So last week I did this story where I admitted that I had been self-censoring
in some issues, uh, for awhile on the program. And I explained it's not for reasons of monetization,
it has nothing to do with that. It's because there are topics that for my mostly left wing
audience becomes so toxic and vitriolic that I questioned the value in general of diving
into them. And I talked about how I will, uh, it became very clear that any criticism
that I would make of any of the members of the squad, for example, would be met with
allegations of racism. So I stopped doing those critiques. I'm talking about Venezuela
in anything but glowing terms would get me just slammed by people on the left in a completely
counterproductive way, mentioning Telsey Gabard at all, uh, other than to say she's the best
candidate. Apparently that's the only thing that's allowed in some circles. And I also
mentioned the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
And the reaction to the story itself that I did last week was really positive. People
saying they respected me for coming clean people encouraging me to take on these topics
because the reactions should and could be respectful and I want to engage in the battle
of ideas and it's good for the left to figure out things that we are not United about all
of that stuff. So I did. And yesterday I pointed out that I don't think that the Israeli bds
movement is a force that will unite the left. I don't think it's a force that will cause
change in Israel, uh, or foreign policy. I don't believe it has been effective. And in
addition, I believe that it hurts people. It hurts workers, it hurts small businesses
or at least potentially if it worked, although it hasn't been very effective. And really
our gripe is with the right wing government of Israel.
So I did that story yesterday and the reactions to the segment are now exhibit a in why I
have been avoiding this and other topics on the program. And it has to do with it. Just
being unclear that there's an upside. Uh, for my sort of audience demographic for dealing
with these issues is a toxic assessable of comments. Let's first just start with some
comments, uh, from the youtube channel, which we will put up on the screen for you of some
of these have had to be blurred in some areas in order to maintain FCC safety. Israel is
a crime state committing an ethnic cleansing, that's all that matters. F It's fascist government.
You are an effing Jew. You can't be sn. Pretend that's not relevant. It's a little convenient
how you Jews act when it affects Jewish interests. I see you attack whites all the time over
trivial s it doesn't seem to apply to Jews who do wrong though.
That's very obvious. F Off David, you've exposed yourself as a Zionist shill, crash and burn
you stupid effing Cook. That's just a sampling of youtube comments. And then of course emails,
which take it up a notch. I'm only putting up a couple of them. There's much more where
this came from, but I can't spend the entire day talking about it. David, I'd respect you
more if you just said it. How it is. Greedy Jews want the shekels for themselves. So BSD
is bad, I guess they mean bds, you arrogant and Tinian. Shyster you'll have it to be more
clever to convince people to oppose bds. So you can line your pockets like Jews do. Wow.
And one other Jews should be killed. And you with them, you fake shill fo progressive.
Your entire show exists to prop up his Rahel and to destroy the lives of Palestinians.
You should be taken off the air by law or force, which is funny to say.
That's the goal of the show. Given that I've admitted, I barely talk about the issue because
it seems so counter productive. So what is it that is at issue here? It's not, can I
handle the emails? It's not, you know, do, um, am I unable to handle the criticism for
what it is? We get 2000 comments per day and hundreds of emails and most of them are negative.
Quite frankly, that's not what this is about. The point is, is there any contingent or coalition
in our audience that benefits from me broaching this, tie, these topics. If I do a topic that
the Wright hates, but it unites the left and it makes us better activists and it makes
us come together and understand an issue. Okay. There's a reason why it makes sense
to do that if mostly everyone just hates it. Maybe this is the wrong lane for my show.
Like is that a possibility? And when I asked that, I don't ask it rhetorically, I'm genuinely
coming to you for advice. What do you think? Uh, the Tulsi example is a good one. I mean,
listen, Tulsi has been polling close to zero for a long time. She's fading out. She's pulling
0.8% now or something like that. She'll be out before the September debates or soon thereafter.
Does it really make sense for me to do any kind of critique of Tulsa's positions, uh,
or any more than it does of John Delaney or whoever? Maybe not like maybe it's just not
the right lane for the show. That's my question for you. Did we really gain anything in terms
of the broader goals of doing a show like this? By me having done the story that I did
yesterday, let me know what you think. I W I do want to hear from you.
The xenophobic nationalists, right. Loves to talk about how none of these immigrants
can assimilate in the United States. They bring their own language, they bring their
own culture. They bring their own skin color. Wait, okay, wait. Maybe that last one there
at least not supposed to say out loud. Anyway, the nationalists love to talk about how immigrants
from Latin America or the Middle East or Asia basically from anywhere other than Europe,
they just can't assimilate here or they choose not to or they don't have the cognitive capacity
to do it. They can't successfully integrate themselves into the American mill, you and
culture, so say the conservative nationalists. I want to flip this around. I want to make
the case that it's the conservative nationalists who are unable to assimilate to the reality
of 2019 United States of America. There's a really good article on reason.com about
this. The way the argument usually goes is people come here from other countries.