Milo Yiannopoulos vs Destiny - Official Debate Footage

sticks and stones may break my bones but words can actually hurt me our first panelists stephen bonnell or as many people may know him online as destiny destiny's a popular twitch streamer and a youtuber [Applause] our next panelist milo yiannopoulos is an award-winning journalist a new york times selling best author a comedian an accomplished entrepreneur and to the annoyance of many of his enemies an exceedingly happy person he's one of the most sought after speakers anywhere invited by foreign governments wealthy individuals and even the occasional private company to share his unique blend of laughter and war his book dangerous sold over 200 000 copies despite never being reviewed in any major publication i'm sorry i was very rude to him earlier because he said hello to me in the hotel lobby and i didn't realize i said hello to him and he just walked right away no no i didn't i now i just saw him i was like oh [ __ ] um no i just i didn't realize because he was very polite and so does it hold mine i was like and then i just went back to my business you have different hair on the internet i'm sorry i i apologize i apologize i was very rude to you at the hotel it's it's okay i'm just the intro guy it's so it's all good it's all good i know but you've got this aura of authority and you've got these suspenders they they these suspenders they command explanations fair enough and our moderator brandon strzok he's the founder of the walk away campaign is a former liberal and former democratic party supporter who has very publicly walked away from the political left and created a social movement encouraging others to do the same brandon frequently provides commentary on fox news as a reoccurring guest on justice with jen in pereiro fox and friends tucker carlson laura ingram and many other television media outlets [Applause] no i don't like them shady [ __ ] no no no no no you know you know you know i i'm not indifferent to you but um the the social distancing is wonderful because it's how i wish everybody was all the time because i can't stand anyone but the masks are a nightmare but social distancing is fabulous i never wanted to go away good evening everybody how are you all doing [Music] all right hi uh my name is brandon strzok the name of our panel this evening is six and stones may break my bones but can words actually hurt me you know i was actually known for a brief time in 2018 as the poor man's milo yiannopoulos so it's really a pleasure to be seeing no that was chadwick moore you were the poor man smiling offers in 2019. it was still preferable it was still preferable to the alternative which was gay candace owens i actually prefer this [Laughter] all right so guys i want to start off tonight uh by kind of just asking you to define for for me and for the audience in your own terms uh just very simple uh question i'm gonna start with no i'm gonna start with milo uh milo define hate speech and before you answer the reason why i'm asking this question which is very basic is that you are actually a very interesting character i feel like i did a little research on you and it's hard to actually pin down you're not a typical do you consider yourself a liberal yeah i would say so okay but you don't have particularly liberal views on speech free speech hate speech it depends we'll get into it we'll get into it okay great so milo uh can you define hate speech no because nobody can okay fair enough love it destiny same question so hate speech we can look at it at three different levels basically right we've got legal definitions we've got corporation definitions and then we've got kind of our own personal moral ethical definitions it really depends on the type of conversation we want to have like on the legal level um well in america i don't believe there's any definition for him on the legal level on the corporation level usually hateful conduct is conduct that discriminates against like age ethnicity religion whatever twitter's facebook tos says and then on our own personal level um it means a lot of different things to a lot of different people i guess so for the purpose of tonight's uh conversation i think we're gonna focus mostly on things like social justice cancel culture social media uh how hate speech would apply to these kind of things and so i didn't expect your definitions to be that brief so we'll get right into the next segment which is can we compare emotional pain with physical pain and so to say to to get this kicked off psychologists from frederick schiller university in germany had 16 subjects read pain related words while imagining situations that corresponded to each word during the experiments participants had their brains scanned with functional magnetic resonance imaging and the the result was that dr thomas weiss told live science there was an activation in the pain matrix of the brain to subjects who heard pain words so if we accept that there are reactions in the brain resulting from harmful words that are very similar to those when people feel physical pain should we separate the two milo is emotional pain synonymous or or worthy of discussion in regards to physical pain when it comes to the being hurt by words quite clearly there are physical reactions observable from words and it shouldn't surprise us uh that shouldn't surprise anyone to hear me say obviously words can be dangerous words can be impactful words can change the world after all their proxies for ideas uh which is about what we have the question is is can utterances can something you say out loud affect material reality in a way that turns them into something a bit like magical spells can something that i say have a physical effect on you in a way that seems to reflect in a sense i guess i mean the closest thing i can think of prior to this debate popping up the last 10 years is transubstantiation and indeed we're having this debate in the way that we're having it because our understanding of words and action is based in the incarnation this is the the linguistic and cultural basis of everything we're talking about is the word made flesh this is central catholic doctrine transubstantiation can words become things can words affect things well it seems to me that it's quite obvious that they can you can produce particular reactions in people's brains synapses chemicals and whatnot with words they hear the two questions i suppose are if we agree that magical spells are exist one do they operate independently of whether the subject knows what they're hearing so if i if i can i ivara cadabra you and even if you don't know that spell can you still be killed by it and the second thing is if we if we are going to allow that these magical spells exist where in our model do we allow for the soul we've got the body we've got the mind we have our studies and he knows lots of these and has talked about them online a lot and he's right about most of what he says it can have a direct effect but descartes i think has misled us a little bit and we're missing in this question the soul and it's the soul that mediates the two it is the soul that has the power to say that hurt me but i'm not going to let it ruin my life and it seems from the studies that that i can i can tell uh it seems as far as i can tell from the studies rather that although children's brain chemistry the white matter can be changed by really heavily properly abusive language in the early years it seems to be that people develop a kind of resilience and unfortunately what a lot of these studies seem to be doing is presenting the case for bullying which i support because because the purpose of the soul in this uh in this tripartite dynamic is the mediating layer between the two this is if words create a direct you know a chemical reaction and then we have a moment where we can decide then we have agency then we have individual responsibility it's at that point we can decide is this going to be what and who i am from now on is this going to destroy my life am i going to get offended and so on the understanding of all that can words create physical reactions absolutely but are words violence in the way that a physical act is i don't think so because if i punch you it hurts whether you see it happen whether you're even aware of it happening or not but verbal abuse if you like doesn't function like that there's something a bit more complicated going on and it requires our participation and our participation determines almost entirely what happens at the end of it i need to turn to destiny with the same question but i one could certainly i was done one could certainly argue that although the effects are different the results of emotional pain can be much longer lasting and much more scarring than the temporary physical pain that somebody experiences from being punched but i want to ask you sir the very same question uh if we know or if science is suggesting that the brain can react in a way to uh emotional pain or or the the feelings from words in a way that is similar to experiencing physical pain is this something that we should be looking at and saying that we should be treating the two as equal i mean we have different words for them for different reasons they're both clearly very different things um i would agree with most of what milo said obviously verbal words can lead to some impact and i would actually disagree with the idea that we have to recognize um or that we have to participate in understanding those words uh for instance we just listened to a panel for an hour and a half where somebody me tooing you or calling you racist or sexist or homophobic might have a big impact on your job much the same way that breaking somebody's leg or slashing somebody's tire or something like that could in terms of you know should they be seen as the same obviously they're quite different but they could have different impacts so i think it's important when we have a discussion on like can words hurt you um what level we're having the discussion at you know in a very obvious way somebody can't say something to me that's gonna break my arm but somebody could say something to the people around me that would inhibit my ability to work do i call you stephen or destiny stephen please okay i'm sorry perhaps you all have such funny names i i had a conversation online with the mr g sorry about that like a week ago it was do you remember miss his name is jingles and now destiny um it's over it's all very i'm thank you for seeing to be fair my even my video game name is destiny your real life last name is yiannopoulos which is pretty funny right it's it's worse than you think because i grew up with my mom's surname i actually changed it to my dad's saying i chose to be innopolis it's even worse than you imagined so milo you began to transition to the next topic which is uh do words lead to violence and not so long ago decriers of hate speech would often point to the connection between hateful speech leading to physical harm citing that hate speech incites violence now the the more recent narrative seems to be that words are violence so when words are violence what should qualify as an incitement to violence stephen um that it's a it's such a i hate this because i'm gonna say that's the start of a lot of answers a very complicated question uh you know like when we say our words violence the first question is what kind of violence are we talking about are we talking about somebody getting fired from their job because somebody tweets that they are either an abuser or somebody that's racist some people would argue that's a type of violence are we talking about the type of violence where if you tweet something at somebody they're you know driven to commit suicide you know that's the type of violence are we talking about just saying mean things to people on the internet without even really knowing who they are you know some people argue well that might be a type of violence um so i think the question can i stop you for a second because i really want to examine the second one that you just said if somebody said something to someone on social media that drove them to commit suicide you would you consider that an act of violence on behalf of the person who made the comment so in a way yes i think what's important to understand when we talk about our words violence just because i acknowledge that something could be violent or offensive doesn't mean that i necessarily think that that thing shouldn't exist there's a lot of things we can say that are can be taken in an incredibly offensive manner there are lots of things that we could say that down the road could lead to some sort of violent action i think it's important that if we acknowledge that free speech is important which i think it is unlike the lawyer that was up here earlier i like you uh the u.s free speech laws way more than the uk ones i don't think you should be thrown in jail for teaching your you know dog how to do a nazi salute but if we are going to acknowledge that freedom of speech is really important which i think it is we need to understand the downsides to that as well so that we can you know address them and deal with them properly and society when they come up well when we hear i think nowadays when we hear things like words or violence i feel like it's most commonly used in the context of pronouns uh discussions on race you know i have some of these questions coming up later but i mean while we're here right now in your opinion is misgendering somebody violence so these words are usually a proxy for other activities and that's what nobody realizes you know like i don't think anybody actually cares if you misgender them one time accidentally you know people walk around asking acting like if you accidentally misgender someone on the street they're gonna call the sjw police from canada over you know the c16 division is gonna throw you in you know some canadian moose jail or something i think the problem is that usually that type of aggressive behavior goes along with other things too you know like hey um i don't like you because of who you are i'm not gonna give you any good jobs i'm not gonna give you any good promotions i'm gonna pay you less i'm gonna treat you like [ __ ] i think that these things tend to go hand in hand with each other i think that saying words of violence is a little bit simplistic but i also think it's a little bit silly to say oh well they're only words well usually these words are paired along with other types of actions everybody on this stage knows it that people that say certain things act in certain ways as well i think it's important to recognize that milo is misgendering somebody violence uh no of course not it's absurd to say that it is and i think we have to dilute the definition of violence down to the point where it means the same thing as hate speech now means which is you know there are as many different definitions of it as there are you know citizens of the united states it's just stupid it becomes we get to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore um and and quite clearly these videos of people losing their mind you know it's ma'am are very much the um on the whole they're the exception and not the rule there does seem to be a particular problem with transgender people being a little um quick to temper let's say uh maybe it's part and parcel of a package of various dysfunctions that they have but on the whole people getting very very upset about these things they're not actually getting upset they're making a conscious decision to be offended and that's quite clearly not in response to a violent action that is taking a political position and very often a lot of this stuff is important to bear in mind is not really about whether or not you hurt me or not a lot of the stuff