Andrew Wilson SILENCES Panel As Marc Lamont Hill SPERGS OUT Live!

Añadido: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]Does nobody get arrested for calling Donald Trump a Nazi?

[00:00:03]>> Well, no, but you know what? The Nazi thing is interesting because they do think >> it's interesting. It's probably the most egregious thing you could possibly call somebody is comparing him directly to Adolf Hitler who murdered 12 million people who gassed 6 million Jews in in concentration camps. Right. The idea that that Americans should be speech the idea that that is not an arrestable offense by comparison to using the f word against a gay person seems to me to be completely disproportionate.

[00:00:30]>> Well, you're absolutely right. But I here's my thing. I think that um the the Nazi thing is an interesting thing because actually this proves that it's not a left or a right-wing issue because actually since the assassination of Charlie Kirk and those two attempts on Donald Trump's life, the right has been saying watch your rhetoric and they understand that whilst people aren't calling for violence against them, speaking about them as Nazis is increasing the likeliness of someone watch Andrew Wilson's face because he's about to go nuclear on this guy right now. The guy in the middle I think is a homosexual. This is what like they do.

[00:01:03]They're debating about the quote unquote fs slur. Uh and it's not the f word. Um and they I I feel like they just call up like they have like an like a phone book. Remember your grandpa used to have a phone book and he'd be like flip through it. They [snorts] have a phone book and it's like LGBTQ and anytime these things come up they just go oh well who who are we going to book on the show for this for this? And so they had to of course call in the uh residential homosexual and watch what Andrew Wilson has to say and watch this guy too because he is he kind of loses it.

[00:01:39]>> Thinking, "Oh my god, there's Nazis. I better get a gun and do something about it." So they understand calling for violence, but calling them words starts that dehumanization that leads to violence. Thank you for proving my point.

[00:01:51]>> This is This is This is sick. This is actually sick what you're saying, dude.

[00:01:56]What you're saying is that you're calling for people to be arrested for words that you that make you upset.

[00:02:02]That's sick. You're This is the country of John Lock. Hang on. This is the country of John Lock. This is the country that was supposed to We adopted our Constitution based on these principles of free speech. And you know, you sick bastards are running around actually calling for the arrest of people because they say mean words. What the hell is wrong with you?

[00:02:22]>> This is the thing with free speech. You can still make your point. You can still make your point. What is it that you can't say? It's not my fault that people can't articulate themselves well. You can talk about crime statistics based on gender and sexuality, race, whatever you want. Why can't discriminatory a young care worker who's angry because she's been assaulted and is in hospital and is firing off her angry thoughts while she said she had an head injury and she uses this fword and because of that she ends up with a a conviction.

[00:02:53]>> Well, hold on, Pier. We only got her side of the story. Reading the articles, it says that there was a series of abusive and homophobic messages. Those were then showed the friend said >> they weren't homophobic.

[00:03:05]>> The friend that she said >> they weren't homophobic.

[00:03:06]>> Hold on. That's >> They weren't aimed they weren't aimed at somebody for their sexuality.

[00:03:10]>> But so if I go in the street, if I go in the street, can I jump in?

[00:03:15]>> Well, well, okay. By comparison, if I use the N word against you, >> right? Or if I if I use the N word against against Andrew, is that a racist slur against him? No.

[00:03:27]>> Well, it No. So, if I go up in the street and start >> there has to be some intention.

[00:03:31]>> No. If I start going up to someone in the street and screaming anti-semitic things at them and then it turns out they're not Jewish, the police aren't going to be like, "Oh, well, >> like you still you went to attack someone based on >> Hang on." But that's my point though. If you you can't be anti-semitic against somebody who's not Jewish. But we go back to I think it's worse because the gay slow was made to make him seem like less of a man to sort of dehumanize.

[00:03:54]>> She didn't intend it like that and I think intent does matter. Mark, you wanted to jump in about the Nazi thing.

[00:03:59]What what was your observation about that? I don't think by the way I don't think people should be arrested for either, but it just seems to me an extraordinary disparity between you could just casually call somebody a Nazi and compare them to Adolf Hitler and there's no accountability. But if you use the F-word in a private text, you get arrested by 11 cops.

