>> This week, there's been this huge brouhaha between Carlos Maza of Vox and Steven Crowder
who is a professional victim and a one trick pony.
And he's only claim to fame is trying to harass people to the point that they finally take
action and try to get YouTube to deplatform him.
And then of course, once they tried to deplatform him, he pretends as if his free speech rights
are being violated, and that he's really this great guy and he's just a comedian.
He's not funny, he's not talented, again, he's a one trick pony.
We all know this, we covered the story this week.
Now there is a development.
Recently, David Pakman, who's a progressive and a friend of the show, went on Joe Rogan's
podcast and this topic came up.
And they brought up or I should say, Rogan brought up the harassment toward Dave Rubin,
take a look.
>> Is that different in you opinion than someone signaling something out for what you believe
is their mental incompetency?
>> Well, mental incompetent, do you mean that they're ignorant?
>> You're mocking me.
>> Or that they're mentally ill or cognitively limited?
>> Mocking, no just cognitively limited.
Mocking their ability to think.
Mocking their intelligence, mocking their decisions, mocking the way they talk.
And then encouraging other people to do the same thing, and then that person gets harassed,
based on their intelligence, based on their performance on particular YouTube videos and
conversations.
And there's an active harassers, there's people that do that.
Is there a difference between say, what Sam Seder does to Dave Rubin?
>> What did Sam do to Dave Rubin?
>> He has- >> I don't know that I've seen that video.
>> Dozens of videos, don't say that video.
He has dozens of videos where he's just dunking on Dave Rubin.
>> So I will say that Sam Seder and Michael Brooks do have dozens of videos where they
dunk on Dave Rubin.
Dave Rubin does not have any type of mental health condition.
>> Yeah.
>> Right?
Dave Rubin is a perfectly healthy human, who has decided to be a grifter.
So the dunking is about the fact that Dave Rubin is a grifter.
It's not about the fact that he's gay.
It's not about the way he looks.
It's not any of that.
It's about his incredibly lazy grifting, because he doesn't even do the leg work to educate
himself on the talking points necessary to be a grifter.
>> Right, you're asking is there a difference between going after people based on who they
are verses what they do?
>> Right.
>> And the answer is yes.
>> You just described it.
>> That's the difference.
>> Right.
>> Dave Rubin whom I used to know, somebody that I used to know, he is all what he's chosen
to do importantly.
And what anyone in the same cedar, Michael Brooks vote videos what they point out is
the failings of Dave Rubin to articulate the thought process necessary to believe what
he believes and he doesn't do it.
He doesn't understand any of these things because he's grifting them.
He didn't sit down and think and go, you know what, I've come to a giant epiphany.
>> Right.
>> He's doing a paint by numbers and he can't even do that.
>> Yeah, you're exactly right and yes, the dunking happens, but the whole point of what
Sam Seder and Michael Brooks do is to make sure that they basically debunk the nonsense
that they're hearing from Dave Rubin's show.
Because Dave Rubin keeps trying to present himself as a so called classical liberal even
though there's that notorious Reddit ask me anything, where he couldn't even define or
explain what classical liberal means.
So we bowed of it pretty early.
And so it's important for people to know like, is the information I'm getting from this person
actual information?
Is this person an honest actor?
And the whole point of what Sam Seder does is to make sure that people know.
This is not an honest actor.
He's not even genuine in anything he's saying.
He's not even saying anything really, when you listen to him.
>> Remember earlier, we were talking about like count your blessings?
So these are like major, these tech companies, but hey, it's a company, a corporation that
doesn't want homophobia on their platform.
So everyone else left, consider yourself lucky that they allowed dumb people.
>> It's like count your blessings.
>> But they do, so YouTube had this weird thing that I don't even fully understand yet,
but essentially they said, if your primary, they let Crowder stay up for a while.
They reached out to Maza and they said, hey we're looking into this after Maza posted
just a run of homophobic slurs and just the word gay used.
But specifically the word queer, and that is a slur.
The reason that the name of academic branches of different universities are called Queer
studies is it's a way to reclaim a word that was used pejoratively in the past.
>> Right.
>> And so there is a difference there.
>> Of course.
>> Crowder is using the pejorative.
He is using the slur, it just hasn't reached that level where people don't say it.
It hasn't reached a level like the N word where people don't even say it.
>> Right, right.
>> But Crowder is using it that way, that shirt he's wearing right now says, socialism
is for F words.
And it's got Che Guevara with a hands doing this and you can't see it but he sells that
on his website which he promotes through YouTube.
YouTube let him keep that stuff up there, they're like we're not taking it down cuz
his primary reason for doing it, was debate even though ancillary to that were the slurs.
And then they turned around and demonetized Crowder, which I don't know how Dave Rubin
defines classic liberalism or capitalism whatever.
But this is like a purely capitalistic approach where YouTube saying, well, you can have your
free speech, we're just not gonna pay you for it.
>> That's right.
>> And that's all Dave Rubin's in it for anyway.
>> That's right.
>> That's what Crowder's in it for, and that's what Rubin's in it for.
>> So let's go to the next video, cuz there's more to this story.
