of the limelight a long hour time ago. And and
and we'll never be able to to hold any even
potential point of office. And that's probably for the best,

(01:49:44):
because that's not what we do. We're not here to
to dive into that sharkness, and we'll never be able to.
And that's why we stay here in in our space
leper colony, trying to convince other people to look outside

(01:50:09):
the box. And we've suffered the consequences for doing that
for a long time, and we're going to keep doing it,
convincing people to get outside the box they live in,
where actually the problem is this degradation of the relationship

(01:50:31):
between men and women. Everyone else is looking at the
immigration problem and the fucking race problem and all these
other leaves of the poison ivy that have spawned from
the initial problem, and it's going to be lifetimes before

(01:50:53):
anyone beyond our little space leper colony can realize that
all of this has spawned from the degradation of the
relationship between men and women. Because because of the problems
that have been spawned from that, the race problems, the

(01:51:16):
trans problems, the immigration problems. Everyone's looking towards those issues
because they're sore, because they're so easily fixed. It's easy
to fix the immigration problem, just send them back. It's
remarkably easy to send them back. We can't send the

(01:51:37):
women back. The women problem is so much deeper and
so much more difficult because we can't just send the
women back. We have to deprogram the women, and that's
really difficult, and that's why we've faced these difficulties over
the last ten years or so. Because we're as seeing

(01:52:00):
the seeds of the problem, not the leaves. I know,
that's the metaphor I keep using, but it's true, and
that's you know, we're we're planting trees under which the
shade of which we will we will never sit under,
as as the Greek proverb goes, and so yeah, we'll we'll,

(01:52:27):
we'll never get in positions of power, will never have
statues built of us. In fact, we're going to disappear
into history, despite having inspired people to do what they're
doing now. Even the Charlie Kirks of the world, the
people actually facing death, they're they're here because of Wait,

(01:52:50):
this sounds really convoluted, but yeah, they're they're here because
the likes of us were here ten years ago. The
people who appeared five years ago to address the leaves
of the poison ivy are in far greater danger and
have found much more to gain and far much more

(01:53:11):
to lose than we did having appeared ten years ago
addressing the seeds of the problem, and the seeds of
the problem are the degradation of the relationship between men
and women. It's going to take a long time for
even the prominent voices of the so called right to
even begin to understand why they're even here in the

(01:53:34):
first place, why we have these these these racial problems,
and these immigration problems and these trans problems. It's it's
all because of well, not even feminism. It's because of
what came before feminism. There, I say, romantic Chivalry's it

(01:53:54):
hasn't been around for the last century. It's been around
for the last millennium. It goes back far, far, further
back into history than than that. Then most people can
even comprehend. And so you know, it might take another
thousand years to really fix this, and you know, mm hm,

(01:54:23):
so don't worry about it, folks, We're all going to
be long dead before any of this is fixed. But
but carry on doing your ship with your bad self.
You're not going to get statues, you're not going to
get books written about you or Hollywood movies written about you.

(01:54:43):
We're here to just chip away slowly this problem. And
we're not in it for the glory. We're in it
for for the for the We're in it for the
long haul. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:55:02):
I mean, I would say this to anyone who feels like,
you know, this is just a fool's errand what we're
doing here, you know, ten years ago. Maybe longer than that,
but I would estimate about ten years ago, nobody gave
a shit. The feminists did not give a shit about

(01:55:24):
us because they knew they could just ignore us, and
oh well, nobody's paying attention to these people. The fact
that they are reacting so viscerally to what we are
saying and the things that we're doing speaks volumes as
far as I'm concerned, because if they didn't understand that

(01:55:44):
we were a direct threat to their narrative, they would
just keep silent.

Speaker 2 (01:55:49):
But they're not.

Speaker 4 (01:55:51):
They are making their own little feminist manifestos, right, and no,
they are direct attacking us as people, as human beings
just living on this earth and having an opinion. They
can't kill all of us.

Speaker 2 (01:56:09):
They can't. They can't Charlie Kirk all of us. They
probably wish that they could.

Speaker 4 (01:56:16):
But you know, for what it's worth, right now, we
are the thorn in their fucking side. And I would
like everyone to who is listening to this to come
away with that type of energy. You know, there's times
when I feel like, man, we've been at this for
how long, you know, and it seems like such slow momentum.