that's going on in america at the moment specifically with race but also with a lot of these other categories of people and the various linguistic demands they're making on you is jockeying for status now where i come from in britain you listen to someone talk who sounds like me and you would make very quick and very obvious and mostly correct assessments of where i come from in society you'd be able to figure out what kind of house i grew up in you'd be able to tell what sort of school i went to you'd know the kinds of books i read and you'd know what my friends look like but in america things are very different those categories are much muddier and that's because largely the class system has been replaced with mercantilism and money capitalism is the only class system in this country um really and the only the dynasties you have here are financial dynasties not not really when it comes down to it uh ethnic or even educational ones so what we're really seeing uh it seems to me with race and with you know with women uh with a lot of different racial racial groups uh and even now with uh transgender people is jockeying for social status because even though america doesn't have clearly delineated class categories everyone is very acutely aware of where they sit in the hierarchy and very sensitive to slights and there's a lot a lot of what goes on in american public life is is dishonest and in his conversation at one level removed from what's really happening what's really happening is people are working out what the pecking order is and in american society we are currently in a situation where nobody actually really knows we've got this very um febrile environment in which black people are still trying to achieve um socioeconomic equality with whites although they have largely achieved cultural equality where women don't know where the hell they are because they're told completely different things by everybody so nobody really knows where they are in the hierarchy most of what we're talking about i i see sociologically as jockeying for status and i i also i think that this this this idea that you know getting down this rabbit hole of language being violent and people inflicting damage on one another with misgendering this is a very secondary issue to what's actually going on which is really much more to do with class can i ask a question yes i feel like in some ways i agree but i guess it depends what you mean when you say jockeying for status does that include like gay people that want to get married does that include women that want the right to have uh medical procedures on their body without the government intervening uh does that include trans people that might want to serve in the military does that include black people issue with being arrested for cool rights are doing right we call these social things but they're all status questions they're all questions about which groups have access to which which kinds of civil rights those are status questions that's a far different uh connotation because when you say status it sounds like you're saying like who's going to show up first in my twitter feed not who's going to be arrested for which crime or who's going to have you know which civil liberties available to them in society well they're all very closely linked and we can see weird dysfunctional uh hierarchies of these different groups on uh particular social networks that don't look like the real world at all the social hierarchy for instance the status hierarchy on twitter is almost a direct inversion of many status hierarchies in the real world so i i think they're all very closely related and i think we're kind of talking about the same thing i i would completely disagree i think that the reality of online social media is entirely unlinked from the realities the political realities that we face you can read study after study of how online twitter is way whiter more college educated more likely to be male different online environments are more likely to be overrepresented by different people for instance the people that use tumblr are far different than the people that use facebook which are far different than the people that use twitter um the idea that the the rights that people fight for on twitter which is usually you know my favorite pundit got banned for seven days for tweeting something stupid um i think that those conversations are a lot different and i would even say a lot less serious than um as a woman do i have a right to get an abortion without being obstructed by some weird state statute that says i have to see a picture of a of a baby floating in my womb for six days first i think we can agree that there is a difference in seriousness i think maybe what i was saying is that we're i'm not i'm analyzing all of this stuff through the same lens and and what we're talking about specifically there conforms to that lens which i see to be the key to unlocking american society but of course i obviously agree with you that in inequal racial inequalities in the criminal justice system and uh access to abortion uh far more serious and pressing issues than the linguistic games that we seem to be so worried about but i i i find something that milo said to be interesting and i want to get your reaction to it when he's talking about the inversion on social media uh of certain uh statuses i think what is your opinion about that it sounded like you disagreed at first no i mean i think you agree with him because he went through these social networks where they said they are all completely different but was your point essentially that maybe racial minorities or maybe uh lgbt people actually have more privilege on social media than perhaps i don't think i don't think they exercise it because they're often not present there but that doesn't mean that the people who are present there don't create hierarchies that privilege them so twitter is white and college educated but it is a place of social justice where people of color disabled people trans people the rest of it are privileged above others in all kinds of practical obvious ways uh so it just just because you know black people don't see the point of twitter and aren't on it doesn't mean that the privilege hierarchy there doesn't favor them and that's you know something you could even go a step farther with that you know if i go on twitter and i say i hate black people we need to get rid of all black people i'd obviously be in big trouble for it uh not that i can't get in more trouble on white twitter than you would for saying it you know in in in brixton or in camden new jersey sure but on the flip side you can get a ton of people that go on and say we need the mayo side you know kill all white people hashtag or whatever and they don't seem to get in trouble for it so there does seem to be some level of inversion there but again i would like to stress that the conversations that happen on twitter are so far removed from the political realities that like working class or middle class people live in that i think make it a separate conversation we would agree on more of those than you probably know probably yeah one thing that i do think that milo said that is incredibly true and maybe braver than he thinks that the last panel came so close to understanding is that a lot of this stuff when we talk about like sgw's and wokism does actually come down to class issues um if you're ever curious why a corporation favors a certain policy it's not usually because they're trying to maximize their wokeness or they want to be as diverse as possible it's usually because they're trying to make as much money as possible and generally being woke and you know being more inclusive to different types of people is usually the safest way to make a lot of money right and this and the stupid party the republican party does not seem to understand this about corporate america which is why it can't fight it because it does not realize that the the incentives and imperatives of big business may be completely different from those in the academy but that does not mean that they won't use the same strategies to achieve them because those are the prestige uh mass-market cultural values at the present time and that's what graduates expect to are coming out of these awful uh universities um so i agree again 100 and i agree as well that's why republicans are very free market open market no government intervention which is stupid but as soon as we start talking about social media platforms well now we sound like venezuela trying to nationalize our our social media platform i'm all for nationalizing twitter my problem is with the my problem is no no no no look you two are becoming better i'm more financing through my prop my problem is with the hands-off reading tooth and claw no borders um uh uh rampant free marketeers which clearly doesn't work i came to america like almost ever almost every other i was i suppose i've always been characterized as quote unquote far right i came to america wide-eyed and amazed by this fabulous wonderland where the free market solves everything it [ __ ] doesn't uh it hasn't uh and i have been very very quickly disillusioned by it by living here and by living here in this time in this place especially in the 80s it probably would have been different but right now um no i'm i'm i'm i'm heading in very much the other direction 100 the free market does solve for one thing and that's the maximization of profits not freedom of speech not freedom of expression just to make money that's all that's okay so maybe we're not as close as i thought it is also obviously the greatest engine of prosperity lifters lifted more people out of absolute poverty everywhere in the world 100 i agree i'm very much very capitalism is going to give me a marketplace ideas on twitter it's going to give me what the twitter share you know shareholders want to see right in the most money from the stupid party wants to see capitalism unfettered which we know leads to all kinds of absurdities abuses and ugliness um i have found myself returning to what is a more trumpian position for instance uh not only in terms of protectionism and you know national industries and all the rest of it but also that big companies need guard rails and sometimes they need to be broken up when a company has a complete and total monopoly on a certain type of speech especially a kind of speech i'm trying to bring it back for you uh as a certain type of speech without which people in particular professions especially very successful popular people in those particular professions cannot function without those tools there's a very powerful argument for regulation which is why twitter should either be nationalized or broken up or heavily regulated perfect thank you so on the topic of social media implications uh stephen in a live stream debate on free uh on freedom of speech in september of 2018 you took a position on free speech that you are in favor of aggressively d platforming those who engage in uh speech that is deliberate misinformation or gross misuse of information do you still hold those beliefs and why absolutely so when we talk about whether or not words are violent or whether or not words can directly translate into violence i do think that there are forms of speech that can be grossly negligent where you can draw a straight line from the damaging things that somebody says to the damaging effects that they have you know for the right we complain that liberal college professors do this all the time that they give a certain type of speech students walk out of those college classrooms and they're indoctrinated neo-marxist post-modern neoliberal whatever neo-progressive whatever new buzzword the conservatives are using those days um and then on the flip side you've got people like um you know i can point to donald trump you know he comes out and he says hey you know there's a medication hydroxychloroquine it's great and all of a sudden now the people that actually need this medication can't buy it anymore because everybody's buying it you know and that's just a piece of misinformation that once uttered causes like demonstrable harm in the real world and i do think there needs to be some some look at like that spread of misinformation because it's destroying our ability to have conversation online um i don't need to talk to milo about people having you know bad opinions or ideas of you that have absolutely zero foundation in reality just because people go on and just make up whatever lie you know gets them the most money views the most amount of hits and then the most amount of ad revenue right and i've been obviously been on the receiving end of that a lot uh i agree with you completely and actually something people don't often know they think that the supreme court definition of free speech is is uh circumscribed by a couple of limitations you know uh whether the speech is likely to cause imminent immediate physical violence or is likely to provoke it but there are other things too that the supreme court has said do not fall under um you know full first amendment protections corporate uh speech you know speech for commercial purposes but also copyrighted speech speech that someone else owns i mean if we had a system in in europe where you know you could more aggressively sue for that i could put turning point uh usa out of business tomorrow um you know for everything they do is is ripped directly from you know my 2015 college speeches we don't have that but there are also other things and i think it's more like a a sort of european model that you're you're suggesting which i kind of agree with and i think this is actually what trump wants too when trump was saying you know that we should punish journalists who print misinformation are my reading of what he said was perhaps i'm being generous but my understanding of what he meant was deliberate malicious untruths in other words malicious libel so we have laws for that in europe uh the uk has very tough laws if you print something about somebody in a newspaper you have to you you if you're responsible you you the editor will ask you can you prove in court this is true because otherwise we can't print it now maybe that goes a little bit too far maybe the bar is a little bit too high in britain and it does seem to be subject to abuse by the rich and powerful who find little you know clauses that aren't even particularly damaging take people to court win win whatever and and publications end up closing but i agree with you i'm sorry to say it's very disappointing for all of you um i've said a terrible night for you all i'm sorry what what a finale this is um i i have to agree with you that the the the the the ideal legal position has got to be somewhere between the free-for-all we have in america where people can cause uh purposeful commercial harm with malicious deliberate untruths which right now you can get away with if you're journalists in america say whatever the hell you want and the british model which is a little too draconian in which you can't publish anything unless you can prove it with documents in front of a judge somewhere in between those two is the right answer uk is wrong we are wrong but somewhere in the middle is the right answer but the question was about de-platforming the question was about de-platforming so i'm surprised to hear you saying that you agree so much and well i went further than platforming i don't i don't just want companies to do i want the law to step in i want the government to step in when somebody when when uh when a journalist publishes something they know is not true and that's a high bar to clear you know if you're the the sub if you are the subject of uh of of libel of defamation like that you have to prove they knew it was untrue or you have to prove to to a judge or a jury