>> So I have some as well, I believe that they are substantive, my videos about Dave
Rubin are substantive.
To your first question, there is a difference between going after someone for sexual orientation.
>> Right.
>> Than going after them for the fact that they say things that are wrong or don't know
stuff, until you're making fun of someone who has an actual handicap of some kind.
Some kind of cognitive limitation that would be a disability of some kind, then you are
mocking someone for a disability.
>> But the resulting effect of the harassment.
See this is what I was getting at before with Crowder.
What Crowder said was one thing, but one of the things that Carlos Maza was just discussing,
was what the people that had watched Crowder, what they were doing, how they were going
after him.
>> Which if you look at Maza's complain, that's not what he was complaining about.
He's like I'm not mad about that, I got pretty think skin when it comes to this stuff.
>> Who's even complaining about Crowder?
>> He's saying like there are a lot of people, the doxing is against policy.
And if anyone doxes Dave Rubin or if anyone doxes anybody, there should be consequences
to that.
It's just frustrating to see all of these because what Rogan's trying to do is say what
about if people are mad at Dave Rubin and people are mad at Steven Crowder, isn't that
the same thing?
>> And it's not.
>> And that's not even remotely the point Maza's mad that Youtube has Rainbow flags
on their logo during pride.
And they have all these messages in their terms of service saying, you can't use homophobic
slurs.
And everyone just look at three comments down in the Twitter thread or whatever.
And it will be people saying, here is a screen cap of the terms of service, and here's how
it's violated.
Maza was upset that YouTube didn't live up to YouTube's own standards.
>> Right, and there are by the way, we're on YouTube obviously, YouTube is a great platform
for people who wanna do independent content.
But at the same time I think part of problem and I mention this in the original video,
is that they don't apply their guidelines or they don't enforce their guidelines, I
think equally.
And it seems like they're doing it kind of here and there, they're applying it when some
situations, are not applying it with other situations.
So they have to be clear, it needs to be applied consistently.
There's a lack of consistency, and I think that that's also leading to a lot of frustration
and anger, but I agree with both of you.
I mean, to compare dunking on Dave Rubin to what Carlos Maza went through is ridiculous.
And by the way, I wanna give you a specific example of what the dunking looks like when
it comes to Dave Rubin.
Again, Dave Rubin is a professional grifter and one of the things that he did was he agreed
to participate in a pro Bolsonaro propaganda video on YouTube, right?
So he does that, and then a few days later, a week later, some time later, one of his
own viewers asks him about Jair Bolsonaro who is now, unfortunately, the elected leader
of Brazil.
And so he's reading the question and he's like Jair Bolsonaro, and yeah, he got dunk
on for that, because you're just in a propaganda video for him, homeboy.
How do you not know who he is?
You're calling him out for the grifting.
It's not about what he looks like or the fact that he's gay.
It's about what he does for a living, how dishonest he is, and also more importantly,
how he won't even do the legwork necessary to be a good grifter.
>> Right, that's what so frustrating, it's like, just read up on your BS, dude, just
know your BS better.
>> Right, this conversation is frustrating for me cuz its nothing.
It's a nothing burger, no, not us.
>> None of these people are that stupid.
I may have to take him out of that box, that was fascinating, the Bolsonaro situation.
But separate from that, I don't think any of these people are that stupid.
They're hateful, and but why?
When someone says, hey, you know what, that's a little too far, that's it.
Joe Rogan, he doesn't think that this hate and calling someone out for doing something
stupid are the same thing.
He doesn't care because he likes it, he likes his platform, he likes what he talks.
I don't think any of these people are that stupid.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, we'll see I don't know.
>> We'll see.
>> And with Rogan, he does a lot of like talking and asking and playing Devil's advocate sometimes.
But in this, I couldn't help but get the feeling and he was like, I've got you, both of these
things are the same, isn't it?
>> It felt real?
>> And it felt real.
>> It did feel real, yeah.
>> But what's frustrating from our point of view, is that since we're engaging this.
Since the Sam Seders and Michael Brooks and us, when we engage this kind of stuff, we're
just trying to say, there's ignorance out there that they're spreading out there, falsely
and without integrity.
And we have integrity, so we're going to tell people about it.
>> But from YouTube's point of view, now we're in a back and forth in the same category.
And when they come to demonetize stuff, they're AI isn't quite there yet.
And they're just like, we might just get rid of all of that.
>> Right, and that's part of the issue.
I mean, they rely on the algorithms to do this, and it's not a foolproof method, as
we know, which is why they don't apply the standards consistently.
One final thing, look, obviously, we do a little bit of dunking on Dave Rubin as well.
But I also wanna note that it took years for us to finally respond.
Dave Rubin when on Rogan's show, and lied about us, lied about what we do, right?
He's the one who's been badmouthing us for years, and it literally took at least two
years for me to finally feel like, okay, I can't take it anymore, I need to respond.
>> And to be fair, Rogan's the one who is like, so let me ask you some questions about
your own BS.
And Dave Rubin flails, so I mean it's not like a solely a Rogan thing, but you know
when Dave Rubin gets in there, it gets very frustrating