(01:56:42):
But when you see articles and you see things like
the Department of Homeland Security directly labeling this group as
a terrorist. Is that what they call this terrorist or
a domestic threat?

Speaker 1 (01:57:01):
Yeah, we have. We've been put on a number of
academic lists and one non academic list, and then also
where we've been maligned by the SPLC.

Speaker 4 (01:57:17):
Yeah, yeah, I would wear that as a badge of
fucking pride.

Speaker 1 (01:57:21):
Yeah, you know, you can't.

Speaker 4 (01:57:23):
You can't cancel all of us. You can't just you
can't throw us all in the fucking bend of history.
It's not going to happen, you know.

Speaker 2 (01:57:34):
They they they assassinated Charlie Kirk.

Speaker 4 (01:57:38):
What the hell do you think that that's going to do.

Speaker 2 (01:57:40):
It's only going to spawn.

Speaker 4 (01:57:42):
There's ten more Charlie Kirks just spawned overnight, you know,
there are I saw a video of children in high school,
high school kids standing up to their administration basically standing
for Charlie Kirk. And again, any kind of teacher in
their classrooms in their schools, who would you know, mock

(01:58:07):
his death. I'm telling you, there's there's a It's unfortunate
that it had to happen this way, but there's a
real change happening here, and I think more people are
gonna wake up. I think it's harder to wake up

(01:58:28):
from the feminist nightmare, you know. But what we're looking
at is a generation of up and coming truth seekers.

Speaker 2 (01:58:44):
And as long as.

Speaker 4 (01:58:46):
You have that kind of energy and we keep putting
out this messages and pointing to the actual, real facts,
I think there can be nothing.

Speaker 2 (01:58:55):
But a bigger.

Speaker 4 (01:58:59):
Suath of of individuals saying hey, you know what, that
makes sense. It doesn't sound like hey, it sounds like
actual truth. And I've seen this happen in my own lifetime.
So yeah, no, maybe these people are telling the truth.
Maybe we should stand against what these feminist academics are

(01:59:21):
trying to shove down our throats because we can visualize
and actually see the lies that are being told to us.

Speaker 1 (01:59:31):
You know.

Speaker 4 (01:59:33):
So I'm full of hope.

Speaker 2 (01:59:35):
I'm full of hope.

Speaker 1 (01:59:37):
I am too. I am too.

Speaker 3 (01:59:41):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:59:41):
It's easy to get black pilled on this stuff, but yeah,
you have to realize, like, besides the fact that there's
been a significant amount of change in the last ten years,
which most people don't realize this, but that's actually a
large amount of progress, just going from the fact that Uh,

(02:00:02):
you know, people are not being so easily canceled for
for stupid jokes about dongles and Dick's right to the
fact that we are holding people accountable for advocating violence
against individuals on the basis of just political speech. That's

(02:00:24):
a huge leap in a ten year space. And we
we weren't the first people to talk about this stuff.
We were early at at the beginning of the sweeping changes. Yeah, right,
but we were were we stand on the shoulders of giants, yes,

(02:00:44):
And this type of discussion goes back centuries and in
more recent history before us, you know, existed like Paul
Elam of A Voice for Men was in operation before us.
In fact, Alison and Karen and I getting together, Paul

(02:01:08):
was instrumental in that. He wasn't the the instrument of that,
but he was instrumental in us starting to work together.
And A Voice for Men was the first host for
Hunter Honey Badger Radio, So you know we have we
have him to thank and their crew to think. Uh.

(02:01:30):
And before all of that, you had doctor Warren Ferrell,
who wrote about these issues back when nobody was talking
about them and was canceled. He was he was part
of the National Organization for Women, and he was he
was approaching gender issues from a neutral standpoint. They didn't

(02:01:51):
like that. And when he started talking about women are
making progress, there are issues affecting men, and men need
to make progress too, they canceled him. They didn't just
cancel him, they lied about him. They defamed him in
some of the most egregious ways, by deliberately misinterpreting things

(02:02:12):
he said to mean the exact fucking pullar opposite of
what they actually meant, in order to make him sound
like some sort of incests supporting pedophile, which was a
bullshit argument. They lied about him, right, And even before that,

