Destiny's #1 Anti-fan Defends Taylor Lorenz

Añadido: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]What this is going to be is they had on Lib and Learn either an adversarial convo or a hostile convo. It was very very very brutal. And because Taylor Lorenz is on's team, Jical wanted that conversation to either be a same team combo or a friendly conversation combo.

[00:00:14]Probably a same team combo. He didn't want hardly any push back against her.

[00:00:17]It just needed to be a PR campaign for Taylor to come and basically have everybody slobber knob and talk about how great and amazing and awesome she is. And when Taylor Loren is engaging with other people who are not on her team, like most people do, she's having an adversarial engagement or a hostile engagement, like when she's writing hit pieces on chorus. All right, we got to check up on our boy.

[00:00:33]>> It's going good. How are you >> doing? Okay. I uh I heard you had some criticisms of that Libler learn that amazing. You know, every episode's the best episode ever. All right. And um throughout all of the the snarking of it all, I think we got to learn something, right? Did you feel educated?

[00:00:48]>> What What do you feel like you learned?

[00:00:50]>> No. Um I mean, I do think it was very chaotic. Um, I would have preferred maybe half as much of the arguing and chaos that we had. Uh, because as much as I think that I don't like that article and Taylor deserves to be confronted on the way she reports it, um, it's been a really long time since we did that and, uh, you know, there's other things we could have brought up like the privacy laws that she covers that we didn't. So, >> yeah, >> honestly, I would have been very, sorry, one second. I would have been very excited for that conversation to happen.

[00:01:11]It just felt like you guys were trying to imply bias and you spent, I think, 30 to 40 minutes arguing about what centrists are. Yeah, if she thinks centrist is a slur, then that's indicative of bias. Now, would you think there's no bias in the article if she said progressive?

[00:01:22]>> Um, no. But I think it's part of the indicative nature of it. I mean, like for example, I think this is not as good of example as just the title and the subheading. Um, which is why focus is not nearly as relevant.

[00:01:30]>> That's essentially my criticism is that there are actual indicators of bias that you could go to if you want to talk about bias.

[00:01:34]>> The fact that you fought us on it is kind of why it worked. I agree.

[00:01:37]>> What this is the dumbest point ever.

[00:01:39]What like like I stabbed a guy, I shot a guy and then I exploded a guy's body. And it's like, okay, well, we're going to argue like, did you actually stab the guy? And it's and then like, well, hold on. Does it matter like um like even if you stab the guy or [ __ ] that was a horrible analogy. I don't need an analogy here. That's just a stupid point. This is the difference between necessary and sufficient. Like um actually this isn't even necessary or sufficient. Just because there are 10 justifications for why an article is biased doesn't mean that one justification has to satisfy the claim of bias. Right? If there are 10 things why an article justified or why you can say this article is biased because of these 10 reasons and then you knock down one of them. You go well just because you knock that down that didn't even change your conclusion like it's still biased. Well yeah you go through the reasons one at a time. Like that's such a stupid um point. I don't understand what unless I'm misunderstanding this like what the [ __ ] is the point of this saying? Like yeah of course just knocking down one thing wouldn't change your opinion. That's generally opinions like around bias are going to be substantiated by tons of different factors, right?

[00:02:39]>> That it's not the best one. But when you look at it and say, Taylor, you were able to call this person a progressive in other contexts, but it's clear that you don't like Democrats. You like to use centrist as a, you know, derogatory term for Democrats.

[00:02:48]>> Wait, do you think it worked?

[00:02:50]>> Well, what do you mean by worked? I mean, I think it is very clear the way that she got defensive about this. It showed that like, yeah, you did have a slant here. Yeah, this clearly shows that one, you were, as soon as we call this out, you either say, well, isn't this accurate? And then you move to, well, actually, I didn't write that. um you know and all these like dodgy like contradictory answers I think make it look like yeah this is very clearly displaying your body >> was the contradiction >> that like if you are defending it by saying I didn't write that you are pointing out that there might be a valid criticism of the way that this is being portrayed right like it's oh if this is completely accurate who cares if you wrote it who cares if you didn't write it that's something like oh that wasn't me right this is a defense of well hey if they did something bad that's not my fault right >> well what was her defense >> Jesus Christ >> I didn't write that people worked on this and that characterization of herself right >> well it's not I mean again Taylor has called her a progressive like as recently I do think she's Yeah, I think she was being defensive.

[00:03:32]>> Okay. Why? I mean, that didn't come out on the episode. So, if you just think she's lying, you >> So, like, if I show you like What do you mean it didn't come out? Wait, what?

[00:03:37]Hold on. Oh god, this is going to be so painful. It's annoying because like the analysis is all going to be um they hate me. So, anything the opposite of me, they're going to agree with. And Taylor is like on the opposite of me. So, now Juice Soccalker, who is literally a massive [ __ ] Fuentes fan, is now like roped into defending every single thing that's like anti Ethan Klein, anti- Destiny. So then pro Hosan, pro Taylor Loren. And it's like it is so cringe watching him like stumble like a blind child through political analysis to try to justify his political opinions. It's all like weird debate, pervert debate tactics, personal attacks. It's just a so All right.

[00:04:13]>> A a recent thing. Hold on. I don't have this on my screen. Do you have my stream moving or can I link this to you?

[00:04:20]>> Um you could present or whatever you like. You can do that. Let me present it.

[00:04:28]Okay. And then hold on. I need to make sure my stream can see it.

[00:04:32]I turn this on. Cool. Okay. Uh, can you see this? Yeah, I can see it. So, this is from a podcast from a couple years before she wrote the article, 2023, and she's clearly able to describe in like explicit detail like, you know, very explicitly that this is a progressive person. She acknowledges this. So, she says, "I've been dealing with Twitch streamers and content creators, and I would go out and use social media." I again >> I've just so even if you prove this like her broad argument seems to be that it wasn't really relevant to the article the the phrase she used to describe Olivia Juliana like it's not it's not materally changing the article in any way >> well they're not trying to change the facts in the article just the first part is just representing that there's some bias of the writer >> you guys like not to even care about it right >> the point is that the reason she has changed the descriptor that she's using for this person is the same reason we have an issue with the entire article which is the bias that going after people not for just transparency as you framed it at the beginning of our conversation, but because she's trying to attack these people as these like democratic shills who get all their talking points and extrapolate and play into all of the abuse that came out after this from people running away with the story, right?

[00:05:31]>> Sure. So, at best, let's say all of that is true. At best, that's like.1% of whatever bias you're trying to point to there.

[00:05:37]>> Okay.

[00:05:38]>> So, you're you're b >> Okay. What? I guess we just make up numbers and sure. basically calling your guest like a liar who you don't trust already right off the bat and spending all this time hammering down on it. Now, she said it doesn't.

[00:05:50]>> Imagine claiming that I think there's proof of bias in your article is the equivalent to calling your guest a liar.

[00:05:56]Remember their analysis from their perspective. This is a team sports game for and Taylor Durant is on their team.

[00:06:02]So, you can't be challenging her like that. You can't have a critical conversation. You just have to be slurping up every single thing they say.

[00:06:08]That's his standard of um analysis here.

[00:06:10]>> Doesn't really matter. This went through a bunch of vetting, right? Like there's a whole bunch of stuff going into this and I feel like probably when you say she has a bias, you mean there's a bias in a way that makes the article inaccurate or makes the article a poor piece of journalism, right? Because obviously she's a bias. Like everybody's got a bias, right?

[00:06:25]>> Yeah.

