- 'Sup you beautiful bastards.
Hope you're having a fantastic day.
Welcome back to the Phil DeFranco show.
I'm Phil DeFranco and let's just
jump right into it.
(laughing off-screen)
Was that good?
- It was beautiful.
And then I promptly fired Casey Neistat.
Great guy, amazing vlogger, horrible PDS host.
Wouldn't even legally change his name
to Philip DeFranco, like an amateur.
But, even though I just fired Casey Neistat,
if you would like to listen to our brand new podcast,
which I actually just uploaded before this video.
One you can either listen to it on iTunes,
and or wherever the hell else, link down below.
Or, you can listen and watch it on the brand new
YouTube channel YouTube.com/AConvoWith.
I'll link to it down below.
We had a fantastic chat.
I feel like I always walk away from the talks with him
with just new information that I can use in my life.
But, yeah, after today's video,
I highly recommend you check it out.
I always include those links in the description.
Also be sure to subscribe.
Right now I've been uploading once a week.
I love it.
It's just a fantastic break from, ya know,
the news can get ya down.
But, with all of that said, buckle in,
hit that like button and let's just jump into it.
And the first thing we're gonna talk about today
is we actually had YouTube and just
in general megastar David Dobrik in the news.
This, because of some conjurers sayin' some criticism.
So on Tuesday, Dobrik uploaded a new video
to his mega-successful, mega-huge channel.
And around the last minute of it,
it features jokes about a plane crash.
And then reportedly, the next day,
9/11, that video began trending.
Right, and so you had a number of people angry,
thinking that it's tasteless that you're
making plane crashing jokes on 9/11.
Now, following some of this,
we saw Dobrik then private the video.
And as far as my opinion on this,
I think in large this is kind of a nothing burger.
And understand, I say this as someone that
I am actually somewhat sensitive to 9/11 jokes,
like I'm not trying to cancel people's careers.
Over those jokes but, they make me
feel uncomfortable, but, this is what?
But the thing is, that's not even what happened here.
Just looking at the facts of the situation,
he uploaded it on 9/10, yes there are jokes
in the video about a plane crashing, but there's nothing
related to terrorism, any reference to 9/11 specifically.
Here, because the internet's forever, here's a small clip.
- Can't be fixed ma'am, this fucker's goin' down.
(laughing)
I read the manual.
- [Man Off Camera] Is that the pilot?
- Huh? - Uh, no.
(laughing off camera)
- Hey guys, it's your captain speaking,
I got some bad news, and some good news,
bad news is we're crash landing, good news is we're gonna be
on the ground a lot sooner than expected.
- Yeah bring us the gas, it's on fucking fire, you fuckhead.
- Right so is the timing less than ideal, yes.
Right and this idea that privating the video,
it's his admission of guilt, no it's not.
It's incredibly likely one, there were some people
that were offended and he was like
"ah, I don't want to offend them"
or two, he just knew how the internet worked
and he just wanted to avoid controversy.
You know, that's my takeaway on it,
maybe you have a different one.
And then we also had an update on the pewdiepie
aka Felix situation we talked about yesterday.
And if you didn't see that, to kind
of oversimplify, Felix announced
that he would be donating $50,000 to the ADL.
- Which is an organization that fights
bigotry and prejudice in all its forms.
- And that was something that caught fans off guard
for a number of reasons including
the ADL in the past, back in 2017,
their CEO cheered on Disney for severing ties with him.
And this then turned into a situation where a number
of people were saying, was Felix blackmailed?
That was kind of the main focus yesterday,
the conspiracy theories around this, because people
can have whatever opinion regarding
the actual donation itself, whether it was good or bad,
some people were saying that Felix had stabbed
the YouTube community in the back.
But, you know, the blackmail conspiracy
theories, that made no sense.
And I mean that for a number of reasons
including who blackmails someone worth
tens of millions of dollars for $50,000?
That's just not smart blackmail in my opinion.
And you know, yesterday Felix
had also issued a statement on Twitter.
In there he mentioned the Christ Church shooting,
which of course the lunatic behind that mentioned his name.
But the update around the situation today
is that Felix has now spoken on this in a video.
Regarding the decision to chose
the ADL specifically he says.
- We thought it would be nice to donate
to a charity as a way to celebrate.
I made the mistake of picking a charity
that I was advised instead of picking a charity
that I'm personally passionate about.
Which is 100% my fault.
Usually when I pick a charity, I take my time,
I find a charity that I'm really excited about
and actually passionate to donate to.
So when I uploaded the video talking about the charity,
it was very brief and people could tell something was off.
The whole internet just didn't believe it,
like why is he donating to this charity,
look at his face, full conspiracy mode.
And it was very interesting to watch that unfold.
- He then goes on to kind of talk about the intent
and his head space after Christ Church,
which was something that we talked about yesterday as well.
- To be fair, I saw it as an opportunity to put an end
to these alt-right claims that has been thrown against me.
It wasn't to try and clear my name or save grace,
if it was, I would've done it years ago.