(02:02:33):
you had researchers like Mary Strass who lost their entire careers,
who were completely canceled simply for pointing out the difference
between accurate research and ideologically biased research in the field

(02:02:55):
of research into intimate partner and sexual violence prevalence, where
feminists were trying to make these things look more prevalent
than they really were and more gendered than they really were,
and he pushed back against that and got canceled, got
lied about. This goes all the way back to the

(02:03:18):
beginning of the twentieth century, when when Ernest Belford Backs
was writing about feminist ideas and ideals and what we
would today call feminist jurisprudence in law and policy. Back then,

(02:03:38):
there was no feminist jurisprudence. It was just gynocentrism. Things
like the badger game where a woman would you know,
flirt with a guy and then get him into a
compromising position and then claim to be know, get get

(02:04:01):
caught in this compromising position and claim to be reputationally
injured by him and demand money as a type of scam.
H And I was that was very prevalent at the time.
You know, he talked about all those kinds of things.
He talked about the demands of the suffragettes and and everything.

(02:04:22):
You can actually find the writings of BACS Ernest Belford
Backs documented on a voice for men dot com. So
if you search for that, you can search for that
name Ernest Belford Backs and a voice formen dot com
together and it'll probably take you right to his writings.

(02:04:47):
But uh yeah, I do have hope simply because there
was not so much. It was a losing battle for
a century, and now we are seeing some change. And
that's like for for a century there was no change.

(02:05:09):
So that's progress, even if it's not the rapid progress
we would like to see.

Speaker 2 (02:05:13):
I would.

Speaker 1 (02:05:14):
I don't want to play the long game. I want
everything better now. I'll do this for as long as
it needs done, or at least as long as I'm around.
But I don't want it to need done that long
because as long as it needs done, men are suffering,
and men are facing discrimination when they shouldn't be suffering,

(02:05:36):
and they shouldn't be facing discrimination, and women are self
sabotaging the entire time, and that's wrong too.

Speaker 3 (02:05:46):
Yeah, but.

Speaker 1 (02:05:49):
I'm gonna finish this up with the end of this
paragraph and we'll get into the next bit next time.
But what is this boiler down to? What do they
want to do here? And this is what they're talking
about right here, coregulatory frameworks, right the EU's twenty twenty

(02:06:16):
two strengthen Code of Practice on Discrimination, which keeps or
on this disinformation, not discrimination, but it keeps people from
debating the truth of matters like what is really going
on with this virus that's circling the world? Now? What

(02:06:38):
is really going on with the various medical treatments that
are being imposed on people that people are being told
you can't have a job if you don't do this.
What is really going on with practices of keeping people
at home, shutting down whole cities and so on, And

(02:06:59):
you couldn't talk about that because you might be accused
of spreading disinformation rather than having you know, if you
say something that's not true, other people can present evidence
that you were wrong, and that ends that that tangent
of that discussion. Oh, here's the evidence that debunks what

(02:07:20):
you just said.

Speaker 3 (02:07:21):
Right.

Speaker 1 (02:07:23):
No, instead the government comes in and maybe you get
arrested for saying the thing that you said right, rather
than people being able to debate the validity of what
you said. And in this includes a commitment, as it
says here, to operate channels of exchange between their relevant teams.

(02:07:46):
So between again, all these various social media if you
say something on Facebook that X doesn't like, or if
you say something on X that Reddit doesn't like, Reddit
takes issue with fucking everything, Suddenly you're in trouble again.
Maybe you get banned from all social media, Maybe that
comment gets taken down, maybe they do what YouTube likes

(02:08:09):
to do, and just it's suddenly that video is private,
that comment is nobody's allowed to respond to it, or
maybe they do what Reddit likes to do, and you
can post all you want, but nobody can see anything
you've posted, right, and you have no idea, They don't

(02:08:29):
tell you, So exchange between their relevant teams, share information
about cross platform influence operations. They don't want you persuading
anyone else to agree that maybe men are human, and
maybe all these these guynocentric laws and policies are being

(02:08:55):
used as a chisel to chip away at civil rights
by throwing men under the bus. Maybe you can't talk
about that. What's the goal preventing dissemination and resurgence. They

(02:09:22):
want to prevent you from having conversations about political issues
using logic, reason and facts because you might not come
to the conclusions that they want you to agree with.

