>> Dave Rubin has decided to take what decidedly is the most boring, non-political book in
existence, and politicize it to become something about censorship?
I don't know.
Why don't we watch these exchange on Fox & Friends, and see what he has to say about AP Stylebook.
Watch.
>> The AP Stylebook recently, they tweeted out on Tuesday, saying to use care when you're
using the word riot.
Opt for a milder word maybe like, unrest.
They said that riot can have a negative racial connotation.
And we remember a while back they said don't use illegal immigrant, use undocumented.
What do you think about this this recent advice?
>> Rubin, how are you?
>> Well, I wanna get this stylistically right.
It's completely bananas.
>> I mean, this is this is complete lunacy.
I actually have the AP Stylebook behind me here in my office as well.
And I don't consider myself a journalist.
I tell people what I think for a living.
But this literally, and people often don't use the word literally correctly, this is
literally George Orwell's 1984 Newspeak.
That we will change the meaning of words, so that no one will ever be able to have a
sensible conversation with anyone.
We know what riots are.
When you turn on the TV and you see some of the things I talked about earlier with Molotov
cocktails, and small businesses burning down, and people assaulting people in their cars,
and blocking traffic, and all those things, those are riots.
Why are they trying to change words?
And they're trying to change words so that you can't calibrate.
You won't be able to have a conversation with your neighbor because your language won't
even be the same.
And the more they can cut us off from each other, and this is by design, changing words.
It starts with changing words, and next thing you can't talk to other people, and you're
paranoid, and the rest of it, and it's dangerous.
This is really weird.
These are the same people, by the way, who will tell you that violence is not violence,
but somehow words are violence.
It's all very contingent and by design.
>> Dave, by the way, when you look up riot in my book that was published in 1998, the
word's not even in the book.
>> Okay, so look, this is a small point.
Of course, I wanna discuss like the nonsense that was just spewed in that ridiculous exchange.
But Dave Rubin, there's no way in the world he has an AP Stylebook.
Look, I'm gonna keep it real.
I have an AP Stylebook, right?
But I have an AP Stylebook specifically because I teach journalism and I need to have it in
order to do my job.
If you're not writing for a print news source or platform, why would you randomly have the
AP Stylebook?
The AP Stylebook is specifically for print journalists and for newsrooms to streamline
the way their reporters write their reports.
And what it also does, which is incredibly helpful, is it helps people understand the
difference between words so you don't use words improperly.
So for instance, here's an example.
There is a difference between a burglary and a robbery.
And so the AP style guide helps to clarify that for reporters in case they might be confused.
You can't use those two words interchangeably, because a burglary occurs when no one is in
the home, and someone breaks in and steals something.
Robbery occurs when an individual or victim is confronted with a weapon or whatever by
the perpetrator and is robbed of whatever.
Whatever they have, if it's money, their purse, you get what I'm saying.
So that's what the AP style guide is.
That's what the AP Stylebook is.
And for them to turn this into some crazy politicized thing, because it's simply clarifying
the difference between a riot and a protest, is ridiculous.
It's a literally 1984.
No, it's not.
And I don't know how much longer he can go on with this censorship grift, especially
when half of his career is based on trying to censor people he disagrees with.
But it's amazing that he gets any airtime.
He just consistently sounds like an idiot.
>> So first of all, I'm pretty sure it's not literally 1984.
I don't need the AP Styleguide to tell me that.
Second of all, when you said it's the most boring book, I thought you were talking about
Dave Rubin's book.
Now- >> I mean, that was the most comical book.
And you should read the reviews of it, cuz it's amazing.
Go ahead.
>> So now, to the substance of this story.
First of all, Should you clarify between riots and protests?
Of course.
Are some things just protests without any riots?
Yes.
Are some things riots?
Yes, it doesn't mean that riots don't exist.
It just means, hey, if you have peaceful protesters get together and there's no looting and nobody
burns anything, don't call that a riot.
If there is an actual right and windows got broken or things are burned down, call that
a riot.
They're like, can you believe they're changing the meaning of the words?
No, they're not.
They're just telling you what the two different words are.
But of course, why do they wanna say that?
What, The media's bias, it's obvious, it's awesome.
And of course, the black people and left wingers, they're all rioters.
Who's changing the meaning of words?
Ironically, it's literally them in this particular case.
But that's not unusual.
Remember, everything that you hear from the right wing is projection.
So you change the meaning of words.
They say, what is that Rubin?
I was about to say, what's he famous for?
Correct answer, nothing.
Second answer, for being part of the Young Turks and then turning into a conservative.
Third answer, though, is, I'm for freedom of speech.
Are you in favor of those laws that block your speech against Israeli policy?
Yeah, I mean, I don't want you to speak against Israel.
But I'm for freedom of speech.
Are you in favor of the laws that say it's okay to run over protesters if they're left
wing?
Yeah, I mean, I love those laws but I mean, I'm for freedom of speech.
It seems like you're kind of changing the meaning of that phrase.
It's kind of funny how that works.
But that's not all.
You guys want to know all this collateral damage.
That used to be innocent civilians who were killed.
Now, it's just collateral damage.
It's just a little fender bender, right?
These are all Republicans speaking.
It used to be a state tax for the estates of multimillionaires, then they changed it
to death tax.
Because the state tax sounded like, yeah, they don't really need all that money.
It would be great if they kept a lot of it for their kids.
But then we tax some, so that we could give other kids opportunity, like a college education.
Death tax sounds bad.
And then finally, I mean, there's a thousand of these examples.
They're all done by Republicans.
Torture isn't torture, it's enhanced interrogation.
So the right wing invented doublespeak, and changing the meaning of words to make them
sound like something they're not.
And here's Fox News pretending that they're shocked and chagrined by it.