satisfaction that is highly likely that they knew it was untrue when they published it not easy to do you cannot do it here period even in britain quite a high bar to clear but i want to go further when somebody publishes something materially damaging to your commercial interest like for instance when the press says miley annopolis called leslie jones a monkey called her an ape never happened disgusting a lie horrible i was on cnn money the next day saying i didn't do it other people did it i'm not responsible for what they say you can say maybe i should tell my followers but i don't consider that's my responsibility when that's been on cnn money when cnn.com then says the following day milo nope is called leslie jones an ape and there's no tweets that say it i've denied it an interview they cannot produce the evidence that deserves a response and it deserves a legal response but this i feel like begs the obvious question who decides what is accurate information who decides what is truthful information that's what the judiciary is right that's what the judiciary is therefore well it depends on the platform as well so if we're talking about something posted on you know twitter well maybe that would be that platform's job to figure it out um if we're talking about things that rise to the level of legal things so say defamation or libel maybe that would be the um the job of a judge to figure out a court to figure out this idea that um people always act like this is like like a killer question like well how do we figure that out well i don't know how do we figure out what's inappropriate or obscene material to show children how do you feel how do you figure out if someone kills someone yeah like a supreme court for an inappropriate cemetery it's literally like i'll know it when i see it that's like a literal supreme court saying for how they figured out you know it's absolutely difficult to do the thing that irritates me about this conversation is that if you want to say that we should be free speech absolutist if you want to say that you know we should be able to get on and say whatever we want that's fine i think that's even a defensible position just don't sit here and pretend like it's going to be all perfect and it's going to the best ideas are going to rise to the top it's going to be yeah it's going to be disgusting just like capitalism just like when we took 100 just like when we took the guard rails off american capitalism look what happened lots of amazing things and let's be clear mostly amazing things but also some absolutely dreadful things that is going to happen with free speech absolutely i do think there is a difference with monopolistic companies occupy monopolistic positions so i would um ironically i would i would like to see a twitter that is required to to have working well-known journalists active on their platform and able to express themselves however they want the consequences for that expression should be in a court of law depending on what they say about other people but when when you cannot be a working journalist without twitter we got to do something about that when you cannot be a functioning media figure or internet personality without facebook and facebook i mean facebookers has called me a dangerous individual and their definition of dangerous individual includes people traffickers international terrorists and when they first drop this policy and they had to to roll this back within 24 hours uh two things were true about dangerous individuals the first one you couldn't mention them on facebook unless you said something bad about them so you could only mention me on facebook if it was to ridicule or criticize me so this is a step beyond you know free speech this is literally delving into your brain and saying this is what you're allowed to think about this person and this is how you're allowed to express those thoughts and even worse than that and this is directly put into our discussion as originally written and published and this was vetted by facebook's lawyers as one of the biggest companies one of the most powerful uh richest companies in the world multinational conglomerate whatever as originally written until they were forced to back down this dangerous individual's policy which has been leveraged um almost exclusively against conservative media figures who get too popular and successful facebook's policy said if you are one of the dangerous individuals we will permit death threats against you on our platform even immediate uh credible death threats this is the kind of death threat that the supreme court has said does not enjoy any first amendment protection and it is also by the way it should go without saying a crime these are death threats that are against the law that if you do them you will probably go to jail or you will at a bare minimum get in a lot of trouble this facebook said was specifically permitted in the case of these dangerous individuals which i am one laura loomer gavin mcguinness roger stone alex jones that's insane and that's the point of which the government should step in well while i i'm not entirely sure facebook allowed that because i know that i know a lot of people personally being on the left and sometimes more extreme friends that have gotten trouble for living death threats across these platforms other people well they went for 24 hours and they got bullied into removing that one so what's on there now is you're only allowed to mention certain people's names if in a negative context what they originally published the day they published it it said no death threats no credible death threats no immediate death threats no uh intentions expressions or glorifications of violence except in the case of dangerous individuals with an explicit entreaty dare i say it invitation to uh to smatter facebook with death threats about the people that it had uh designated to be dangerous individuals so that was rolled back very fast within a couple of days for for the people that listened to this and the the the concept of freedom of speech you know i was like oh my god this is so wrong just as a reminder this is facebook exercising their first amendment right um when you talk about free speech absolutism part of that is well if i'm an entity and i own a platform i could decide what goes on it that's my freedom of speech um if you oppose facebook's ability to limit or curtail what people post on their platform then you're actually obstructing their freedom of speech as a corporation or legal individual to do so which is something you have to understand this is why being a free speech absolutist may have been one of the best known ones possibly the best known one half a decade ago is an ultimately insupportable position of course because because it creates mayhem stephen if you support aggressively de-platforming uh those who engage in deliberate misinformation uh gross misuse of information then where do you draw the line what about parody well i mean i it would again it would have to be determined by i guess i don't know if you would have like a you know if i created an arbitrary thing that does you could have it on yeah i mean like if you're clearly known as like a parody person right if nathan for you does a skit on you know anti-vaccination i'm probably going to take that a lot more um as a parody than if alex jones comes out and says vaccines don't work i'm not really sure you know when it comes to satire parody i mean we make those decisions culturally is that guy joking is that kind of joking and in a legal sense we kind of make those distinctions as well right like parody is literally a part of copyright law you know can i take your song and make my own song over it well whether or not you can or can depends on how transformative that content is making the decisions culturally to me or as a society feels uh you're kind of making an assumption that we're all on the same page which we absolutely are not we're not but i mean we make we make a lot of people it's funny because we think that our values come from the law the law is informed by what we believe culturally the law will follow what culturally we deem to be acceptable yeah it's happening with gay marriage it's going to happen with marijuana like the law will follow we cannot legislate away cancel culture let's be clear right you can't pass the law just because it is an ugly and uh ugly runaway train right now uh we you can't legislate it away it's wrong and it's destructive and it creates racists and it creates sexists and and and the manner in which it operates the punitive and vicious uh uh indiscriminate and disproportionate manner in which culture cancel culture operates creates exactly the evil that it is purporting to um defend against and i suspect that for many people that's part of the point because i think the left has a bit of a as douglas murray puts it a supply and demand problem with bigotry i don't think there are enough racists around so the left has to create a few more of them with this with this uh this [ __ ] and i think they have i think they have and they they do it in a variety of ways i mean george floyd made no sense unless it was clearly your objective to make more white racists well congratulations you did uh you know america's at least 20 more races post george floyd uh you know i i think it was on purpose uh finally perhaps we can find a point of difference um but but um but but the cancer culture you can't legislate away you just have to um viciously punish the people who are doing it unfortunately when they are when they occupy prestige positions that are protected by monopolies which are not regulated and there's no protection in law for vicious untrue statements made about people these are the two problems we want to fix that's those are the conditions under which cancer culture emerges if we fix those two things cancel culture would not flourish like it does it'll be a much much less lesser problem and i think real quick when we talk about cancer culture um you know i might get some pushback immediately but i think that all of us are pro-cancer culture usually what we argue about is like how wide or narrow should that band of cancellation be you know um if our employer liked an alex jones video you know should he be fired as our boss because he's you know you know compromise probably you're very mean about alex you've got a hard on for him for instance okay so we know that they're hateful and uh whatever um but but like if if we have a boss for instance that goes out publicly every single night and they scream from the street corner i hate black people i hate black people by the chance i'd kill them maybe we wouldn't want this guy as a boss right like is it cancel culture to say that not every single person ought to be on every single platform no you know if a guy goes on a platform and says i think i should be able to post pictures of underage children probably i think most people will be opposed that so they're just saying there should be social consequences for bad behavior when we talk about cancer culture my my main worry about cancer culture isn't that we cancel people that sometimes that band becomes very narrow where it feels like there's a sizable portion of the country that wants every single person that votes republican out of a job which is that's scary to me but i don't think that's the same as saying like if you get on you know some massive platform and say well i don't think vaccines work don't do it and now we've got people that are dying of the [ __ ] measles in the united states like holy [ __ ] like something has to change here and i don't think it's like an all or nothing like we can't cancel anybody or we have to cancel everybody guys we have a whole segment about cancel culture coming up we'll get to but i'm gonna help you again um well i don't need you to help me but i have two more questions for stephen about social media before we get there so two more quick questions for stephen about social media steven in a live stream debate with and i apologize if i'm saying this wrong bastiat you said i think there are strong arguments for nationalizing certain platforms like facebook and twitter do you still agree with that position yeah i mean i think that what milo said earlier it seems to me i didn't know you said that i'm so upset about how this evening is yeah i know unfortunately i actually said it this is gonna do you just as much damage as it does the problem is that but the difference is i'll be consistent with my arguments when i say that like perhaps we need to look at you know the strength of some of the social media platforms to where if you're banned from if you're banned from twitter facebook and youtube i don't know how much of a public voice you actually have anymore i'm not i'm not actually sure how effective you could be as a as a communicator um but i i would extend that to go like well maybe we should increase you know like the strength of unions i don't know if you can negotiate against an employer whatever like i'll carry that to its logical extreme i won't just stop conveniently at social media because that's the only thing i care about because that's the only thing i post on but yeah i think there can be very good arguments made for the idea that if you get de-platformed across every single large social media you've essentially lost your public square like in a way that is the new public square in the united states and in the world right and and and you know as patient zero um like i'm over it it's fine but uh but but but this but this this was like i'm happy i'm semi-retired i live with a supermodel i'm good but i did used to make a hell of a lot more money and i did used to be a lot better and more effective at my job and for the kind of people who like me and agreed with my points of view um it's not a good thing now that i can't go out and speak in public that i have to have some like some absolutely terrifying guy like shadow me everywhere i go so i don't get killed these are not good things um and i wouldn't like it if it happened to somebody on the left either because i think it poisons and much more much well poisons is to is is is too uh waffly a word what i mean specifically is it impoverishes public debate why because the people in power don't take out extremists on the other side they take out the most effective people on the other side so this is why you see stone loomer yeah mcguinness and and jones taken out on the right david duke still has his twitter uh richard spencer still has his twitter nick fuentes nick well i don't put nick fontes in the same category this is a conversation the other day um uh they don't take out the extremists on the other side they don't take out the people with actually socially unacceptable points of view they take out the people on the other side who are making their life difficult um and and that's that's you know why it's why you shouldn't rejoice when you see it happen on either side um i just my my big my big uh my big move my evolution my growth with this question over the last five years is oh we didn't work taking the moral high ground and these principles are all fine maybe we should just lean into these new speech codes maybe we should uh bring blasphemy laws back i mean after all they did work so i perhaps we should just forget all this [ __ ] and instead try to pass the law that makes it illegal to uh speak ill of jesus christ that makes it illegal to deny the incarnation uh to do to deny the trinity to speak critically of the uh of the orthodoxies and the catechism of the roman catholic church i quite like that uh i i wait i'd wave that through so my kind of my because because i kind of know where the questions are going roughly i think um my my big movement on this from from five years ago is uh if we've lost the war