(02:09:42):
Committed channels could extend to incidents of gendered or sexualized
harassment campaigns again, like the so called harassment campaign against
Hillary Clinton for her infidelity to the United States. You
can't debunk conspiracy theory because that's misogynistic. It's about Hillary.

(02:10:07):
You can't inform your vote on the fact that the
Democrat Party baldfaced lied to you because that's misogynistic. It
traces back to Hillary. Why they want to do that.
Such an effort could be seen as beneficial to compliance

(02:10:29):
with the EU's DSA, under which platforms are required to
assess and mitigate systemic risk related.

Speaker 2 (02:10:37):
To online gender based violence.

Speaker 1 (02:10:44):
When are they really trying to get rid of systemic
risk that the political establishment cannot control how the electorate votes.

Speaker 3 (02:10:56):
I ran to picture what the world would be like
if Kamala Harris was president right now, I don't. We'd
be in thermonuclear war with Russia, and if anyone protested
against it, they'd be called not only misogynistic but racist.
And that would be our future forever because there'd be

(02:11:20):
millions of illegal immigrants in the country who would forever
be voting for Come out Kamala Harris and descendants. God
knows who that would even be. But yeah, like, I
don't think Trump is a saint by any means. I
don't think he's I even think he's lawless in any way.

(02:11:45):
But for God's sake, folks, just for a moment, look
through a pin the whole camera at what the world
would be like if Kamala Harris was president, or if
Hillary Clinton had been president from twenty sixteen through to
twenty twenty four. I mean, at this point Kamala Harris

(02:12:06):
would be president. The world you would have right now
would be the world we have in the UK right now,
where there's just there's just no escape from the communist revolution.
So yeah, fucking take the piss out of Trump all

(02:12:28):
you like. But the alternative would have been infinitely worse,
and I mean infinitely because it would go on forever.
It would be the big brother future, the big brother
future that Europe is experiencing right now. Please let me in,
Please let me in. Please don't let me leave this continent.

(02:12:50):
I don't want to go home, to ever go home.
Please let me stay. Not in Canada. Canada looks just
as much.

Speaker 2 (02:13:02):
Unfortunately.

Speaker 1 (02:13:04):
Yeah, yeah, I wonder how long it'll be before being
threatened with arrest for saying the wrong thing on social
media will be a reason why Europeans can ask for
asylum in the United States, because I think that's coming.
And as as far as Hillary is concerned, people always

(02:13:25):
say I get overboard on Hillary Clinton, but you have
to understand I watched the way that she behaved during
her husband's presidency, and I watched the news that came
out about them, the personal news that came out about
what she was like behind the scenes and everything. And
I firmly believe, beyond even the slightest shadow of a doubt,

(02:13:51):
that if she got into office, she would be the
last president of the United States. I will not elaborate
on that. You guys can figure that out for yourselves,
but that is the truth. That is what I think
of Hillary Clinton. And I don't think anybody was scarier

(02:14:14):
that ran for office during my lifetime, even the guy
that wanted to get rid of all the nukes. God,
that was like I was in high school, junior higher
high school, Mondale wanted to disarm it, ran against Reagan
or Bush, and he was scary, but he wasn't as

(02:14:35):
scary as Hillary Clinton. So, and that's not about misogyny.
That's about the kind of person she is. Yeah, if
she was a man, she would be just as scary,
minus the fact that you know, at least as a man,
we could criticize her without having people say you only

(02:14:57):
say that because she's a woman, Like that's the only difference.
All of our ideas would be just as scary. But
as a candidate, she's scarier as a woman. Because she
can use allegations of misogyny to try to shut down criticism.
And yeah, Mondale was made a joke. They wouldn't have

(02:15:19):
been able to do that if he was female. Ducaucus
was eliminated because of sexual misconduct, they wouldn't have been
able to do that if he was a female. Various
other candidates that the establishment didn't like were eliminated. I
was not a Mondale fan personally. I thought that was

(02:15:40):
a scary idea of being the first to disarm. I
think that that's not a good way to achieve peace.
I agree with both both Kennedy and Reagan on the
idea that being able to eliminate your puts you in

(02:16:02):
a position to argue for peace that being unable to
defend yourself doesn't. But in any case, that's essentially my
take on the candidates throughout the last I guess thirty years. Really,
I'm fifty three, been eligible to vote since nineteen ninety two,

(02:16:31):
and like even prior to that, I guess forty years.
I've been alert and aware of politics for the last
forty years, ever since I started paying attention during the
Reagan administration. And yeah, out of everybody, the scariest was

(02:16:55):
Hillary Clinton. Even Kamala Harris was not as scary as
Hillary Clinton. Harris was a puppet. I don't think it was.