[00:06:26]>> Yeah. So like proving she has a bias here. You need to prove she has a bias that that negatively affects the article. I don't think this does I don't think this takes even like a a tiny step forward. Well, that's the point is you start once you've proven the bias using multiple examples, then you move from the bias to the facts in the article and you can challenge some of the facts of the article. But yeah, this is all like a process. Matt, >> not even a tiny step cuz I agree this is not the best example, but why is this not >> really think this is like inconsequential in every possible way?

[00:06:52]>> Um, what if she said Zionist?

[00:06:56]>> Um, I don't know if I would care about Zionist. Like not about care about it.

[00:06:59]I'm not trying to like got you here. I'm just saying I'm pretty sure Olivia like supports like some sort of Zionist policy to some degree, right? I don't know. Like don't like fact check me on this, but like let's just say she supported like a very explicitly Zionist candidate, right? And if you were to say this is a Zionist uh you know Zionist creator Olivia Juliana, right? This is not inaccurate if that was the case that she supported some Zionist policy. But it's clear that you're showing oh you're not making this about transparency.

[00:07:21]You're trying to paint the narrative that Zionists in this case uh would give talking points to these people so that they would not deviate from Zionist lines and then uh you know uh make content.

[00:07:31]>> I think you're reading a massive amount into like a qualifier that is like actually not like I don't think that's being said to be honest with you.

[00:07:38]>> So first of all I was using example obviously she's not saying this about the Zionist thing although some people did run away >> to be honest I don't think she cared about that label. I don't think she's using it that way and >> she absolutely is. Juck is wrong. I hate this. Um Hassan does this. People do this. I don't know what you would call this. Like it's like crushing all subtext. I gave this example before.

[00:07:56]Like imagine I'm talking about like oh um yesterday there were three people that broke into my house. Um like I don't know like [ __ ] what was the example I gave?

[00:08:09]Are you okay with me bringing over four friends? Um there's David, Matt, Chris, and then um Tyler. Tyler's black.

[00:08:17]Like even if that's like an accurate statement, we'll assume everything is accurate. They're not lying. Like the fact that you would draw attention to Tyler being black is kind of like what's going on there. Like you would never defend that as saying, "Oh, I don't study facts. We're saying random facts about people." No, you're choosing facts to present to somebody and you're choosing those facts to present uh to somebody to have a certain opinion created about them, right? It wasn't by accident that she labeled that one content creator centrist. That was a word she chose explicitly and specifically. Why did she choose that word?

[00:08:46]>> Although some people did run away, >> to be honest, I don't think she cared about that label. I don't think she's using it that way.

[00:08:51]>> Like, if that was true, this is immediately defeatable. If she didn't care about that label, then she could have said, "Oh, I might have been wrong there. My bad." That's not what she said, though. First, she defended it, I think, in multiple ways. The first was said, "Oh well, I interviewed this person a long time ago and they were a centrist." And then the second, she might have said that she'd seen centrist things by her. I might be making that up with her saying she saw a post by those 90 members or whatever. But she defended it initially. Then she tried to brush off responsibility for it. Oh my, there were 15 other editors that went through this. I don't know. They inserted it. I didn't even write that, she said at one point. And then on the third one, she kind of um minimized it and was like, "Fine, what do you want me to call blah blah like that's not the behavior of a person who feels like this is an inconsequential word. It sounds like she was pretty invested in that descriptor.

[00:09:29]Sounds like the soy bill is right and that that actually was a good thing to go on because it demonstrated why Taylor was writing that article, why she was so attached to being bad faith, and why she needed to use that word to show her uh political adversaries in a in a bad light here.

[00:09:44]To be honest, I don't think she cared about that label. I don't think she's using it that way. And even if she was, you basically just have to accuse her of being a liar. And there are other indicators of her bias, like her tweets after the fact that are just way better things to argue on.

[00:09:54]>> I I agree. This is not the best a liar.

[00:09:57]And if you think she's a liar to that level, I don't even know why you'd have her on.

[00:10:01]>> Uh, wait, sorry, one more time.

[00:10:03]>> I don't even know why. Just kind of assume she's like lying to that extent because again, if she was doing that, you would expect it to like >> follow through. Like I would expect it to happen with somebody who's a character throughout the entire article, but how many times is Olivia Juliana referenced?

[00:10:16]>> I I'm I'm not sure this is relevant. So what I'm saying is this was one of many things that you could point to that shows that this is not some objective analysis of transparency that the reasons we have an issue with it is this was meant to make Democrats look like this evil controlling group. And this is one of the things that is not the best and I agree that points to this and that she will take a label like progressive that you would otherwise use to describe this person and switch it to something that she uses as a pjorative to pay these people as these like centrist do nothing feckless people. Right? So that's just a small part.

[00:10:45]Why is Justalker sweping for Taylor? Is this a destiny rat? Bro, you don't understand how much this he has switched political alignments 100%. There are so many random examples I have >> are way more radical than the way that the media is presenting this like liberal style resistance right now. I see Deborah's and Barbara's like rhymes on Facebook being like, "Hake, you need to go out and die. You need to go out and put your body on the line. The [ __ ] are you doing?" And it's like literally like a 50-y old lady on Facebook with her government name and and we kind of saw a bit of that with with the North Carolina Thomas. It wasn't Thomas Massie, Tom Tis where there were people like, "I'm a 70 and I'm going to this is my name. My name is Hank Picker. I live on 1874 Belleview Drive and I'm going to kill you with my AR-15." Like that's what the that's the type of messages they were leaving in this dude's uh on this dude's office and he's resigning like he's literally this is his last turn. So so I think that people are now this is a time is an unprecedented time to to really get others on board uh to explain to them.

[00:11:42]>> It really like to me it just depends on do you think descriptive like do you think describing reality as you see it is calling for action.

[00:11:51]>> Wow. And he's about to miss you bring up.

[00:11:54]>> Wait, hold on. We're listening to something. Hold on.

[00:11:57]>> Action.

[00:11:59]>> Cuz again, I don't see him as as like explicitly making any prescription here or doing any call. He is like describing reality. Yeah, that's kind of explicit.

[00:12:10]What is kind of explicit? What do you Wait, does anybody know who's going to call this explicit or call the violence or anything? Do you know what the Brandenburgg test is?

[00:12:20]you know what the Brandenberg standard is. Like this was Assan saying that like oh you know they used violence against these politicians they resigned. It worked guys like you know it worked right and and just was like whoa I don't know is that really him calling for violence? Is he really saying that it's a good thing? Like there are so many random um things. It's actually I can't remember which debates he's lost off the top of my head. The one that always comes to mind is the uh the fresh and fit one. foreign policy one that was rough.

[00:12:50]>> Well, yeah. Well, like an example would be like like imagine you and I were watching Train, right? And I was like, >> you know, you're the statistic.

[00:13:02]>> I'm sure he loses other debates. I just don't remember. Oh, Taylor Loren. Sure, he did lose the Taylor Loren's debates.

[00:13:08]No, you're right. You're right. I didn't really think of that as a debate, but it kind of was, and he kind of got mogged.

[00:13:13]It's just like crazy how they're whenever they go over um political content, it's always in this like super loaded like everything that we're doing and everything related to me is like bad and evil and wrong and everybody on my team is bad and evil and wrong and then everything on Hassan and Till Ren is like the best. It's all right.

[00:13:32]It's just like it's crazy how insanely like and the the polygonal analysis is so bad. Even his own community complains about it sometimes because it's so shallow. But >> I do think it moves it in a small part.