But after the Christ Church tragedy,
I felt a responsibility to do something about it,
because it's no longer just about me,
it affected other people in a way,
and I'm not okay with that.
I've struggled to figure out how to do that,
but this was not the right way to go about it.
I knew it wasn't perfect, but I also didn't know
a lot of things that surfaced throughout this whole thing
about the charity that doesn't fit at all.
- And then he further explains that all of this
was orchestrated around the time that he
was getting prepped to get married, he should've
dedicated time to it, he issues an apology
and he says he will not be making the donation.
And so that's the story as it is now, and of course
it'll always be interesting to see how people react to it.
You know, a lot of people that were angry at him,
are they gonna be like okay good, he listened to the
audience, or are they gonna see this as a hollow move?
To the people that were previously happy
about the announced donation, are they gonna see this
as kind of Felix backtracking, cowering to his audience?
Also will this increase the number of conspiracy theories
where people are like well it's actually 4D chess,
Felix was playing ignorant, but this
was actually a way to hit the ADL.
Whereas I personally think that the answer
to a lot of things is usually the most simple version.
Like I mentioned yesterday, I think
that he was trying to create some separation
between him and stuff like Christ Church.
Because once again, that horrible shooting happening
and then the inclusion of your name,
and then the articles afterwards,
like I don't know what that does to your head.
And then he threw the money at an organization
that he says was recommended, he was busy with life.
That also kinda puts the brand that sponsored him
in that video, Honey, in an odd place,
because at least in the video it's not made clear
if he was saying that Honey recommended
that specific charity or maybe it's kind of this
unnamed friend, maybe a lawyer or advisor of some sort.
But yeah, that's the situation right now, I'm just looking
at Twitter, people are going off on both sides.
And actually along those lines, I do pass the question
off to you, what are your thoughts around all of this?
Where do you land on it and why?
But from that, I wanna share some stuff I loved today
in Today in Awesome, brought to you by Raid: Shadow Legends.
And if you don't know, Raid: Shadow Legends
is the brand new collection RPG game that's
available on smart phones and totally free.
And you get a ton that you probably
wouldn't expect from a mobile game.
You get awesome 3D graphics, amazing storyline,
giant boss fights, PVP battles, more than 400 champions
to collect and customize, and just the levels of detail.
As far as champions go, personally my favorite is Galek.
He's been a day one, and also his AOE
is overpowered for the early game.
Also when it comes to this game, you don't have
to just take my word for it, Raid has more than 10 million
players worldwide that have already downloaded the game
in just the past six months and has over 300,000 reviews,
and an almost perfect score in the play store.
They also have huge plans for updates in the game
over the next six months, so there's gonna be
a ton of content for you to enjoy.
They even published a roadmap where you get a new faction,
a tag team arena feature, even a new clan boss
that you'll be able to fight with your clan mates.
And hey, if you wanna join in on the fun,
just go to the description of this video,
use our specific link to download Raid, and if you do that,
you'll get 50,000 silver and a free epic
champion to start your journey.
So yeah, click the link, check it out, and enjoy.
And the first bit of awesome are for people
that are like hey, I like that shirt, I wanna snag one,
I'll include a link in the description down below,
they're available until October fourth,
they're actually part of a project and campaign
that my wife's working on, it's meant to educate
and empower students to think critically about the news.
But yeah, you can snag that.
Then we got the trailer for Like a Boss.
We had Binging with Babish giving us Cajun food.
We had Penn Badgley exploring ASMR.
We, I don't know if you've seen this,
we of course have had Popeyes releasing
a chicken sandwich that's out of stock,
but KFC recently announced they are releasing
a dating simulator where you can
date Colonel Sanders, cause of course that's a thing.
And I just love that it's a thing because you know
that there was like some sort of pitch meeting,
they were like, I mean we could make that game and just
call it finger licking good, and then they actually did it.
And then finally our phil.chrono.gg partner game of the day
today is Monster Hunter: World, cause it was so popular
they brought it back, instead of the regular $60,
today if you use our link before 9a.m. tomorrow
and or while supplies last, you can snag it for just $25.99.
And if you wanna see the full versions of everything
I just shared, the secret link of the day, really anything
at all, links as always are in the description down below.
And then let's talk about former
California judge Aaron Persky, who you
most likely know from the Brock Tuner case.
He was the judge that gave Brock Turner
that very lenient six month sentence that Turner
ended up only having to serve three months of,
which is a judgment that actually resulted in Persky
being recalled in a California vote two years later.
Right and that was historic, California voters
had not done that to a sitting judge since 1932.
And what's interesting is actually the update today
is something that we were going to do a deep dive on.
We had received a message from someone saying that they were
from this school that's actually at the core of this story.
And they told us that Persky had actually been hired
by their high school to coach tennis,
but really before we could dive into it,
the news broke that he had been fired.
It turns out yes, Persky was actually hired
as a girls' junior varsity tennis coach
at a Bay Area high school, the school district saying
in a statement "he was a qualified applicant
for the position, having attended several
tennis coaching clinics for youth and holds
a high rating from the United States Tennis Association."