Speaker 2 (02:17:02):
Yeah, No, Kamalin was toothless.

Speaker 1 (02:17:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:17:07):
Hillary just had this this.

Speaker 4 (02:17:12):
Uh hope like if I can use that word backing
that I just never understood.

Speaker 2 (02:17:19):
I think it was like, you know, all the women.

Speaker 4 (02:17:21):
Who were looking for some sort of revenge and it
it always bothered me that, you know, these people who
are well all right feminists supported her even after uh
Bill Clinton got caught with Monica Lewinsky, right, and she.

Speaker 2 (02:17:44):
Stayed, She stayed with him. You would think that feminists
would be like, oh, what are you doing. You got
to leave that one man? He ain't no good. Nope, nope.

Speaker 4 (02:17:54):
They stood right by her side even after she stayed.
And it's like, wait a minute, how does that align
with any of your mantra? Right, Like you're independent, you
could be independent single women and you can do it all.

Speaker 2 (02:18:11):
And blah blah, you don't need no man.

Speaker 4 (02:18:13):
But she stayed with him. And we all know why
you don't leave a fucking former or sitting president as
their wife, because that gives you you have access to
that power. You know, and that's what she used throughout

(02:18:33):
the room after he was out of office.

Speaker 2 (02:18:36):
That's what she used to gain the position that she
had moving forward.

Speaker 4 (02:18:42):
And you know, I'm glad that people saw through that
and and saw her for what she was. You know,
when she when she laughed at Gaddafi's desk, she danced
on his grave, and you know, some people who were

(02:19:04):
aware and awake and you know, actually paying attention saw
that and saw her for the demonish ghoul that she is.
But you know, for the Democratic Party was still had
such a stronghold and you know, you know, well the

(02:19:25):
rest is history, right, and so is she and her
presidential hopes.

Speaker 3 (02:19:32):
By you, if all you're interested in is growing your
own personal wealth, then a president who went from what
was it fifteen million to two hundred and fifty million
in in his tenure as president, like, oh yeah, you
go to Fstein's Island and fuck a million underage girls,

(02:19:55):
and I'll give the fuck because I want two hundred
and fifty million every eight years. Yeah, they're probably billionaires
by now. What we're being disclosed as their public wealth
is probably a fraction of what's going on. They they
are there to line their own pockets, as has every
president except Trump in almost the entire history of American

(02:20:20):
politics and in the politics in every country. This is
the problem with democracy. Both one of the one of
the the only presidents to have lost money in his
in his time in office.

Speaker 4 (02:20:38):
Yeah, I mean has there has there been another president
that renounced his salary.

Speaker 3 (02:20:45):
There's only been four. George Washington was one, there were
two others, and then there was Trump.

Speaker 1 (02:20:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:20:52):
This is why it's important to let rich people run
for office, people who can't be four. Yeah. For everything
these fucking socialists say about the billionaires of the problem,
we should let the billion billionaires be in charge. People
who don't stand to gain any wealth from having one

(02:21:13):
hundred grand a year wedge through kids that don't give
a shit about that. We want people in office who
who don't give a shit about the wages they can
get or even the blood money they can get, because
they're already rich. Trump was already a billionaire when he
entered office. He didn't need any more money. And this
is why we need kings, because kings are already so

(02:21:39):
rich that they cannot be bought. And this is why
monarchism is better than democracy. And I know this is
going to rub a lot of Americans the wrong way,
So I'll stop talking.