[00:13:41]I don't think it completely proves the point. Now, if you're asking, okay, if we think she's lying, >> can I just give you an example? Like, let's say you were trying to prove somebody was anti-Zionist, they didn't like Israel.

[00:13:49]>> Sure.

[00:13:50]>> And you could show that when they used the Israeli flag in their article, they actually made the the shade of blue like five color, five shades of blue off.

[00:13:57]>> Okay.

[00:13:57]>> Right. Because they wanted to disrespect Israel. Do you think given an entire article, and entire body of work, do you think focusing on that, even though it is off, you could prove it's off and it's like they've used the right flag in other articles, do you think it's important to focus on that? Do you think that's >> You would bring it up. Yeah. It' be one point of evidence. Yeah, of course you you can't generally there's not going to be like a dispositive thing where it's like if I can just show this one thing I've won my whole argument usually bias is a subtle thing like almost definitionally so bias is usually a thing that manifests in a subtle way and you have to point to a lot of examples to show look you have a particular bias here um you would go through small yeah I it's like a good use of your time >> um spending more than 10 minutes on it maybe not but if there was some established precedent where people did this in such a way like this was some meme of how to disrespect Israel and it's like hey and you're doing in your article and then your defense of that is, "Oh, well, I didn't put that emoji in." It's like, "Okay, well, someone did and someone is playing off this trope of making centrists look bad." So, either you or someone who helped you write this article is trying to frame it in such a way to paint Democrats as evil centrists. That's the point. So, no, it's not the most important part of the framing to say that this is why she has all this bias, but it's it's relevant.

[00:14:58]It absolutely is. And honestly, like, yeah, getting stuck on it for a really long time is annoying, but I don't think it's something you can just ignore.

[00:15:04]I think this is like so this is going to go to another thing with I think the only people you could convince with this argument are people who will already buy into the framing that like the article was completely disingenuous and like it's people who agree with you politically essentially.

[00:15:15]>> That's that might be true especially because the people who you know felt satisfied by that conversation were probably people who already thought it was bias. So that that might be true. I don't know. I haven't had a lot of independent or undecided people reach out to me and say oh well now I see you know you exposed her. You really got her right. Like most of those probably already have that.

[00:15:28]>> Sure. Sure. That was all to say that like I think we could have a way better conversation. So we could just like do it >> drop that part and talk about other stuff. What do you want to talk about? I >> I think it's uh well I'll ask you the questions first. Basically a couple things about living and learn and how you saw the conversation.

[00:15:40]>> And I just like to me >> I feel like beating my head into the brick wall and that one feels kind of pointless.

[00:15:47]>> I honestly don't know why Hutch focused so heavily on the centrist label. I don't think he was going to focus super heavily on it. Taylor Loren decided to fight to the death on it. She staked her flag into the ground and that's what she wanted to fight on forever. Then so of course it's going to be a thing that they end up fighting off for a long time. What do you mean?

[00:16:02]>> Cuz it's Taylor's choice.

[00:16:04]>> We'll get into it later, I guess, when we talk about the the criticisms that would be good or what I think would be good criticisms, I guess. But I want to ask you these questions first. So I I just kind of want to bury it because it seems like we're running into the same problem where we might spend our entire talk about why we were concerned about centrist. And at any point if you want to like pause and try to reframe like feel free. Um like you know I know it's what it's like to get lost in the weeds.

[00:16:22]So >> somebody uh somebody in my chat says Josiah uses centrist pjoratively all the time. Is he secret tanky?

[00:16:27]>> No, but if he wrote an article and he tried to pretend like that's not how he was writing it, like >> just using centrist poratively does not make you a tanky. Nobody even used that argument. I use centrist poratively.

[00:16:37]Almost everybody except for like conservatives who want to be described as not conservative. Almost everybody uses centress poratively.

[00:16:44]>> That's But could he use centrist in a could he >> I sometimes use pjoratively. Yeah.

[00:16:48]>> Yeah. Yeah. Hold on. But do you think that if Josiah told you he didn't use it poratively? He was using it descriptively because it didn't matter and he didn't even really check into the person. he just like threw it on there because it was irrelevant to the rest of the article. Would you believe him on that?

[00:16:59]>> Um, this is kind of a weird question because I know him a lot more personally and would believe him. Uh, but if if it was at the same level of connection I had with Taylor, I would say no, not necessarily. Like I I don't think that's true. Like especially if it's the same if he if you just attached his name to this article, I wouldn't somehow come away from that and say like, "Oh, actually no, now it makes total sense. I would have the same criticism for it."

[00:17:18]>> Oh, I think >> he shouldn't have granted that. That's not true. You wouldn't have the same criticism for it if Josiah didn't have the reputation for because remember bias is subtle. If Josiah didn't have the reputation for attacking center left Dems and calling them centrist as a way to make them further right or appear for further red than they actually were, you wouldn't think the same motivation behind that attack. But >> yeah, I disagree on that, but it's fine.

[00:17:40]Okay, I got to ask these these questions first. Okay, first of all, live and learn the Live and Learn podcast. What are you guys going for with that? Are you going for like what's the goal? Are you trying to have like very professional conversations, very politically motivated conversations? Are you just trying to have fun with people who do politics? Is it like a fun we're messing around with guest kind of thing?

[00:17:55]I mean, obviously so like as the It's funny cuz I guess I'm the host now and I'm the second least senior member after guy, but basically the way I saw it was you have some people on, you talk some, you know, sloppilism, you talk some uh news, and you try to come together and have a good time. And sometimes you have a guest on and it's either a super amicable conversation and sometimes it's confrontational. Um, I think if I were to look at this recent episode with Taylor, I would have said I don't mind being super aggressive with the guests, especially if I heavily disagree with them. But I'd probably want it to be like half an hour of total. Uh, and then the other half to be like what do they do and what their work is and I think the biggest thing missing was like >> um cuz usually I do the thing where I'm like I'll pick the news topics of the week and like let's talk about those and then let's talk like what the guest thinks about those things. But because her speciality is this like tech stuff, privacy stuff, I probably should have left out, I don't know, the Supreme Court stuff, uh, and maybe even any news of that week if there wasn't like a bunch of crazy stuff other than like the shooting attempt and just said, "All right, let's spend another half hour talking about like what your views on like privacy and that sort of thing is."

[00:18:47]That would be like my biggest criticism of that recent thing. But yeah, like um I try to have it divied up well, but I I I'm still figuring this out. I've never hosted a podcast, so >> Yeah. So, it's like a mix. Okay. All right. Um, did you have a plan going to this podcast like specifically for Taylor? Like you obviously are aware of some of her journalism. Were you planning specifically like what was your like >> just trying to figure out like did you guys ambush her?

[00:19:08]>> You said I guess I would like to do that in retrospect. Did you have any plan for that going in or was it just like okay we we'll see how this goes?

[00:19:13]>> Uh basically yeah like let's talk about the news for most of it and then the other you know bit of it is uh I know Hutch and some people want to talk about the core stuff. That was a big thing we talked about on live and learn. Um but now we get to ask you questions about it instead of you know just speculating on what we think about the article.