for high principle and we're going to go in for these speech codes why don't we you know let's figure out what they're going to look like and who gets to who gets to make them because we can agree um dismally and miserably for both of us uh on on high-minded matters of principle as uh educated and attentive observers of what's been going on for the last five or ten years but quite clearly reasonable people like this are not in charge of what's going on so maybe we need a revival of the religious right if the social justice is getting too out of control if the left is getting too out of control if they're cancelling people for saying um that uh that um what did julie bendel say a bedwetter in a bad wig is is uh is still a man if the cast people for that maybe we just need our own version and maybe in fact you know the religious right but with you know religious right but better on twitter is is actually what we need now um so that's that's my that's my my great moral quandary at the moment i'm going to go ahead and say that we don't need that well you see this this this audience is not yet caught up from 2016 they don't realize it's 2020 yet and the world has moved on final question uh for steven in the social media in the same live stream i was describing you stated you're a really big fan of the stream weren't you yeah why why i watched it it's the only one he watched yeah it sounds like it yeah in the same like school project you've got 32 quotes from the same source and then you've got like two quotes from wikipedia all the other links on wikipedia you stated about milo yiannopoulos uh-oh you stated about money oh this is good finally finally what did i say we were getting on so well well it's about to change all i want to know all i want to know is if he lied because if he lied he's a hypocrite because he's breaking his own [ __ ] rules so let me read the question this is from 2018 though world is changing oh no i said 2016. you guys are very nervous all of a sudden listen you're on thin ice now look at you it's the first look i'm a fidgeter everyone thinks i'm on coke i'm just like did i call him a white nationalist or a nazi tell me just like get the word out let's look at him in his chair he's right now listen i would like to see hey what did he say about me i want to get through i'm lovely i i would like to get through this quote apparently we agree on everything so whatever he says about me must be true of him uh why don't you call me all right well i would like to get through this uninterrupted let me see i can't promise that but come on you stated about milo ianopolis i [ __ ] hate milo that [ __ ] that little [ __ ] piece of [ __ ] that's funny dumb [ __ ] [ __ ] pedophile homophobic piece of [ __ ] oh dear yeah that sounds about right oh dear destiny stream to me yeah do you stand by those statements today and why did you call milo that in the first place well there's a lot of insults in there which one you want well i i well i can live with dumb [ __ ] i can live with [ __ ] so let's go let's go to the two most inflammatory why did you call him the pedophile no and to be clear homophobe is true yeah but why did you call him a pedophile yeah so the homophobe so the pedophile one was i took a great issue with a stream that you had where you made it sound like it was a necessary part of the gay experience to have a relationship with an older man that was something that struck me the wrong way for sure okay i think what i said was as a recipient of that relationship as the younger party in it and not the older party and it can be beneficial for some of those young men because they when their families reject them somebody can kind of inculcate them into life how someone can accept them various things like that this got grotesquely misrepresented by the right incidentally um and then places like newsweek rather than saying which is you know this slippery disgusting thing has been accused of covering four pedophiles which was a lie uh total and complete lie has been accused of being soft on pedophiles newsweek eventually contracted this to has been accused of pedophilia and when i got in touch with them they changed it very very [ __ ] fast um but i i i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were just uh reeling off insults and i won't hold it against you okay well not offended i don't really get offended i mean i've said far worse things about myself than anything he can come up with are you sorry you said it i'm sure we both have no come on that's [ __ ] don't do that to him i want to know his fan base will never forgive him he's going to have to do a foul ball my fan base hates me he's going to a protest more likely to get you covered well uh any gods get these you have to make him do a foundation no i feel like the if you if you ask me to explain that i might have even in that stream i don't know if that was just a string of events we were going more i feel like the the displaying that like um these kind of like adult adolescent sexual relationships can be healthy for people even if in some reality that might be true i feel like it's a really harmful thing to perpetuate i would never okay but that doesn't that but that that's a very different thing to claiming that somebody [ __ ] children no no when you call someone a pedophile so by your definition you're in jail oh [ __ ] good thing i live in a in the other country though finally a little heat finally i'm nobody could do any more damage to me than has been already done and in some cases i did myself but but you know just to be strictly accurate when i you know when i when i mean about people i pick things that are real and true and it's important to be careful about your insults because something like that for instance doesn't hurt you could see it didn't really i was like yeah okay i've heard that million times before not particularly cutting whereas if you come this evening and said jesus christ you put on 25 pounds since 2016. that would be both true and hurtful sure i would i would qualify what i say then instead of calling him a pedophile maybe i would say pedophilia ideology enabler i would well i would disagree with that but at least at least it's not going to get you in jail according to your own uh thank you okay fine let's move on shall we perfect so moving oh from your next livestream destiny you called milo what's back to the topic of cancel culture for a moment uh we see a lot of times these days not just canceling people for something that they say or may have said or there's some sort of implication but people are actually digging back now to tweets five years old 10 years old or or even video content that was created in the 90s or whatever so should we should we be canceling people based off of things that they said in the past as much as i hate to agree with one thing that was said in an earlier panel something that is absolutely true is we are not allowed to grow and change as public figures every single thing you've ever said at any point in your life is constantly the thing that you always believe right now no matter how contradictory it might be to things that you've said currently um you can go back in time to any figure and and the problem is like um i say this all the time i'm so glad that when i grew up when i was a teenager there wasn't as much social media that is like um you know as uh permanent as it is now right nobody has a link to those old myspaces or live journals or zangas um you can find all sorts of horrible stupid [ __ ] that people say at all points in their life the idea that if you ever own up to any of it or if you apologize for any of it or you recognize any of it from five or ten years ago that people are going to try to destroy you that's absolutely insane to me yeah it's uh somebody came up with a good expression for it uh offense archaeology um i actually don't mind or blame people especially when they just say no it wasn't me must have got hacked uh like joy reid did i think was joy reid wasn't it on msnbc why would you ever acknowledge any of it yeah there's no no she had some old blog posts where she wasn't particularly nice about gays or something and i read it and i was like she's not wrong uh but but but but no she basically came out says someone hacked my blog and retroactively dated these posts and searched them in there obviously a lie but do i care not especially because if she's a uh black woman coming from a particular community that has a has particular views i mean her views on homosexuality are very mild compared to what you would find in a lot of black pentecostal churches and i'm not asking the offense police to start knocking down the door arresting pastors and i don't think that her pandering to homophobic sensibilities whether or not she has those uh beliefs herself at the time now whatever all the wrong questions were asked the fact that she had an old blog post um it's just it's inexcusable for people to go back and sort of and surface this stuff later and for her determine wasn't me got hacked i kind of thought you know what fair play girl um like you know i don't i don't blame you um the only question that should have been asked is whether or not this was or wasn't you what do you actually believe about it today that's the only thing i really care about yeah and i think that's the important thing if somebody says something and you're not really sure how to take it today and we kind of go back a little bit you can establish a pretty clear pattern of like oh well you said this two years ago you said this three years ago maybe it looks like you kind of do mean this thing i think that can be valid but this idea of going back you know like 10 years ago you tweeted this you know kind of racist joke so now you are currently like the most racist person i think is ridiculous such a waste of time there are so many more important things to talk about but it's also insincere because what it means is that you've watched the person closely in the present day and you've been unable to find anything good you have to go back 10 years to find an example of it i haven't always been the nicest guy to my employees some of them i've treated very well some of them i have not treated so well and one of the ones that i did not treat so well sold my entire email archive to buzzfeed um and a story came out of this where i was apparently quote unquote close to white nationalists what was actually happening was i was just buttering them up for a story like any journalist does but with the emails they had they could construct a fairly persuasive case and you know buzzfeed being buzzfeed who can blame him they did the best with what they had what they could not produce was a single in this apparent example of me being you know adjacent to or fully paid up member of white nationalism a single example of me expressing an opinion in nine years of emails that was even remotely racially insensitive not a single word that was remotely uh critical or insensitive or offensive towards black people because they didn't exist so they had to instead go back into history and construct something um uh using this uh this offense archaeology so you know not just because i've i've experienced it too um but i've i have not done it to anyone um without i i have written pieces about people based on their past actions that i've uncovered uh when i have approached them and said do you still hold these views and they have said yes or not answered or i found evidence that they have continued to hold those views into the present day but other than that i don't think i've ever done it because i think it's disgusting stephen you made a comment a moment ago about how in cancer culture we're not really allowed to evolve at this point do you feel like there's a double standard that falls along political party lines because i look around sometimes and i see maybe comments joe biden made certain people who tend to fall on the left make and whether they be racially insensitive comments they may be homophobic comments but it's well i've evolved democrats seem to be able to evolve republicans seem constantly stigmatized by the labels of racist homophobic uh bigoted and they're never able to evolve themselves do you agree i think for stuff like this you really have to go issue by issue um this idea that you just said oh it's only a political thing you know they talked about it um in a prior panel here when you bring up like oh you know republicans the politicians you know hold themselves to higher standards and the democrats i mean al franken stepped down over some stupid pictures and the entire republican party was backing roy moore the idea that this is a standard that only applies to one party is a laughingstock the only people that believe this get all of their news from like you know seven different facebooks and and also all of their money from one side of the party yeah that too yeah i don't believe this either i have to tell you brandon i don't think it's true i i think it's a more complex picture than that i do think that liberals are given more leeway because the prestige culture is left-wing and because you know journalists point in a particular political direction and if that's just a trivial point that your question is leading to then yes fine i agree with you i think more precisely we have a lack of understanding on both sides about conservative media figures who dare to tiptoe into comedian or chat show host or something more than just barking in a podcast those people are not well understood and not really allowed to have jokes their jokes are treated like serious policy statements and their serious uh opinions are kind of written off as jokes whereas on the left we're happy to accommodate uh people like um jon stewart and bill maher i think it's a different hypocrisy i think there is one but i don't think it's the one you said i once questioned actually i would have a mile on that so i'll play the other side on that a little bit do you think it's fair that you can evaluate the same joke differently depending on who it comes from no not really because i think lived experience is complete nonsense i think if a joke is funny it's probably funny whoever says it i think it can sometimes be funnier if the speaker is talking about a group they know well or laughing at themselves so i think when uh you know chris rock makes a joke about race relations that you know is obviously from his experience as a black guy i think it makes his comedy a little funnier sometimes but by and large when you rip those jokes out of context i think they're either funny or they're not and i certainly don't think a joke goes from acceptable funny and safe for public consumption to unacceptable cause for cancellation and this person should get fired based on the speaker no i don't so this is something where i would completely disagree um wonderful and yeah so i'm curious on this i feel like if you were to take a royal person and show them a um i don't watch much of his material but like i'm pretty sure larry the cable guy makes a lot of jokes about you know hillbilly redneck stuff like that if you were to take a joke that he says about those types of people i feel like they could watch that and enjoy it and laugh at it a little bit more than say dave chappelle making the exact same joke even if the joke is the same it feels like we kind of color the joke based on who it comes from that if you know a certain disposition a person has you know their beliefs it's kind of okay if they joke about something but if there's somebody else and you think that they might you know actually be a little bit antagonistic or aggressive towards themselves when they joke about it feels a little bit different i feel like it's a fair stance that most people can take i think maybe it's just a difference of degree