[00:04:19]>> Yeah, I we're we're in like seven directions here. So, I'm going to just try and in like 10 seconds deal with each one total. Um, first, I agree that no one should be arrested for any of this speech. Let me say that. So, this is not a defense of arresting people because that keeps being said. I'm not defending that. I do think the Nazi piece is different. Um, but it doesn't mean that it should be responded to differently. For example, you may say to me, peers, uh, because you because you're policing my speech around not using the f- word or the n-word or whatever, that you're a fascist. I that would be a reasonable criticism. I think you'd be wrong, but I think that'd be a reasonable criticism, but you'd be respond you'd be saying that my behavior is actually similar to that of a particular thing. When people are looking at Donald Donald Trump's behavior, it's not casual at all.

[00:05:04]They're saying the extraordinary uh and maybe historically unprecedented way that he is undermining American democracy is reminiscent of the Nazi regime. You may disagree to be wrong or right.

[00:05:15]>> You don't honestly think that >> you honestly think Donald Trump is a Nazi.

[00:05:20]>> No, peers. If you allow me to finish, you'd understand that I'm not saying that. Just allow me to finish the sentence. My next sentence was, "It does not matter whether you agree or disagree with the claim. The point is I'm allowed to have a political ideology and I wouldn't make that claim by the way. I wouldn't call Donald Trump a Nazi. But my point is I believe that I'm >> Is it a slur against Donald Trump?

[00:05:41]>> No. That >> Wow.

[00:05:42]>> That's my Pierce. I'm the one saying no.

[00:05:44]>> So it's not a slur to call somebody It's not a slur to call somebody a Nazi, but it is a slur to use the f word about somebody who's not even gay. Explain that.

[00:05:55]>> No, I can't explain what you just said because that's not the point I'm making.

[00:05:59]You've you've you've reccharged what I said. I'm not sure what the point is you're making. What I'm saying [laughter] allow me to finish and you will. What I'm saying is if you are making an analysis of somebody and you in good faith believe that their behavior similar if you similar to if you call me a fascist, I don't think I'm a fascist, but you have a right to say that and I wouldn't call that a slur. If I if my behavior is reminiscent of that, similar to the Nazi or any other argument that you make, I'm not going to call it a slur just because I disagree with you.

[00:06:25]Where it becomes different is if I'm attacking somebody for their identity, where I am insulting somebody for their identity, that becomes a slur. And in the last example you gave, Pierce, where somebody calls somebody the f-word or somebody high-fives their friend, as my as my other colleague said, and gives them a high five and he's and they're not even gay and they don't mean it that way. It may not be a slur, but you're still trafficking in homophobia. You're still racism.

[00:06:50]>> Hang on. Hang on. This is an illogical This is actually illogical. Listen, I'll I'll tell you why. The reason that this is illogical is >> and then allow me to respond because every time you respond and tell me something, I don't get to respond.

[00:07:00]>> Hang on, I understand. But the foundation of your argument is these words cause harm based on social stigma.

[00:07:07]And the social stigma is caused because you're using a harmful word. Calling people Nazis and fascist would create the exact same stigma that you're saying these other protected classes deserve.

[00:07:18]Your argument is a contradiction. It's P and not P at the same time. It's contradictory. So either it's one or the other, Mark. Either the social stigma needs to be argued against. Hang on.

[00:07:28]Hang on. And in the UK, people are getting arrested for calling Donald Trump a Nazi as much as they get arrested for calling somebody the fsler because the social stigma is the thing that you're after. So you have to you have to pick one, dude. Pick a lane.

[00:07:43]All right. Now, now allow me to respond again. You have mischaracterized my argument. My point is not that social stigma is the predicate for deciding whether or not someone can say something or not. If it were, then you would be right.

[00:07:54]>> All words can have social stigma. I could call you a conservative and you could have a social stigma. You could call then what determin please allow me to finish. You you you insisted on being allowed to finish. Let me do the same.

[00:08:06]>> Yeah, I know. I just want I just want the answer though.

[00:08:09]>> What can it be?

[00:08:10]>> You think it's easy to get the answer if you let me talk or if you don't.

[00:08:12]>> Yeah, go ahead.