[00:19:26]>> Yeah. Okay. Cool. Cool. Cool. And then what is your opinion of Taylor Loren professionally? Um, I disagree with like a lot of the things she writes in regards to politics sometimes. Like I mean the way we met was that we were debating on her like someone should do it video and I was like I think you've had a really interesting well interesting is a nice word bad and like you know framing of like the past that led up to this like the way that you've like centered co somehow doesn't really make sense here. And we chatted about that and then past that um that she had some issues with that debate and like the way it's framed and she was worried about it and like we talked and I was like oh like this person like we can talk more and like she's friendly and like we can at least get along. Um, and I learned about some of her other stuff, like the tech stuff. I like the stuff she brings about privacy. So, it's like a mixed bag. Um, I some stuff I really don't like, like the score stuff. I think this is like super harmful to the discourse. I think people ran away with this and like are [ __ ] on the party when it's like, hey, we're on the [ __ ] ropes right now. Like, is this really the time to like be making these kind of stretched out allegations? Um, and then other times it's like, oh yeah, like we do need to be talking about the fact that we're going to start needing a ID verification for Discord. Like, that's [ __ ] insane. And most people aren't talking.

[00:20:29]>> What is this? an interrogation. So what this is going to be is they had on Lib and Learn either an adversarial convo or a hostile convo. It was very very very brutal. And because Taylor Lorenz is on's team, Jical wanted that conversation to either be a same team convo or a friendly conversation combo.

[00:20:48]Probably a same team combo. He didn't want hardly any push back against her.

[00:20:50]It just needed to be a PR campaign for Taylor to come and basically have everybody slobber knob and talk about how great and amazing and awesome she is. But he'll make an argument for why it needed to be one of those two types of conversations and not one of the bottom two types. Now, my issue with that would be Taylor Lorenz is not on the same team. And when Taylor Lorenz is engaging with other people who are not on her team like most people do, she's having an adversarial engagement or a hostile engagement like when she's writing hit pieces on chorus.

[00:21:14]>> Talking about this, you're bringing light to this. So, yeah, I'd say mixed bag.

[00:21:18]>> Yeah. Like I what I would have loved as a conversation there like I think would have been really awesome is like what responsibility do journalists have for how people use their their work, right?

[00:21:27]and what what steps should they take?

[00:21:28]Like what's Taylor's opinion on that?

[00:21:29]Because I think the best criticism you could do of Taylor in this case is that her opinions that she stated on Twitter and in interviews were different and not obviously she's not under the editorial gun anymore, right? So she she doesn't have an editor. She can say whatever she wants and she is saying things that go beyond what the article says. So I would love to I would have loved that conversation to be had. You know what I'm saying? Like hey, what what do you don't you think that we should have a discussion about that? because it seemed like what you guys were trying to do was to use her tweets, her commentary after the fact to invalidate the article. But the article, in my opinion, was basically unimpeachable and her tweets after the fact might make it might color it differently.

[00:22:02]>> Unimpeachable because I was so brutal against the article, he has to take the position that the article was flawless, >> right? But those are her tweets after the fact. And she is possibly doing some harm to her journalism, but that is a whole different conversation than just, oh well, I actually don't like this article. I don't think it's accurate.

[00:22:17]>> Well, let me said a bunch of things.

[00:22:19]One, I agree. that would be an interesting conversation and we barely scratched the surface of like, hey, like all these people kind of ran away with claims that aren't made in the article.

[00:22:24]Is this irresponsible? And we really had to press her to say that. I don't think she wanted to say that, but I think it is, especially because people that she's more friendly with did some of that. Um, two, I think her tweets afterwards absolutely matter. I know it's not in the article, but it shows that the person who wrote this has very, you know, certain beliefs about these sorts of people and what is being said and had, you know, I can't prove.

[00:22:42]>> You think, wait, do you think we were unaware of that? Do you think most people were broadly unaware of her beliefs going into that reading that article? Um, I don't think most people like who read Wired know who Taylor is and like, "Oh, this is a good Taylor article." I think this >> Taylor deliberately obscures her beliefs.

[00:22:59]>> I don't even know if I could accurately state her political disposition. I I I'm not sure.

[00:23:04]>> This is a very bubbly like people like you and me who are online and like follow a journalist instead of I follow what Wired published today.

[00:23:12]>> Okay. So, you made a different argument on the podcast if I remember correctly.

[00:23:15]If I'm wrong in this, I don't want to go back and try to find a clip. So, >> Sure. I mean, >> it sounded like on the podcast, >> well, it sounded to me like on the podcast you said that she was using those words, the word centrist, cuz she knew who was going to be reading this article, >> implying that a lot of the people that most of the people reading the article would be people who agreed with her and and could see that centrist label as a slight.

[00:23:32]>> Okay.

[00:23:32]>> But if you're arguing that most of Wired is unaware of that and not in that culture, then I think you've just sort of undone your own argument for why that label was effective or useful or indicative of anything.

[00:23:40]>> I think she's catering to a certain audience in that writing. Uh I think that again that's also framing it from the bubble that we're in. If I had to guess, most people who read this are not going to care at all about that. But even if you did want to cater to that audience and have that view going in, which I think she does, if you're trying to make it look like these people are these nefarious puppets of the DNC, uh, and you're writing to this audience who doesn't really understand that, then yeah, the centrist uh, label there isn't signaling to the audience that she is like more amicable to, that's painting centrist as bad. And then having the people who otherwise wouldn't be in this bubble now start to think, oh, centrist is bad. Centrists are these, you know, progressive or, you know, formerly progressive people who are now like puppeted by the DNC, right? Do you think somebody reading that would actually retroactively read the centrist? They they would think they'd read that article and then they go, "Oh, when he called when she called Olivia Juliana Centress, she meant centress or bad."

[00:24:24]>> No, I think they would read it and say, >> "Yes, 100%." When in an article where she's casting Assan [ __ ] as the good guy, of course, Centress is going to be read as bad.

[00:24:34]>> Look at these people who are taking money from this organization to just repeat these talking points, their little shills, and then knowing that they were described as centrist, will now take that word centrist and think centrist bad. That's what I think.

[00:24:44]Um well I think I mean centrist definitely isn't even they think DNC bad or Democrats bad or bad Democrats are reckless Democrats are centrist >> the centrist thing is not harped on repeatedly the DNC thing is harped on repeatedly.

[00:24:57]>> Sure. Again this is not the strongest point.

[00:25:00]>> I totally in agreement there but I don't think it's irrelevant.

[00:25:02]>> Okay. All right. I sorry I heard that and then I I want to go back to it really quickly. Okay. So >> give me a sec. Um I just have to open my chat as well because Ryan is a model of mine. He's doing a good job. I I'm seeing some more [ __ ] about people.

[00:25:15]People need to be >> Yeah, I know it's I know it's tough to mod stuff. Yeah, I know.

[00:25:17]>> I usually don't. It doesn't get this bad. Do you do a lot of uh drama slops, sir?

[00:25:23]>> Do I Yeah, I do. I That's a decent amount of my content is drama stuff, but I I actually been doing a ton of politics recently.

[00:25:28]>> Very much enjoying it.

[00:25:29]>> I suggest making the whole switch. It's It's much more enlightening. You can You can just You can just worry about the world falling apart instead of all the >> The definition of his politics is whatever is literally the opposite of me or anybody he perceives to be on my team. Yeah.

[00:25:39]>> Some [ __ ] people do.

[00:25:41]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, maybe. I've been doing it a lot. It's um it's gone quite well.

[00:25:45]Enjoyed it a lot. Okay, so we've touched on a couple of these things. It always I always like kind of write down my thoughts and then I end up like shotgunning. You ever do that? Like you're having a conversation with somebody, wrote some stuff down, just shotgun and now it's like, "Oh, my whole document is like anything I had written down totally gone at this point."

[00:25:59]>> I didn't make a document, so you're already more prepared than me.