because you know i i i kind of already granted you that maybe it's a little bit funnier if the person is laughing at themselves or a little bit funnier if they have some direct knowledge of it but only really that's kind of that's a question about packaging um more than anything else i i you know i i think that that for the most part a well-turned joke is pretty funny whoever says it now i mean there are there are great insult comics from the past not many of them you know alive anymore but the great straight white males of the of the you know hectoring badgering uh uh curmudgeon type right who would tell jokes about other racial groups that today might make us win slightly um but i still would not consider them cause for cancellation or for uh or for concern i think the main reason for all of that is perhaps that i don't see comedy as a way to alienate i think by by far and away the overall effect of comedy is to unify there's a reason why chat up lines are jokes at whoever's expense i think comedy ten comedy brings people together a lot more than it divides them and i think comedy is a is um laughing at whoever maybe laughing in a group that's not here makes the connection they're not affected by it they don't have to watch you but i'm making a connection with you and we're laughing and we're bonding and we might be bonding about the uh the plight of white people and talking about how you know we had to be subjected to the site of this you know royal wedding treatment on fox news this gold coffin of this awful you know uh drug addict felon who holds held up a pregnant woman at gunpoint a total scumbag that even fox news was giving the royal wedding treatment to i think it would be okay in that context uh excuse me i think it'd be okay in that context to make some jokes about uh you know black tantrums for instance you know in in in in in respect of of writing whatever so no i i can't agree i think comedy brings people together a lot more than it drives them apart i mean i don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive positions i think i like i enjoy all sorts of humor i think racial humor dark humor agrees i think yeah i agree with that but i think we have to acknowledge that somebody like um like a white guy coming up i don't know what i'm a lot of savior but a white guy coming up and doing like chris rock's old incredibly famous skit that i'm not going to quote um versus chris rock giving that skit it's going to be taking a lot different white people in blackface doing the n-word family and that kind of thing yeah it's going to be taken a lot differently than like yeah which i think is fair because i i think it comes across but who's realistically actually going to do that i mean nobody who's going to watch it and enjoy it nobody how many dvds this person going to sell nobody i mean who is that comic i don't think they exist sure so we have about five minutes before we're going to throw to audience questions i want to touch on the the issue of social justice hate speech and social justice uh milo does anti-white racism exist racism of all kinds exists if you have lived in america around this country in various different states for any length of time you will know that the most the most racist group in the country is hispanics um they hate absolutely everybody including themselves and everybody knows it um absolutely world there's it's not even close it's not even close the way they talk about black people is monstrous it is bone shattering the way that they talk about black people the way they talk about themselves almost as bad the way they talk about white people well it's ungrateful and it's in do you know what i've been doing about it but whatever uh you know who cares but but but um there is racism in all directions all people there's been an attempt recently to do this kind of post-modern exercise on the word racism which is to deconstruct it and and as you all know uh reimagine it as a system of oppression that is uh exercised upon the powerless by the powerful um it's all bollocks no one believes it it's crap i am perfectly happy to see wild allegations of racism sexism all the rest of it floating around society generally why because it tells us that the right and the left share some core values we all think it's bad being mean to somebody because of their skin color and nothing else we all think it's bad discriminating against somebody because of things they can't change about themselves we all think it's bad treating women like crap the the the the reason that conservatives get so upset about the allegations and that left wingers make them so often is that we fundamentally agree on the values in question we're both agreed that racism is bad we're both we're both in agreement that you know we shouldn't be be engaging in a lot of these anti-social bigoted and self-destructive behaviors so i'm not too worried about about the allegations floating around but what you're the what your question's getting at which is this post-modern deconstruction and an attempt at a sort of re-stitching together of what racism is and what it means that the robin d'angelo white fragility thing um it's it's crap it won't stick uh it's got about another five years in it and it's obviously nonsense as anybody who has ever lived next to hispanic family knows racism goes in all directions stephen yeah so i would take the the actual complete total opposite side of this unfortunately i think when we talk about uh we talk about racism the we i think you spend like 90 of the conversation defining you know what does it mean to be racist um if you're going to talk on the individual level um can a hispanic person be racist against a black person or white person um as much as i'd love to fight milo on that half of my family is cuban and that is everything is absolutely true unfortunately but now that being said has the class of white people ever been demonstrably harmed by hispanic people absolutely not has a class of white people ever been demonstrably harmed by the class of black people um maybe a few more people on twitter get banned for something or whatever but like in terms of the holocaust uh but um but but real quick so like i think that it is important sometimes that well well what about the effect of hispanics as a class on blacks as a class wage depression uh the fact that in most societies when you have waves of immigration the previous ethnic group or the previous religious group whichever one came in on mass tends to move up you know if you look at indians uh from the subcontinent but this has this isn't this isn't race analysis this is class analysis now right we're talking about new workers coming in displacing okay but we're just we're just saying you know that the the existence of lots of new illegal immigrants from hispanic countries has a negative effect on the black population lots of things very boring statement lots of things can impact lots of things in lots of ways i think that it's important we talk about like racism as a social construct sometimes we need to understand you know as a class you know there are certain groups of people that might benefit from certain power structures that other groups of people don't you know um one popular divide right now in the feminist movement is realizing that white women have been the recipient of more affirmative action than any other single minority group it's caused quite a split in in feminists in terms of uh people of color and the feminists seem to only be a surprise to liberals well no i think most people understand it um but the the issue is that you have to be able to have the conversation um again it's the same as a conversation we had earlier about council culture if you want to acknowledge or fight against you know certain ideas of structural systemic racism that's fine but you just have to understand the uh the realities of what you're talking about you know these people that like to pretend that well a black person and a white person pulled over in any city in the united states is going to be treated the exactly the same you know everybody knows that's not true don't don't pretend that it's fine obviously it's truly true that we should be able to have these conversations i just reject your framing entirely you know left left wing is tend on the whole i'm making very broad generalizations here tend to think in terms of systems uh you know you're born into a system and you know you have limited power over that system whereas right-wingers tend to think in terms of traditions and because left-wingers think in terms of systems often in a more abstract sense it's easier for them conceptually to break and remake them whereas conservatives want to kind of tinker with their institutions because they know it's from the institutions catholicism capitalism property rights you know the rule of law all the rest of it that the strength and and success of the society flows in the family um and and i just completely reject the systems analysis that you're doing about structural racism doesn't that doesn't mean that there aren't socioeconomic inequalities that stem from certain things but the idea that that can map on to allegations of racism and then suggest to affirmative action programs or reparations i actually don't mind the argument for operations but for very different reasons this the whole structural frame of critical race theory is complete horseshit uh it is economic marxism mapped onto social issues in a very shoddy fashion that doesn't work and it will not work it won't hold it won't hold because it just doesn't bear the slightest bit of scrutiny it doesn't work when you do it with gender it doesn't work when you do it with race it especially doesn't work when you do it with transgender circus people sure so i i don't know it's just your your your there's systematic frameworks that the left use all the time they say well we've got a better talk about these things i will talk about these things but i will not talk about them in the terms that you are asking me to because the terms that are what what what this is another i'm not having a go at you by the way this is a very abstract where the left argues from another thing they do in addition to censorship is setting the terms of debate by re-def redefining words like racism so in order to have the discussion at all you've already got to grant them the premise that racism is actually uh a function of a system you know that the the privileges some above others and there's this oppressive cloud and it has various effects this is a this is you're granting so much of the enemy's argument that from that position you can only lose and this is just entirely the wrong frame to look at anything especially especially history sure well i can understand um some of that you're begging the question if you agree with my definition of racism i've already won half the argument of course um there's a reason why we look at things in terms of like massive structure or systems and that's because that's the level that government policy works at um one of the big frustrations that i have if i talk to conservatives is people want to reject any type of structural analysis in favor of well what can individuals do well i don't know but that doesn't really matter we can't really affect an individual change on like a wider governmental level or even on a wider cultural level like we typically talk about these things in terms of people even if we look at like religious commandments right we talk about how men ought to act or how women ought to act or how the institution of the church you know needs to do policy if you know you're a catholic i was catholic as well i appreciated your earlier conversation about uh transubstantiation um you know that there's a structure even to the catholic church you've got your archdiocese you've got your rulings that come down from the pope you've got the catechism even even the catholic church acknowledges it's some level of structure that's given to your entire class of people and then that is actually broken down based on are you made but you're talking you're basically talking about uh institutional hierarchical organization uh it's a completely different kind of thing from a social justice frame i think it's a lens no i think it's i think i think that it's very valuable to be able to look at groups of people and to make statements about how people act and then how they ought to act i mean we could we could have brought your claim out to the point where nobody could disagree literally what class like theory the point i was trying to make was that i'm sorry i did i did interrupt you the point that i was trying to make is that very often we have these debates and indeed the one we've had tonight has been an example of this we have the debates on their turf now as it happens he and i agree on some core civic values that i think most respectable reasonable people will agree on we will disagree horribly and all kinds of other things that are outside the scope of the debate tonight i'm sure but just to give you an example when does comedy go too far well you can look at it from the point of view of fence taking socialism or you could reframe it you could say well comedy actually means something completely different in the real world in literature for instance what kind of comment are we talking about are we talking about paradisical purgatorial or infernal um infernal comedy uh following you know dante is very much what we see online and that's you know disembodied uh demonic and dreadful uh purgatorial comedy which is the kind of thing you're talking about like stand-up jokes going too far is something uh is is is rooted in in the possibility of redemption so are we talking about whether these people can be saved from their whatever i'm getting off the point but i'm trying to explain to you that there are frames that we can talk from that have much first of all they're much more useful and much more interesting they draw on a body of literature and history that lefties just don't know and they also get us much closer to the truth much closer to to enlightenment and much much closer to one another and almost every debate i've heard in the last five years has started over there and we've been scrambling to to to uh to to grab the the debate field back from them since they've demanded that to even speak at all we've got to use their language so this is what i'm trying to encourage you to do in your debates with your friends is just say whoa whoa whoa take a step back all that [ __ ] let's start again milo we're gonna have to leave it there because we're gonna take some audience questions before we wrap up tonight there there's been a lot of agreement between you and this this talk the surprising amount i'm going to try and drive a bit of a wedge into that now i have a bit of a blind spot for stephen but i'm interested in this um milo mentioning very early on in the the talk about how bullying should be encouraged and i i'd like to talk about maybe the importance of of making people or what is the obligation of of us to make people less fragile and more resilient to the effects of words and also is is there value in the idea of of of banter or or um or dark humor in bringing people together and actually bringing us closer if we're recognizing our differences and we're making humor about that is that building can it also be forced to build bridges of trust and bring us together i could be super quick and give him most of the time um uh first of all it's uh bullying and building resilience through stress and through inclement circumstances isn't just a good thing it's absolutely necessary uh for for people to to to build healthy happy psyches and second of all you know is teasing and all the recipes um is this a kind of acceptable way to go on is this a good