[00:08:13]>> Okay. What I'm saying is again if just all words have all words can potentially have stigma. If you call me a bleeding heart liberal, I may find that to to produce stigma for me. I'm not saying that stigma alone is the issue. Stigma is not the predicate for me. What I'm, and again, I'm not making the case that anybody should be arrested for any of it because it's so gray and slippery. I'm saying don't arrest anybody for any of the slang that or any of the the slurs, any of the language, any of the words that are being used against people. I'm saying don't arrest anybody for any of it. But the distinction I'm making here is is not one of slur versus or stigma versus non-stigma. What I'm saying is is that as a social as a community, we can certainly agree that assessing someone's behavior, even if it causes stigma, is okay. You not liking it, isn't enough for me to stop saying it. What I'm saying is if we as a community decide that, hey, this particular word, this particular framework has historically caused harm to people, not based on what they believe, not not based on anything they've done, but based on a particular identity category. I'm saying we can make different decisions. We may not agree on what the decision is. That's Mark.

[00:09:12]>> That's stigma. You are breaking a foundation. Let me ask let me let me jump in. I want to hang on. Stigma is not the foundation for my cons. Stigma is not the foundation. Again words can produce. It's not.

[00:09:24]>> Let me ask [laughter] >> just screaming. No, I swear it's not.

[00:09:31]This guy is making no sense. Thank god I have the stamina for this because I would be getting a [ __ ] headache. How do you even How do you even make sense of what he's saying? I can't even begin to comprehend this and give an analysis of it because it seems like he's just running around in circles with a whole bunch of nonsense. Piers is about to finish this off. Let's watch a question.

[00:09:55]>> You don't realize that.

[00:09:56]>> Let me ask Andrew question.

[00:09:57]>> It's not what it's ju just repeatedly shouting it is doesn't change the fact that it's not.

[00:10:00]>> I'd like to ask a question. Let me ask a question. I'm I'm stipulating.

[00:10:04]>> Let me ask a question. I'm stipulating that we can all have stigma. Mark, let me ask you a question of Andrew, which is about free speech, but it's a different twist on it because it's all been very antithe as indeed the debates raised in America about our free speech issues, which are legitimate, and I I agree. Um, but a Reuters report recently said that more than 600 Americans were fired, suspended, placed under investigation, or disciplined by employers for comments about Charlie Kirk's assassination. That was after a review of court records, public statements, local media reports, and interviews. Some were dismissed after celebrating or mocking Kirk's death. 15 were punished for allegedly invoking karma or divine justice. Nine others were disciplined for variance on good riddance. Other offending posts appear to exalt in the killing or express hope. Other Republican fig figures would be next. And we just had the president-elect of the Oxford Union in the UK who um who uh was sort of depressed uh removed from his presidency which was about to take over because he had reacted in a sort of celebratory way when he heard the news of Charlie Kurt being shot. Now, in its way, is that not the very kind of >> censorship that you're talking about, or do you think there's a line between accountability to your employers and to police criminal activity?

[00:11:30]>> No. The left has been depersoning, cancelelling people for for I mean to my whole lifetime. And it it has whipped up into a fervor since Trump's election, but even pre-election. They don't just deperson you, they debank you, they deplatform you. You're not allowed to say anything. They run massive harassment campaigns. The first time I've ever seen you poke the bear, poke the bear, poke the bear. They finally did something. And all that happened was some people lost their jobs. They weren't depersoned. They weren't completely ostracized from all of regular society because they said a no no word. These were people who were celebrating in the streets uh horrific murder which they likely contributed to through their own rhetoric. Right?

[00:12:13]That's what actually happened there. And all that happened on hang on. All that happened here, right, was for once the right actually pushed back after you poked us enough times. So like look, am I saying that people should get fired from their jobs? No, of course not. But what I am saying is this is that there's a clear difference between depersoning and debanking people and and ostracizing them from society completely and an employer saying you don't represent my company very well so you're fired. Okay.

[00:12:44]And that's the distinction.

[00:12:45]>> All right. Got to leave it there.

[00:12:46]Fascinating. I'm going to leave it there. Mark, I'm sorry we're running out of time. But fascinating debate. Thank you all very much.

[00:12:51]>> W shutting down. Mark, what do you guys think? Let me know in the comments down below. Please like and subscribe. I will see you in the next