Speaker 1 (02:21:54):
It's kind of like saying shit with corn and it
is better than ship with rice and it Yeah. Still government, yeah,
still a form of government. Right, there's you're you're talking
to it anarcho capitalists here. I uh, I don't want
anybody in charge, right, That's that's the other reason why

(02:22:16):
if somebody tried to thrust me into that particular job,
I would I would turn it down. I don't believe
it should exist.

Speaker 3 (02:22:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:22:27):
So if I was put in that position and couldn't
get out of it, then I would just settle set
about dismantling the system entirely. Like people are upset that
Trump is making changes to the system that, in my opinion,
are minor.

Speaker 3 (02:22:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (02:22:48):
So meanwhile, these are all the same people that that
say that they hate government, right, Well, he's doing things
to reduce the power and the money that is being spent,
and it's it's just it's just such a mind fuck
for them that they can because it's Trump, right, they

(02:23:10):
hate him, so anything if he cured cancer, yep, they
would have a problem with that too.

Speaker 1 (02:23:19):
Oh my god, Look how many oncologists he's putting out
of work. Right news for you. On college oncologists would
love to be out of that job and into some
other area of medicine. Yeah, they have to prepare themselves
on a regular basis to tell people that they're going

(02:23:39):
to die and nothing, nothing that the doctor is going
to do can can can save them. Yeah. But to
finish this up, I will say this again, as we've
been we've been told a million times. We've been told

(02:23:59):
that you and women as toothless. They don't they don't
do anything. They're just they're they're not an actual you
in organization. They're not actually influential. They don't get anything done,
they don't affect anything. Uh and and they're not part
of anything. Well, what they are talking about here is

(02:24:20):
stuff that has been implemented.

Speaker 3 (02:24:25):
Right.

Speaker 1 (02:24:26):
Therefore, you have to consider that they have influence and
that they are informing changes in government law and policy
and also in corporate policy. And in some ways, corporate
policy is even more dangerous because you can't you can't

(02:24:46):
use the Bill of Rights against a corporation. You can
use the Bill of Rights against the government. The Bill
of Rights tells things the government cannot do, things that
the government cannot take away basically from the citizens in
the United States. So you could sue if the federal
government passed a law that said, you can't discuss this

(02:25:07):
political issue because it traces back to something that we
can use to accuse you of misogyny, But you can't
necessarily sue if Facebook does that. Facebook doesn't isn't governed
by the Bill of Rights. Now, if you can prove
that the government paid Facebook to do that, then you

(02:25:30):
have a case, but that involves actually having access to
that information. So this is some heavy stuff. This is
essentially an organization that is masquerading as a toothless ladies

(02:25:53):
club for political discussion among ladies around the world and
ambassadors or that has actually got its teeth into every
government around the world and many corporations, including the ones
that govern what you can and can't say online. Very dangerous.

(02:26:19):
Next week will probably gloss over some of this will
essentially I might not directly read the entire paragraph of
each of these things, but I will highlight a bit
here and a bit there, because this is about the
use of AI systems to censor your online speech, all right.

(02:26:45):
And then the next thing that we are going to
look at based on this is this Act to End
Violence Against Women and Girls program, which we do have

(02:27:05):
already up to look at. It'll probably reload a bunch
of times. It's not super long like this other thing is.
I'm not skipping a bunch of it in order to
show you what it looks like, so we'll be able
to go over it, possibly more quickly, and then we
will get into what you and women says about how

(02:27:28):
to counter the manisphere. So that's our trajectory here, that is,
unless something else comes up that we absolutely have to
talk about instead. If nothing else comes up that we
absolutely have to talk about instead, this is the direction
we're going for the next couple weeks. So with that,
I will thank my two co hosts for sticking out.

(02:27:50):
This is kind of a longer sausage. I'm about half
an hour over the amount of time I usually do
on Thursday nights, but we didn't have a show last week,
so this kind of makes up for it. Thanks to
the audience for listening. I know this is this is
really dry stuff, but when it boils down to it,
what you are being told here is there is a
world government effort to use the concept of misogyny to

(02:28:15):
silence you your criticism of any law, policy, or other
government initiative that affects you negatively. And then thanks very
much to Brian for for working hard to make things
happen in the background so that I can do this
and have the vertical chat as well, the vertical broadcast

(02:28:39):
as well, and for going overtime with me. Goodnight all
and know yea