thing it is an absolutely critical and uh um and and um indispensable way that men communicate and one of the reasons that ridicule and criticism has been so maligned online is that our discourse has become very heavily feminized so ridicule and criticism have become recast as abuse and harassment because when you say mean things to women they cry and we don't want to be like that because we're nice gentlemen who are chevalric and we don't want to see women cry in public but the fact is that taunting teasing being mean to one another is how men bond you will never change that all you will do is drive it underground and make it surface in eruptions if you try to suffocate it this kind of thing you're talking about bullying taunting being mean trolling it is what men are especially working class men by the way which is why so much of this debate is is rooted in class because a lot of this is a class war against middle class journalists on on working class people um but that being mean to one another is something women do behind one another's backs and men do to each other's faces you will never change that you will never fix that but the way that men are with one another this is what's being driven out of public life and being uh maligned and it is it is absolutely devastating the idea that you have to be a bully to be a man is such an emasculating way of liking masculinity but this idea that like bullying is inseparable from the identity of being masculine i think is incredibly silly i think it's important to recognize that there are different types of bullying if we're going to say that like should you be able to tease your friend over something or or make fun of something i think that's fine um bullying a kid every single day at school to the point to where he's crying and then goes home and hates his life probably not okay i think one of these sure yeah i think it's important to clarify when we say bullying um in terms of like there are a lot of old ideas that we have about what makes a good person and what makes a resilient person the problem is all we see are the success stories and there's a lot of stuff that we know that we used to think is really good it just doesn't work for instance like spanking your children it's just it just doesn't work and we've looked at this you know study after study for study um result after results result every now and then you'll get a very successful person that survived it but what you don't see is the thousands of people whose um whose attachments to other people in life are ruined who are depressed who can't form healthy relationships you don't see all those people you only see the one successful guy that survived it and now you must think oh well you know i guess these people are uh very resilient ignoring all of the failures behind that person i was spanked as a child growing up and i will spank my children when i have children one day just putting that out there yeah i mean i looked i wrote it's not it's not the first thing you try to use the key i mean i've kind of inherited kids now i've got a stepson and a step nephew live with us you know 16 and 17. um it's certainly not the first thing that dad reaches for but here's another thing that a lot of the women won't like i heard a lot of muttering and sighing because they don't like it when you tell them the truth well fortunately i don't want to [ __ ] any of you so i can tell you what i think so another thing you might not like to know is men need to be afraid of their dads and so do girls especially women actually because women who aren't afraid of their dads go out and get husbands they're not afraid of either and they're both [ __ ] miserable um you know there's an extent to which being aware of your dad's power as a man helps you to come to understand your own and helps you to learn to channel and manage and control it rather than sublimating it with drugs and turning into a school shooter which is why i think i think real quick i think it's really important to recognize that respect doesn't have to come through fear and i think that everybody come from i think well well one of my questions one of my favorite one of mine one of my one of my favorite go-to examples is every single person in here assuming you've graduated through the school system has known one of two types of teachers there is one teacher that will give you a demerit or detention or a mark on whatever card no matter what stupid little thing you do they exercise their authority over you every given opportunity and then you have that one teacher that you have so much respect for they might have passion for what they teach they might treat their students with respect and you can get a million detentions from that from the earlier teacher that's so quick to send you to the principal's office but if you disappoint the latter a single time you just you feel so i think it's a terrible analogy because since when were 14 year olds afraid of getting detention for a lot of young people it's a badge of honor there are there aren't there aren't a lot of [ __ ] afraid of that it doesn't produce fear and those teachers who are nice how many 16 17 year olds have been hit by their dad so many times they just don't care anymore about it they eventually go off that's a different exact same thing we've got a long line of people who would like to ask some questions let's keep the answers next week all right go ahead sir uh to start with milo i'd like to compliment your fashion feng shui uh those shoes go well with your outfit you know i was worried i was worried because i was getting dressed why not you look sexy i was getting dressed indoors and you know it's very difficult without leds or natural light to know exactly how it's all going to come together but thank you you made the comment in the hotel i saw you it wasn't sure you know how i knew it was you i looked down you're wearing some sparkly [ __ ] boots and i was like oh it's got to be my love i was in milwaukee there was no way i was anybody it's true i was in gold boots i was like oh well thank you thank you i'd like to read you the words of a wiser man it's as if our moral safeguards are broken down by the new landscape in which the default is attack such that we forget that there's a person or a human being on the other side so perhaps what's needed now is a boulder form of censure after all the internet is not a universal right if people cannot be trusted to treat others with respect dignity and consideration perhaps they deserve to have their online freedoms curtailed i wrote this quote down for no no this is this is this is what why is this wiser person he is of course recalling my own youth yeah from the crown this is one of my favorite kinds of questions um uh as i as i said this evening i have matured since 2015 my 2015 position was very different from that i think it's reasonable because the online landscape is completely different than 10 years ago when i wrote that or eight years ago when i wrote that it does not bear any relation whatsoever in the very early days of twitter um i i took a slightly different view of trolls than i later came to hold which was actually that they were the uh the the last uh precious keepers of uh of of polemic and ultimately uh uh civil disobedience and of course you know game again and everything like that um i i embraced them fully and i still do like trolls and all the rest of it my problems with free speech come from people abuse typically come now i think from people abusing positions of power i still love a good troll so um i i don't think when the internet changes as much and as dramatically as it does over the years that it's unreasonable that a commentator's views would would mature with it but i appreciate the um i appreciate the the audacity and uh and i appreciate the uh the effort milo has evolved stephen do you have any comments no i mean i i actually i i read that quote a lot of my uh opposition research was uh relating to your early publications but i actually find that your uh your current um your current point of view actually seems to coincide somewhat with that i don't know if you would be completely in disagreement about a lot of what even that quote in itself that there's a lot of people i think i shot to an extreme and i'm settling on a more reasonable uh position possibly it gets fixed one thing that also i think trolling has changed a lot too when we say when we talk about a troll like 10 or 15 years ago the idea of being a troll was that you knew you were saying some dumb [ __ ] but that's what made it funny nowadays it's hard to tell who knows right and then now there are layers of irony yeah there are movements that are that you know gamergate was this example where some actually things could be accomplished or at least culture could be changed by large um uh somewhat organized groups of people who you would call trolls but they were acting in a particular direction with a particular um you know motivation in mind so i thank you that's generous of you to help me out like that so i think yes the definition of troll has changed somewhat too uh earlier it was stated that people should be deep platformed for having the wrong ideas my question is who gets to form the committee for the preservation of virtue and the prevention of vice and if you give uh uh sir can you speak up a little bit we're having a little trouble up here shall i start from the beginning uh i heard from who gets okay okay who gets to decide who forms the committee for the preservation of virtue and the prevention of vice and if you get set that structure well there's a nice tower in the middle of rome uh it's uh it's simpitas uh you walk in as a lovely circular colonnade i'm not finished with my question peter's basilica and instant petersburg will find all the answers you're seeking go ahead and finish her and ignore him um if once you set that structure and give that power are you willing to accept that the committee could be formed by the westboro baptist church yeah i mean i imagine this is probably a question for me i mean it would depend on the particular issues we're talking about regulating so to let me be very clear because i get misquoted on this all the time honestly and i get a lot of flack that's i really care that much about hate speech on public platforms i mean you probably shouldn't do it because you're a jerk if you do but i don't care about like banning or whatever what i care about are people that come out and say things like like i've brought this up several times you know like vaccinations aren't real or hillary clinton like flew the plane with the uranium on it to drop cash off to iran and then went and visited putin and then they went underneath some pizza place and had sex with 35 kids or whatever like this is the kind of stuff that i'm looking at when i'm like what what am i reading because i think that this stuff is true included with russia yeah that was actually a mueller investigation that was actually federally funded that actually produced a lot of credible indictments so i would say that's a far different thing but i'm talking generally we get the idea sure i'm talking about stuff that is like just demonstrably not true information that's being published online especially in like a uh scientific uh arena this is the kind of stuff that i think is like just damaging to public discourse like when we get these conspiracy theories out here we're not even having good conversations anymore we're just arguing over you know which pizza shop was the whatever britney spears or somebody hidden and you know i think that's ridiculous i think it's true and i want to pay you a compliment i'll be as fast as i can i had an online debate with with uh mr jingles or whatever his name was and i was really horrified this evening was gonna go the same way and i thought [ __ ] things are so much worse than they were five years ago and they've got so much worse while i was away i don't know if i want to do this anymore this evening has completely changed my mind about that and i'm sure on future occasions we will have much more i'm sure that on future occasions we will have much more testy exchanges and i look forward to them and i look forward to us uh besting one another in both directions but but the the particular kind of hysterical i think he was a little bit adderalled up um hysterical bad faith uh debate bro [ __ ] that i had from this guy made me think [ __ ] the left is the left is trying to imitate our energy of 2016 but they've got nothing new to say these are cardboard cutouts repeating the same old tired platitudes and i'm [ __ ] no thanks i'm going to go back to building houses for a living i actually but tonight has completely changed my mind i just want to thank you for being here and having a having such a nice conversation with us because um it it is greatly it is greatly to your credit that you have the you know the intelligence that you do but also the integrity and decency to have a real conversation because it isn't that common when was the last time uh somebody from his side i mean look he's not you know marxist whatever he's you know somewhere in the middle of the left but when was the last time any of them showed up and and had the basic courtesy and intellectual honesty and decency to have a good decision sir go ahead hi um so i have a question when it comes to like the safe spaces that are going around in college campuses how can someone compete i know you i can't see you but i know your voice i know go ahead sorry so when it comes to the safe space safe bathrooms 45 minutes ago by the way they're going around in college campuses how can someone combat the safe space culture when people nowadays are so [ __ ] sensitive okay so i think that safe spaces are incredibly valuable to have in areas where they're appropriate i think i don't know what happened but somewhere in in the american education system we forgot the idea that like the the through education that's like the safest time in your life to introduce you to opinions that might bother you um i think that there is a lot of value in having a room or a space where i just want to vent about something and i don't want somebody to judge me for it i don't care i just want to complain about this [ __ ] and be done with it i think that's fine but the idea that you're starting to put trigger warnings on on like world history courses that's absolutely insane to me i think college should be a time where you are challenged where you have to confront ideas that might make you uncomfortable because that's part of growing up and it's if there's any time in your life where you're gonna have the opportunity to take an idea dissect it in a classroom among peers and understand it it's gonna be college so i think that the concept of a safe space is very valuable it's very good we shouldn't lose that but the idea of making everything a safe space is absolutely ridiculous and i think it's misused too much think you're a conservative i think you're a liberal and i'm getting very confused by this conversation no no look i no i think safe spaces kill people i think trigger warnings are massively counterproductive insulating people from trauma they need to confront so they get over it get used to it exposure therapy is the only way to help if you have traumatic uh experiences in your life you have to expose yourself to little doses of it until it doesn't bother you anymore trigger warnings um are a fast track to uh to mental illness and suicide so i'm i'm glad we at least have two or three things we disagree with sir uh first of all i want to thank you all for both of you for coming i know you are incredibly busy and i really appreciate the conversation that y'all had because uh to be honest with you i usually disagree with both of you all a lot let me be honest