[00:26:01]>> Well, I just Well, because I asked to have the conversation, I was like, "Oh, I should have some questions ready just in case." Like, obviously, we don't want to just sit here and stare at the camera or in my case stare into nothing.

[00:26:10]>> Okay. Oh, you can't see me. Should I video call you and then I can share the screen so people know like your little avatar. I want a little >> camera. If you if you want, I could turn my camera on as well.

[00:26:19]>> I could turn my camera on for my avatar.

[00:26:23]>> You're not just a penguin.

[00:26:26]>> That's a good one.

[00:26:27]>> No, I am just a penguin.

[00:26:28]>> Oh, okay. Well, it's fine. People like the penguin's cute. Although, uh I saw some some of these other avatars with like the puppets and all that and uh some pretty good ones. So, can't say penguin is my favorite, but it's not bad.

[00:26:41]All right, >> hold on. Let me uh I'll set this up really quickly.

[00:26:45]>> Did that work? Yeah, we're good. Okay, >> not that one. This one. This one.

[00:26:51]>> How much did you pay just for the one day avatar usage?

[00:26:55]>> Um well, technically a guy or a couple of guys in my community who do that. So, I've I've offered the money uh for like tokens and stuff because they do some AI generation stuff with it. But >> how many bottles of water are you?

[00:27:07]>> Well, sorry. the there's the base avatar and then there's like AI generated outfits on top of it.

[00:27:11]>> But yeah, it's um >> Am I allowed to show these AK-47s on stream?

[00:27:15]>> Yeah, there literally patterns up close.

[00:27:17]Come on, man.

[00:27:18]>> You're joking. Listen, I'm a little I'm like 50% Pisco, so if if you joke, I've got a good chance of just totally missing it. All right, >> that's called autism. You don't have to say Pisco as a substitute.

[00:27:27]>> Yeah, but Pisco is my favorite example, so >> Okay. All right. No. Yeah, let's get get your shotgun questions out. Um I have a not a heart out a hardish out at 520, so >> Okay. All right.

[00:27:38]What time zone? What the [ __ ] >> What?

[00:27:42]>> So, >> Hawaii 520 or what?

[00:27:45]>> Ask those questions. All right, let's see. Uh, one thing basically I I would >> he's in California.

[00:27:55]He's Well, he's still talking now, right? And it's Wouldn't it be 540 in California or did you just mean maybe it's not a hard out? I guess hard you guys talk about was essentially if you don't believe Taylor's word I do feel like having her there to have that conversation it's why like beating your head against the wall with that whole line of questioning I felt like was not very substantial is if you have her there then you can ask her questions about the article and I do think like >> how is your stalker survived this long as a streamer I mean he's struggling he's barely there but I mean the reason why he cast his lot in against me and with Assan and everything is he's trying to be part of that like weird I think like remember if you're willing to join a political coalition there's a whole audience waiting for you there this is why he favorably covers Assad like even retweeting him a couple times on stream and going over his stuff. So, um, it doesn't say live. Oh [ __ ] he stopped.

[00:28:40]Oh, I thought this was still going.

[00:28:42][ __ ] RIP.

[00:28:44]>> If you go to her Glen Greenwald interview or the comment on Hassan, if you're just asking like if you frame it in a non-adversarial way, which I understand is hard because you guys are friends with the chorus people and you feel like the article is >> Be clear. I don't know about everyone else. I can't speak.

[00:28:55]>> Nice. I like how he throws in that subtly there that they're friends with the course people, therefore they're biased and incapable of asking fair questions. Good one for them. I don't know if I know anyone in chorus. Um, was Adam Mockler in chorus? I know.

[00:29:08]>> I I I think possibly, but regardless, connections or or you know, second order connections, one of the two.

[00:29:13]>> It's going to be pretty pretty obvious for me. My my concern is like >> Yeah. Are you biased because of second order connections you have? I don't want to say anything mean about John because I'm friends with David and Clarissa and I think David and Clarissa might be friends with John. I'm not actually sure, but like Yeah. So, I'm not going to be mean by proxy of a pro. What?

[00:29:28]>> I just I didn't like this and I want Destiny. are still talking right now. Oh well, [ __ ] you. Oh, this just doesn't say live or it's not read because um because it's because I'm in the past right now. [ __ ] you to talk about it.

[00:29:39]Now, to be fair, I wasn't the one really majorly confronting, but Hutch was the one who did >> the what manifesto or whatever. So, um but I agreed with most of his criticisms, but I agree. I mean, like if you look at what guy said at the end, um her answer on Hassan or the way he says like how do you think, you know, what should I disclose? one, the conversation just flows better when you're not yelling at each other. But two, I think you can still expose that bias and like what she's saying and it's very telling without making her like, you know, have to like be on the defensive and yelling at her. So, yeah, I I I agree. Those are probably better ways to go about it.

[00:30:05]>> Sure. Sure. Sure. Sure. I think um the the bias to me really it's like I know the bias going into the article. Sorry, I didn't drink enough water before I started the stream. I knew the bias going into the article. I didn't feel like the bias in the article seeped in in a way that actually made the article bad. So that was a little >> You said the article was impeachable.

[00:30:22]You go even further than that, right?

[00:30:24]>> Well, I think unimpeachable on truth grounds.

[00:30:27]>> Unimpeachable on truth grounds. I would say the the subtitle, right? The there's the title and then the subtitle. The subtitle >> they had to tow the party line or like you know >> argue there, but to me um to me those will be clickbait to get people to click in and go to read the article and it's ambiguous and the ambiguity is totally resolved by reading the article. So I like it makes it very clear what they're paid for, what they what they mean by all these things, right?

[00:30:51]>> No, it's not.

[00:30:52]>> So if I were to describe to you Chorus in the way that like Brian Harley Cohen does in his video uh defending this and like when he I'm sure you saw like his response to Taylor and it's like, "Hey, this is a program. We want to help out influencers, find out how they're going to build their LLC's and all this other stuff, give them tips on how to grow, and we pay some of them to do this."

[00:31:08]>> Um that might be, I would say, an understatement in some ways because obviously there's more like they're getting they're getting more they're getting more than just that. It's just like the simplified on paper version.

[00:31:17]But I think that's a much more fair way than the entire of this article which paints it as some sort of like information propaganda like funneling system which if you look through and it's like well you say it's unimpeachable. None of this is true. And it's like go ahead.

[00:31:29]>> I I'm just saying that like I was watching streams when Brian Tyler Cohen was going around and talking about his his like driving like impetus to create chorus. You remember what that was, right? Were you around for that?

[00:31:39]>> Um maybe not that specific conversation he might have had. I don't watch a lot of BTC, but like basically my understanding is like he's like, "Hey, there's this giant media apparatus of of like uh you know, content creation and media on the right. Why don't we have something like this?" Right?

[00:31:52]>> Have you ever like logged into Twitter and you get this sense that Republicans had a Monday morning meeting and they coordinated their talking points and they came out and they were all on the same page. I want to do that for Democrats. I believe is something close to verbatim the pitch he was giving.

[00:32:05]Right.

[00:32:06]>> Okay.