with you be honest with you milo he's really [ __ ] hard to disagree with you because i really appreciate the way you dress it's really hard i'm not gonna lie it's not by accident sir it's not an accident i've got the accent and i've got the suits and you know if i show up with a good argument that for me is a good day listen i can relate so with that being said i do have to ask you something so earlier you you challenged uh stephen right i know you don't like going about destination you challenge steven's thank you i idea of systemic racism but you didn't actually offer you like were just you kind of went on a tirade about like oh it's framing is bad the framing is bad we got to do it from a different frame you got frame frame for frame and i'm like okay i'm waiting for him to give me an example of why his definition was wrong because i can just point to a simple example that i use on my panel earlier which is fdr introducing the new deal which introduced the fair housing or the federal housing administration that made sure black people cannot get sub go move into the suburbs which of course mean they can only get public housing which means they can't get real education because 93 of all education is funded by property taxes and therefore well that would that's a system you've done a good job already of making my point for me which is one not based on some nebulous concept of past trauma inflicted on one group or to the other because when we talk about you know uh the the harm done to black people we're talking about their feelings uh we're talking about no no no no no no no no no no no legacy we're not talking about the film we're talking about i mean they're talking about their feelings um but a much more useful frame which you've just provided which i think has illustrated my point for me is economic uh economic self-interest of various ethnic groups uh and perpetuated by a way uh well perpetu perpetuated by the self-interest of different ethnic groups and you can't say white people understand that america is not a monolith you can't generalize about white people just like we don't generalize or we should not generalize about the black community but we have lots about it l.a blacks are very different so so so okay can i just say something real quick so i'm a debater i know what you're doing all right let's i got you i understand what you're doing but i never said anything about white people i said assistant i got the suits you got the cute little the thing you're doing here when i try oh i try i try i know so but i'm talking specifically he's getting me all hot and bothered so i can't think clearly trust me i i tend to have that effect on both genders so it's cool um but in all seriousness um when we're where i didn't say but white people i said the system perpetuate and the white people if you want to say that use the system to perpetuate a very specific targeted racism so how do you not accept his framework without offering well because i don't think race is the primary motivating element in any of this it doesn't have to be the primary motivating element but if we say for instance it's funny because conservatives will talk about how important the family is and we should focus on the family or how important your culture is and we should focus on the culture well oftentimes you know what does the success of our parents come from you know it comes from where they live it comes from what their grandparents did it came from where they lived it came from the schools they went to and the neighborhoods that they lived in the communities that they were a part of but we had laws on the books you know not even one generation ago that literally said you can't live here not if you're poor not if you are you know wear your pants a certain way not if you listen to too much rap music but if you're black um and i'm not going to say that every single problem that black america or white america has today can go back to racist laws on the books but to say that it has no impact well i didn't say that no i didn't say it no okay i don't think we're really just any of us are really disagreeing on anything i find other explanations for the plight of black america more compelling than the uh mysterious uh uh and powerful supernatural force of white supremacy uh and structural racism i find other explanations much more compelling religious explanations uh economic explanations geographic explanations uh historic you know historic experiment i find lots of economic geographic historic that we're all influenced by well obviously obviously obviously all these things are interrelated you i mean there are people who are intersectional there are people somebody that i would not i am intersectional of course everyone's intersectional to the extent that they understand that things affect each other so if you know if you have an intersexual identity means your life is [ __ ] for more than one reason like everybody gets that idea it's not like you know it's it it's not like some ah intersectionally it's intersectionality detected we're all intersectional because we all understand that things can have more than one cause i think i think that's a really good point and we probably do agree on most things i i think sometimes it leaves a bad taste tomorrow you have a room full of black people in a room full of white people and everybody's 100 bucks and you take 90 bucks from every black person and then when people go to try to buy stuff you say hey well you know this is an economic problem now not a race problem it's because you're on that side of the room yeah i mean i think it is a bad taste i was like well yeah is it kind of economics yeah is it kind of region yeah but a lot of this stuff back on the books i think we could talk for a while about why that now all right guys we have about five minutes and two more questions i think i think again we're at a difference of emphasis rather than you know some horrible clash of world views go ahead oh so hello uh hi milo i don't know if you remember me but i am mr jingles uh oh hello so i i've actually been really i know i'm so glad you're here do you see how it's supposed to be done yeah i know i know i was actually very oh this awful so no no dog no no buddy your white fragility is showing right now milo calm down this is very upsetting to me it's because like i have just been informed that i uh that you had a very very negative experience uh when you interacted with me and then and i hope you will uh i hope you can accept my explanation that that was by no means my intention i did not mean to offend you but because i did uh read white fragility from front to back i know that because just because i didn't mean to offend you adderall again you see this is your problem you gotta slow down sweetheart okay slow down relax we're all here for you thank you gonna hear you to the end you truly are my buddy thank you very much or maybe now maybe follow me now come on right all right okay all right you're gonna make me apologize to you earlier remember when you said that you said i had to apologize to you and now you won't even call him your dog now and i don't have any questions i excused you from issuing any kind of appointment that's the next question i'm not excusing him because he was a [ __ ] it was an awesome do you have a question [ __ ] uh arguing and eventually but let's get to well why don't we just share what it is look the reason the reason that i offered for them uh for me to come back on again is because they paid me to appear and i felt bad about how [ __ ] what a [ __ ] car crash it was so that's why i wrote and said i had a bad experience and the moderator wrote back and said i'll find you somebody while who's in better faith he was not satisfied with the jungles so what i what i will say is i'm very happy to have another conversation with you and maybe we could start fresh well that my question might actually help with that because like i said i did not mean to offend i did not think that the words buddy and dog would be so negatively impactful for you but again i want to take those seriously so i want uh based on your conversation i would like to uh maybe you can help me with this what is the difference between getting genuinely righteously offended against a genuine slight versus an offense that maybe like you said earlier that you should probably just get over uh i'm in a bad position to answer that question because i can't really remember being seriously offended in my life um i understand that sometimes people claim to be uh but i i have no real direct knowledge of what it feels like it strikes me as as enormously and profoundly silly and i really don't know what people mean when they say i'm offended i think what they mean is i don't have an argument for you um i i just don't really know what people mean by it okay that's that's good to hear that's i don't know if that feedback will help me it's not it's not a great answer but it's the truth thank you last question hi my question is for stephen actually so i um this is this is a question i haven't heard an answer for yet i'm hoping you can answer it for me so if we're to go back to redefining racism right if we are to accept the definition the new redefinition of racism being what we used to call systemic racism so this whole prejudice plus power definition the way that that gets watered down when it reaches the masses is that it's it's therefore impossible to be racist towards white people and the same thing with sexism they say it's impossible to be sexist towards men so if we're teaching people that essentially it's impossible to be racist towards one race or sexist towards one sex at what practical at what measurable end goal will we just suddenly decide hey now it's possible to be racist towards white people again or hey now it's possible to be sexist towards men and then how do we how do we teach these generations of children that we've taught it's such a good question how do we get there how do we forget where these guys want to go so we can stop hearing about it that's easily one of the most boring topics that ever comes up i think that and this is why i i think that if you're a lefty or liberal whatever you want to call yourself neo-progressive i don't know um just see the definitions um i think that there is an interesting conversation to be had about how groups of people can exert power over other groups of people i am incredibly and intensely bored over how we use the word racism i think that most of us would agree that there's a difference between a group of people enacting racism against another group of people i think everybody would agree with that unless you're delusional and i think we all agree that on an individual level all of us can exert some level of racism even the most hard well maybe not the most hardcore but like 95 of people in the political spectrum would agree that black people or hispanic people can be racist towards white people but you would have to be crazy to think that black people as a group or hispanic people as a group can enact any kind of meaningful harm on white people as a group when we hold like all of the majors like murder rates for for goodness sake i mean because look at the black criminality is complete disproof of this silly statement and the black criminality doesn't affect most there's like 10 cities in the u.s where black criminality has an impact on some people i just can't accept this thing like oh i'm so bored of hearing about that we just had our entire country ripped apart on this exact question on this precise question the the left is trying to redefine the most important word in america's history which is racism america is is is unintelligible without an understanding of of of uh racial uh politics and racism and what we think of each other is the central animating concern of the entire american project america is a creation of black and white and they have never existed in in the harmony that they should thanks to one original sin and thanks later to malevolence from democrats ignorance and stupidity from republicans now there are other things coming into the mix with new kinds of immigration racism is is you i i know that you're saying that you're bored of the definitions game but you can't afford to be because the central animating question of the next 10 20 years is going to be do we accept this new version of racism which paints white people as the eternal um oppressors as white people become the oppressors in our lifetime and which and which as a result of the democrat party's embrace of black lives matter will inevitably if they get a president in the in in the office you always with i must i must just be stern with you just this once you're always talking about how you want to bring back policy laws who's passing this stuff congress well the democrat party has embraced black lives matter which means that the democrat party has embraced this new definition of the most important word in american history and if they get a present in november they will attempt and probably succeed to pass laws based on that new definition so i just think it's absurdly stupid and lazy and and i'm sorry just just unacceptable to say i'm sorry i'm just bored about this linguistics discussion i mean this is not going to be the final word you don't get to be bored by it the the boring part is that like if i have a conversation with a conservative on this i already know that saying like prejudice plus power is going to trigger the ever living [ __ ] out of them and we can't ever so i'll just say like yeah i'm talking about systemic racism is what i'll say and then let's have a conversation about systemic racism not should racism be defined as the same or different thing from systemic racism and the idea that like future policy is going to be written based on the redefining of these words i mean we already have protected classes they don't exclude white people even if they seem to on twitter if you ho if you have a building and you're renting to a family and you say no white's allowed or you say no men allowed you're going to be held under the same federal housing standards that you would under any other platform um the the idea that like this this obsession over how we define a word it's like the most first world problem ever again when i have a conversation with a conservative if you want to say that well racism is just any time you prejudice somebody against uh against somebody based on the skin color that's fine that's okay then let's just talk about systemic restrictions first world problem in the world i think the way in which we're speaking about it is a privileged debate stage way of talking about something that the entire country is living and the problem itself we have discussions with it based on you know linguistics which we or or definitions that we hope get us to the truth and hope get us to understand each other's positions but the rest of the country is living this stuff but this is not what this is but they don't have an abstract this is the whole point though considerations they don't live the types of racism that we talk about we how much racism did we talk about up here that had to do with getting banned off of my entire wait how much did we talk about okay guys we're nowhere near resolution we're out of time talking about floyd and structural racism my entire family is steve and i need to take your mask off you two kiss and we're done we're done we're done no thank you guys so much i think that was uh i think that was a really productive and uh good conversation very respectful guys i did not envy brandon his job uh walking into this trying to keep the two of us up given our respective reputations and it turned out that only i was a problem so brandon straight thank you thank you very much as well thank you thank you

Channel: Destiny

Views: 705,929

Keywords: steven bonnell, destiny, destiny streamer, destiny debates, destiny twitch, destiny vods, destiny rajj, milo, Yiannopoulos, debate

Id: GYj4fz60Dwo

Length: 95min 6sec (5706 seconds)

Published: Tue Aug 18 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/sugemchuge]

Submission Statement: Milo Yiannopoulos and Destiny (Youtuber) debate left and right politics. I'm surprised how much more reasonable Milo is in this compared to his rise to fame 4 years ago. Destiny is quite refreshing with his nuanced view of left wing politics. I'm suprised he hasn't been on any IDW podcasts, he would make a good guest. Overall, really great refreshing takes on familiar IDW topics.

[u/danieluebele]

I used to watch him play Starcraft. Anyone remember his infestor hit squad and baneling reach-around jokes?

[u/Kohvazein]

I've recently been watching a fuck-tonne of destiny and find him to be a breath of fresh air. Almost everything I heard about him the past few years have been lies and shown how dishonest some of the actors are on the YouTube political sphere.

[u/Balduroth]

I’m getting pretty strong Jordan Peterson vibes from Milo, specifically right in the beginning.

I haven’t seen him in anything or heard him speak in almost a year; it seems like he’s matured a lot.

[u/stablersvu]

Is Milo still around? Sounds like he dropped his ridiculous clown persona too, that's good.

[u/wolverine55]

Milo turned out to hold some really repugnant views, but I went to a debate of his with Julie Bindel and it was really awesome. He is always really respectful to his opponents which is admirable. There was even a fun moment where Julie Bindel’s “a modest proposal” of putting all men in camps came up. Milo agreed for...reasons.

[u/RodneyDangerfeild]

Wow the moderator was pretty trash in this debate

[u/Mr_82]

I'm surprised to say I enjoyed that and found it really stimulating. Though I think both debaters did what often occurs in these situations (perhaps it should be called "the debating effect") where they softened their stances, even over-conceding or altering their original views.

I don't know Destiny well enough but it's interesting to see how Milo seems to have changed on some things. His discussion about libel and freedom of speech was especially insightful. (I believe the reason we don't see libelous speech against Jesus Christ is due to our nation's historical sensitivity to separation of church and state, but especially since times have reversed there, there's good reason for Milo's suggestion.) Milo certainly isn't the vapid firebrand most have tried to portray him as.

It also occurred to me that indeed, social media by design antagonizes both parties, when in reality, polarity (their intent) shouldn't actually require antagonism. I've seen this on Reddit, for instance. If you use different accounts, one Republican and one Democratic, (as "perceived" by the algorithm) and say you're operating the Democratic one, you're less likely to see posts from r/Republican or similar that are actually charitable toward Democrats. (An example today being the post I saw reporting that Biden wished Trump well.) We've all probably known this on some level but don't actually focus on it this much; I know personally I saw polarization itself as the evil in the past.

[u/[deleted]]

For a minute I mixed up Destiny and Vaush and was think WTF...

Yeah, Destiny seems intelligent and honest. Don’t agree on his world view entirely but I respect the guy.