[00:32:07]So when people say does that not sound like it's a organization built to push the party line >> push the party line I think is carrying a lot of weight in that for example anyone can come together with a group of amicable and friendly people who have similar opinions and say like how do we tackle this right like I don't think it's nefarious that Republicans are like hey guys let's like find out like what you know what are we saying about this there's um just talking about this recently >> I don't think it's nefarious either I would say the nefarious part of this to me is the lack of disclosure that's the nefarious part or what seems a little more nefarious >> but the way you just framed it is like pushing the party line Well, what's pushing the party line? Like, if he does this, for example. Well, no, let me go back to what I was saying. There's this thing called like the DNC war room that I'm now part of, which is like they have like a group chat and I don't know if it's every day cuz I don't check as much cuz the notifications won't stop pinging me. But like they'll put out literally I think they'll call them this. They'll say here are today's talking points and they will say like look like this is what happened. Here's the news. Like here's like what Trump did. Now you could just take this and then push the party line and be like and this is all good and everything they do is bad and everything Democrats did and all these things they accomplished are good. But what happens is you're just like, "Oh, this is a way for me to disseminate all the information that has happened in a nice concentrated spot. Here's clips of people talking. Here's all this stuff.

[00:33:10]Now go make your own information about this." They don't say, "And you can't say this and you can't say that." Now, of course, there's going to be some bias of like how they're framing this, what kind of points they're giving us, what they're focusing on. But the idea that this is pushing the party line, especially forced to push the party line or paid to push the party line, is far beyond, hey, here's a bunch of stuff.

[00:33:25]Let's all coordinate and talk about this so everyone can have like a similar understanding of what's going on. Now, there's risks to that, but like I I don't think this is pushing the party line. Again, I do think it's hyperbolic.

[00:33:33]I do think pushing the party line, if I say you got paid to push the party line, I mean I'm paying you to push some specific points that I'm giving you, right? And that's what this article implies, right? But I I think that hyperbole in the title to me is resolved by the article, the material of the article itself, right? That ambiguity is resolved in the article, and you learn what they're being paid for and what the restrictions are.

[00:33:49]>> I don't know about that. I mean, if that were the case, why would so many people come away from this article implying that like the DNC is paying people to tow the party line and that they can't deviate from the talking points or they'll get kicked out, which is not what the article says, right? If that were the case, which is not true, these people, >> let's be real, if they were de if they were deviating between, you know, step one and two or cohort one and two, let's say some people got into both cohorts, if they were deviating significantly from between cohort one and two, let's say they were becoming more Republican, more libertarian, arguing against a lot of d policies, they obviously wouldn't be getting paid anymore, right?

[00:34:18]>> Um, what about Taylor Ren and her relationship with a midiar? What if she started writing in favor of a whole bunch of tech censorship? would she lose? I don't know if she's like getting paid by them more anymore, but like these are like this is a problem. I just don't like that people are selectively only looking at I guess whoever their political enemies are when they go to criticize it. I mean, yeah, if they were >> like you would just filter them out, right?

[00:34:41]>> Sure. But again, pushing the party line is very different from you have the exact opposite goals of the party, which are I think a big stretch apart. And so if you're like, "Hey, I have this thing.

[00:34:50]It's created by Democrats and we're pushing, you know, the big the tent like what's in the tent forward and this person's like I'm a neo-Nazi and it's like whoa, he's not pushing the party line like that's kind of a leap, right?

[00:34:59]>> You're getting a lot more hyperbolic than I am, right?

[00:35:00]>> Well, I was using that to illustrate the point just deviating isn't enough and it's clear to me that there's a wide stretch of ideas here. Now, some people ran away and said, "Hey, if anyone was like criticizing Israel, you can't, you know, be part of this program anymore."

[00:35:10]I have yet to see that substantiated. I think that would be No, people were saying it. Taylor doesn't say it in the article, but people coming across from away from this article.

[00:35:17]>> But Taylor didn't even say that in her response after the fact. That's other left. You can call him. I I DM SW earlier. If he wanted to chat, we could.

[00:35:23]I don't know what he's doing though.

[00:35:24]>> The people making it up. So if other people take literally zero information.

[00:35:27]>> Wait, what about the said primarily these creators, you know, were these like pro-Israel creators? Is this not the implication that they weren't allowed to deviate on?

[00:35:35]>> Did she just say pro-Israel?

[00:35:37]>> Uh, let me read what it says. I'll bring it up again.

[00:35:40]>> Yeah, I can read it to you, too, if you want.

[00:35:41]>> Oh, if you have it up, sure.

[00:35:43]>> Yeah, I can confirm that before you read it. If that's the case, you don't don't got me question. Just say like if you know I'm not trying to cut you not spoken out about Palestine as in as in silence on this is one of the things that she noticed as an attribute.

[00:35:56]>> Do you think that's inaccurate in like a lot of your own friends not really cover >> your own wait who else is the is are all the live and learn guys Zionist dick sucks now? Has hutch has hutch made a position about the genocide? That little [ __ ] piece of [ __ ] I bet he's pro-Zionist. I bet he's a pro-Israeli dick suck.

[00:36:18]He's a zo boy.

[00:36:22]>> Sorry. No problem.

[00:36:23]>> All right. Okay. I have it up. Ask your question.

[00:36:26]>> So, it was or they have not spoken out about Palestine. They don't talk about Gaza. Now, given the reporting on David Pacman, BTC, a couple of these people meeting up and basically agreeing that it's probably not a good thing. It's not a good thing. You can't really build unity on Palestine, right?

[00:36:38]>> You know, I think that's vaguely accurate that probably most of the people they're looking for are people who focus on domestic issues.

[00:36:44]>> I I I can't say for sure if this is vaguely accurate. I haven't done an assessment of like >> focus on domestic issues is a lot different than censoring people or cutting them out based on their position on on Israel Palestine. And it's also a lot different looking for members with a certain opinion is I think significantly different than telling their current members to change their opinions or censor their opinions as well. Those are these are all really different things but whatever I guess >> all the creators like what I'm saying is inaccurate for people to walk away made that value judgment. Do you think that would not be something like, hey, we want to focus on domestic issues. We we'll have a couple, but probably we're just going to want people who are pretty close to our beliefs. That doesn't that's not nefarious. And to me, that seems pretty logically true, >> but there's a lot of adjectives here that I think are like being construed in different ways, right? Pretty close to our beliefs. What does that mean? If the implication of that people were walking away from this and especially here who says not spoken out about Palestine and are pro-Israel, it's like the implication being if you spoke out about Palestine or even slightly not pro-Israel that you would be kicked out of this program and that's how some people read it and ran away with it, right? And so that's not implied by that tweet at all.

[00:37:44]>> The 90 influencers involved appear to be primarily sensious proteins who have not spoken out about Palestine pro Israel.

[00:37:48]And the implication being that combining this with the party well you just said if they're you know they have to be closely pretty closely aligned, right?

[00:37:54]This to me reads that way like oh yeah and if they're not closely aligned on these things they're going to get kicked out. Whereas the reason I used the hyperbolic neo-Nazi example was like kicked out. Where's the implication of kicked out?

[00:38:05]>> Kicked out or or not given the money or what? Like not being part of the party.

[00:38:07]Not invited to the party. Not not included. Right. Sure. Yeah, like a higher chance of not being picked. Do you feel like that's inaccurate? Do do you I'm not asking you for proof. I'm saying gut feeling. Do you think that's inaccurate?

[00:38:18]>> Um well, it's not substantially in the article. That's for sure. And if you're asking >> ask I literally I asked I don't need proof. I'm asking for your gut feeling.

[00:38:23]>> My gut feeling on like do I think that people who were like super uh you know genocide Joey people probably weren't included. Yeah, maybe. Like in the same way this article >> Well, no. The reason I'm saying it that way is because Well, listen cuz like when she said >> they're looking for people who line, right? to to a significant degree but not like oh they have to be so pretty close that like if they deviate even slightly and the reason I say that is the way the article portrays it right when they say uh in the same example who's not invited into the white house correspondence or the the white house press briefings and it's like people who were lightly critical the implication being one that DN >> this is also like heavily implied throughout the article now obviously just and Taylor have somehow found a way to handwave the subtitle of this all these influencers have to do is influencers have to do is keep it secret and agree agree to restrictions on their content. That's a lot different. That's a much stronger statement than saying they just found people who already agreed with them. That's implying they're changing their content to maintain their relationship with Chorus.

[00:39:21]Among other issues, it it mandated ext.

[00:39:43]Among other issues, it mandated extensive secrecy about disclosing their payments and had restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could produce.

[00:39:51]restrictions on political content. The implication here is that they're being told what they can or cannot say.

[00:40:04]You're aligning them with the Democrats.

[00:40:06]Here we say President Joe Biden's White House snubbed several prominent content creators because they likely criticized the administration.

[00:40:17]I'm just going to roll it in content here.

[00:40:48]I was just content creator. But I would say that like um this the article definitely makes it sound like I mean it says restrictions on content. So whatever this argument is is like well maybe they're just choosing people that already align with them.

[00:41:01]That's not that's not what the article said. Can't handle any criticism.

[00:41:05]Basically light criticism is enough to pick up kicked out which to be fair in 2024 they definitely were pretty dodgy with some criticisms. They didn't go on things that were going to be like even a little looking bad. But the implication being there that like even just a slight deviation in the same way with chorus is going to get you out of this tent and you're not in. And some of the people referenced in the article about like who's getting kicked out are people that were way more than lightly critically kicked out. And I I just want the verb kicked out.

[00:41:28]>> I I'm going to stop using that. That might be incorrect. What I'm saying is not included, right? Like not included in these programs or not included and invited to these White House things, right? These people were not like, "Oh, like I don't like Joe Biden's this policy." It's like, you know, pretty hard-hitting like criticisms if not like more heavy criticisms. And I think it's completely reasonable, by the way, if you're like so far beyond criticizing of of >> I actually think it's totally reasonable to make a group like this.

[00:41:50]>> Okay.

[00:41:53]>> Okay.

[00:41:54]>> So, right there she says they haven't spoken about Israel and she thinks her personal bias is that's bad, but she left that out of the article. She just said descriptively what it was. Why if the DNC didn't want to really talk about Israel in 2024, why is it even weird for her to to like point that out?

[00:42:09]It's I don't know if this it's not autism. I'm sorry. It's definitely not autism because it's the the selection is like intentional here. It's like saying the um it's like when the car Caroline Levit every day I don't know if she still does this. When she would come out for the White House press briefing and she would just read off like five illegal immigrants that have been arrested for crimes and it's like she didn't say whether or not it's all illegals or they didn't say normatively if like people are good or bad. She's just like reading crimes. She's not even giving her opinion on like illegal immigrants in general or whatever she does. But it's like it would be such a nonsense statement. Like the editorial selections you make are just as important or sometimes even more important than the facts that you're including. And to pretend like we can't analyze that or question that is just such a it's like such an obvious like it demands a low IQ reading for this >> that that's just descriptively the case >> because now you're taking her article which is already implying things that might not necessarily be true that you say well but does it vibe that it might be true which it did clearly that's why all these people came out with these criticisms that were unstantiated right and now she is adding that fuel to that fire by saying here is the specific type of policy I'm talking Oh man, I sorry I came up with this literally this isn't written down so this is me on the fly so I'm not going to have this crystallized but to me I think the idea that it's nefarious or bad to pay people to push your party messaging is just not true. What's nefarious there is having the restrictions like the restrictions that prevent you from disclosing it. That's nefarious to me. content restrictions as well and the restrictions on disclosure were never proven in the article and seemed to be false because people have disclosed before and after the article and they rejected that it was ever preventable or that they were ever restricted from disclosing disclosing but for some reason we're just supposed to believe Taylor the Rens on that I don't know >> what part DNC thing that is going to push DNC messaging that doesn't seem bad to me and I'm not sure that that's there and bad in the article I think the other practices are what make it bad and make it nefarious >> so it's it's not bad to push the party line but it is first of all I I believe you when you say that. However, >> do you think Taylor or the people that like I'm describing when I say the bias, do you think they think the party line is good?

[00:44:08]>> Yes. Yeah. No, bad. Yeah, obviously they think it's bad. That's what I that Sorry, I said that leading in that obviously her bias her her bias is that it's bad that they do this, right? But I don't think that's revealed in the article. I think the article is descriptively true >> and I think the article lays out some other things that are nefarious regardless.

[00:44:23]>> I don't know how many times I can explain this, but like descriptively true. You can lay out a set of descriptively true facts. That doesn't mean that the overall narrative or consensus or like in reading a thing that you're coming away with a true impression of the world. I It's just such a stupid way to present things.

[00:44:37]>> Whether or not calling a genocide a genocide is really critical to the DNC.

[00:44:41]>> Okay. I I think it's both here. I think that yes, like for example, when Taylor comes out and says, "I'm really worried about the disclosure here." She's not lying. Okay. When she says, "This is the crux of my article." I think that is very misleading. But this is both, right? I think she has this bias. She's coming in and she's saying, "Yeah, the party line is bad. Centrist stems are bad. I don't think they do good things.

[00:44:58]And she'll always play cover and say, "Well, Trump is worse." And I do think she believes that. But that's not to say that she doesn't hate what most Democratic policies are. And to be clear, like I'm a progressive. I get really [ __ ] upset with these people.

[00:45:06]But the idea that this is completely detached from her criticism of towing the party line, if this was a disclosure thing about a progressive org that did progressive, you know, uh, disseminating information, I don't even know if this article would have been written. Do you agree with that?

[00:45:20]>> Um, no. I don't necessarily agree with that. I do think she has a problem with uh, dark money. She's got a problem with not disclosing, right? But I don't know if she would have written >> I do think she would write that article.

[00:45:27]Yes, I absolutely >> it's it's unprovable thing. I I disagree, but yeah, I can't prove it.

[00:45:31]So, it doesn't matter. Um, sorry, you were making a segue there that I interrupted.

[00:45:37]>> Well, I don't even know what the segue was. Now, I'm actually thinking like I'm looking at this like she literally says Republicans have been have been like working on stuff like this. Republic I believe she's she's hinted at stuff.

[00:45:46]Does she not message or does she not mention tenant in here? She talks about Republicans doing it as well how Republicans have a lot of like a flood of money in there. Honest to God, do not get the impression from the article that she is saying it's just evil to do this to to give this money to Democrats.

[00:46:00]>> Um, evil to do this to give this many Democrats. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that framing either.

[00:46:05]>> Um, but again, when she's bringing up 10, does she bring up 10 in this article? I don't know if I'm opening the wrong one. Oh, no, here it is. I have it over here. Um, yeah, she does.

[00:46:12]>> She's highlighting the difference in how DNC people want to go top down and tenant media and stuff is going bottom up or like Sorry, RNC is going bottom up. Do >> I think what Tenant did is evil. Do you >> um Why is it evil? I I would agree.

[00:46:27]>> Oh my god. I feel like you should don't let people do this question with the question [ __ ] especially not when they know they're bad faith actors. It's so cr Oh my god, it's so cringe when I feel people doing this. Vos used to do this in arguments. I used to do this a long long time ago where like if you don't have a point or if you've lost on a point, you just try to like endlessly needle the opponent's argument. Like um like I think OJ murdered uh that white girl. Is it Anna Nicole Simpson? I don't [ __ ] And you're like, "Oh, you think he murdered him or her?" Yeah. How do you think he did it? I think he stabbed her. Oh, you think he stabbed her? Like stabbed or slit or cut? And it's like, um, well, I don't know. Did you do you think did do you think that she murdered her? Well, do you think that he stabbed her or cut her? And it's like, I don't know. I guess cut. Well, really, because when you and it's like it's like this endlessly like you're trying to needle the argument into some really obscure territory where you can try to like beat them up on some like hyperbetic point that's not really relevant to the central argument. It's just like oh god it's so [ __ ] annoying when you when you feel somebody doing this gh >> um why is it evil? I I would say a foreign government owned organization to pay people to have specific types of content. Right.

[00:47:40]>> Wait, that's not true.

[00:47:41]>> Right. No, it's not.

[00:47:42]>> Oh.

[00:47:43]>> Oh, that's right. Excuse me. Um, they already knew that they were going to make content that would agree with them.

[00:47:47]Right. Sorry. Excuse me. They didn't say like you have to make this video.

[00:47:48]Although, I think there were some discussions of that through tenant. It wasn't primarily >> Do you see how that just what you just said there maps completely on to the idea of filtering only hiring people who want to say what you want? If you want to talk about manufacturing consent, sure. But the difference here is that one of these is these people are literally >> tenant was undisclosed and was literally committing wire fraud to to stealthily funnel money around to other content creators in an obscured manner, but and they were doing some content direction, but >> spouting [ __ ] Russian propaganda. And we also have to have discussions about like, yeah, let's align on like what the Russian propaganda framing of this like Ukrainian parade attack is. like that's not technically paying them to have that, but that's a big difference from here's a place where we can disseminate Democrat talking points and you can go against the Democratic party and we're not going to cut your funding there. Or maybe they will not invite people who are like super uber critical of the Democratic party, but like there's clearly a big enough spectrum of people here that it's not just like the same four shills from a different, right?

[00:48:42]>> Hold on. But do you think if I found one of those tenant media creators who said something negative about Russia or one of the Russia's interests and they didn't get cut off from that program, do you think that would prove that they weren't being pushed or they weren't being told to push Russian propaganda?

[00:48:53]>> No, but it would definitely hurt the criticism for sure. For example, >> would it hurt it that much? Be honest.

[00:48:57]Would it hurt it that much?

[00:48:58]>> It depends on how much it was, right?

[00:48:59]Like if you go back and it's like, oh, every other video tinpool is like Putin's evil, right? I would say actually >> two out of nine people break on Palestine. Like basically it would be one creator made like one or two videos breaking away on Russia. It would not affect the criticism 1%. Be serious.

[00:49:14]>> No, I seriously think it would serious.

[00:49:15]No, but listen listen. If the the criticism of the tenant media thing is these people are getting money from a foreign government to push the country line, right? This is the same accusation as in the article, right? And if you're looking at this and saying, "Well, hold on." Like a good chunk of these people are not even pushing the party line or the country line or whatever.

[00:49:29]>> Why doesn't he feel comfortable showing his actual face on camp? Because once these guys are done with like this weirdo obsessive um like online long-term harassment campaigns, they want to be able to just walk away from all of it and not have it follow them or affect any part of their life. They want to be able to engage in infinite levels of like injury, harm, abuse, stalking, whatever on other people. And they don't want it to be tied to their real life stuff at all.

[00:49:47]They want to be able to walk away completely clean when they're done with it. What the [ __ ] are you talking about?

[00:49:52]Like that would undermine it. And then you would have to substantiate this with more intention.

[00:49:54]>> I didn't say a good number. It's So I'm doing the is real thing. It's like five out of 90 people, right? Two out of 90.

[00:49:59]>> Two. Yeah. So two people came out and they were like pro Palestine and they talked about the genocide. Right.

[00:50:04]>> Sure.

[00:50:04]>> And so significantly that the resources they're using are very likely still going almost entirely to pushing their thing. If I had one or two examples they had for for chorus >> the accusation is that the accusation is if you deviate from this allegation that the DNC is pushing their own messaging through hiring people who align with them.

[00:50:21]>> Right. But if you're saying that in this article as this article is like implying that like these deviations would get you not invited or these deviations were all controlled these people were controlled.

[00:50:28]Right? this is the implication coming away from it and these people clearly aren't the argumentation.

[00:50:33]>> I don't I don't think that's implied by the article. It says they have >> when you say you have to funnel all of your content >> yeah restrictions on content rights on content funneling stuff through the newsroom. Right? Like the idea is that there's this top down like sort of like apparatus that's making these people do stay within the bounds of what Korus deems acceptable. Right now obviously what core seems acceptable you could say well they say you know the neonazi or whatever like steps outside of those bounds. That's clearly not acceptable.

[00:50:56]They're not inviting these people. But what I'm saying, the implication of this article is it's the party line. That's the only thing that's acceptable. And so if you have people, even if it's one, just one person who's not, you know, pushing the party line on any of these things, it's like, okay, this undermines it to an extent because either they're not doing that or they are, but they're keeping a couple people to throw a bone just to like play defense, right? And then the accusation has to shift to, okay, how many of these people are they throwing in there to hide the fact that they're doing that? And then that's a completely different thing. You have to substantiate.

[00:51:20]>> No, I don't think it's No, I don't think it's like that. But I think basically so long as you're like you're always going to have some pet issues where you deviate and so long as it's like 90% effective, you're fine anyway. It's it's okay. Again, that's a different argument, right? Like that's saying like, okay, they are paid to pay the total party line and they're going to throw a bone to some of these people.

[00:51:36]People did this to uh the progressive victory, right? I don't know if you heard about this, but um they put Dylan Burns on and it's like, look, this thing's full of tankies. They would they don't give a [ __ ] about Ukraine. They just want to [ __ ] on Palestine.

[00:51:44]>> Just to be clear, there's only one group of really deranged people who are saying things like that. You push back against that basically immediately, did you not?

[00:51:50]that like it wasn't just tankies.

[00:51:52]>> Yep.

[00:51:52]>> There might be some communists in there.

[00:51:54]I don't doubt that. But it's different from a tanky.

[00:51:56]>> Sure. No, I'm saying these were the accusations. I'm not agreeing with these accusations. Right. And so these accusations are coming out and I'm like, "Well, hold on. How can you say that they're, you know, this ideologically captured tanky or when this is happening? They have Dylan Burns on to talk about Ukraine and they're like, "Oh, that was just to throw Ukraine bone. That was just to hide this." And now I think that's fairly clear. I mean, unless they're just keep throwing bones.

[00:52:13]I mean, like this organization has now come out and be like, "Hey, like we're going to work with track Ukraine. We're going to like, you know, change to make sure we don't have that perception. um this is going to undermine those accusations and whether or not they're playing that for defense, you have to now prove that. But right now, they're putting their money where their mouth is. So, if you're going to make the accusation that they're towing the party line, they're telling these creators to tow the party line, they're keeping them within these con confines, they're not inviting people who will step outside.

[00:52:32]And then there's people that do step outside, then it seems that either this isn't true or you now have to prove that they're doing this as cover, right?

[00:52:38]Yeah. I think you just really disingenuously framed the progressive victory thing and Dylan Burns and Senator Dylan Burns and taking a pledge that people are going to commit to Ukraine. That is way way way way way beyond having two of your creators occasionally making a Tik Tok about Palestine. But it's fine. I don't I I'm okay on that.

[00:52:52]>> Okay, I'm bored. This is I I can't listen to these people. It's really hard. is so [ __ ] [ __ ]