Reportedly Persky's history and connection
to the Brock Turner case came to light last week,
the district saying after this was learned,
the school district held a meeting with parents of athletes
on the varsity and junior varsity girls tennis teams
"to provide parents with background on the situation,"
and ultimately his firing was believed to be
"in the best interest of our students and school community."
Right and following this there were a number of reactions.
Some angry that he had even been hired in the first place,
others just happy that he was fired.
Although online there were also a number of people
not happy that he was fired, some essentially arguing
that he was not the one who committed the crime,
also arguing that California voters already recalled him,
so didn't he essentially pay for what he did?
Now as far as my opinion on this, regarding this specific
situation, I have a hard time feeling bad for Persky here.
Right just to briefly look back to the Brock Turner case,
prosecutors there wanted six years for Brock Turner,
but as a report pointed out, but Mr. Persky
followed the county probation department's recommendation
that the case may be considered less serious
due to Brock Turner's level of intoxication,
and ordered him to serve six months.
So if I was the parent of a young girl on this team,
I personally wouldn't feel comfortable.
I wouldn't personally believe that Persky
had the well being and safety of my child as a priority.
And so if you have alumni, students, parents
coming together and they feel that same way, then yeah.
But you know, that's the story, some of my personal feelings
on it, and of course I pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts regarding what happened here?
And then finally let's talk about huge news
involving the Supreme Court and the Trump administration.
And what we're talking about is that the Supreme Court
has issued an unsigned order allowing
the Trump administration to enforce a rule.
And the rule in question was first issued
by the Trump administration back in July
and basically says that any migrant who has crossed
through another country to get to the southern border
of the United States cannot apply for asylum
in the US except in two main cases:
one if the immigrant has been denied asylum
in another country, and two they have been
a victim of quote severe human trafficking.
But a big thing to not there is people
with those qualifiers, that doesn't mean
that they're automatically granted asylum, it just means
that they are the only ones who can even apply.
Okay, so, right after the Trump administration
announced this rule, it was challenged
by immigrant rights groups in court.
Then towards the end of July, a federal district judge
in California blocked the rule, saying in his ruling
that a decision to bar a group of people from asylum
was a decision that had to be made by congress,
and so as a result he decided the administration's rule
is likely invalid because it is inconsistent
with the existing asylum laws.
Also adding that it violated the APA,
the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that there
is a period of public comment before a rule is enacted.
And in his decision, that judge issued
a nationwide injunction ordering the administration
to continue to allow all asylum applications,
but then the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
said that that judge did not have
the power to make the ruling nationwide.
And while they did agree that the rule did go
against the APA, they decided that the injunction
could only apply to the geographic areas
in the Ninth District, which does include parts
of California and Arizona, but also means that other border
states could still enforce the administration's new rule.
So then last month Solicitor General Noel Francisco
files an emergency application to the Supreme Court
asking for them to put a stop to the block,
and to allow the rule from the Trump administration
to implemented nationwide while the legal battle continued,
with Francisco arguing that congress gives the Departments
of Justice and Homeland Security power to place restrictions
on asylum seekers that go beyond
the scope of the existing federal asylum law.
Then we saw this past Monday, the same federal district
judge reinstated his nationwide injunction,
but again it was blocked by the Ninth Circuit,
and again we saw the Trump administration
ask the Supreme Court to lift the injunction.
Which brings us now full circle to the Supreme Court's
decision where they have allowed this rule to be enforced.
Right, so with all of that said,
let's talk about the implications
of this rule and what impacts it could have.
At the very top level, I mean this is a massive change
to the way the federal government has treated people
seeking asylum under the laws that have
been in place for the past four decades.
The current federal law says that any foreign national
who is physically present in the United States,
or who arrives in the United States,
can seek asylum in the country.
This as long as they can prove that
they face persecution in their home country.
Right so a rule that allows the United States
to deny most people showing up at the southern border
the ability to even apply for asylum is huge.
As explained by a legal brief given to the Supreme Court
by the ACLU "the current ban would eliminate virtually
all asylum at the southern border, even at ports of entry,
for everyone except Mexicans who do not need to transit
through a third country to reach the United States."
And the ACLU also argued that "the court should
not permit such a tectonic change to US asylum law,
especially at the stay stage."
That brief also touched on the next point,
which is who will be most effected by the rule.
The change in asylum policy is believed
to most heavily impact Hondurans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans,
many of whom are seeking asylum in the United States
from gang violence and high levels
of crime in their home countries.
And in fact, according to reports,
"the Border Patrol has arrested 419,831
migrant family members from those three countries
at the southwestern border so far this fiscal year,"
that "compared with just 4,312 Mexican family members."
Now reportedly, most of those families who have tried
to enter the United States to get asylum have been released
to await court hearings, with the Justice Department
saying that more than 436,000 pending cases
also include an asylum application.
Also regarding this new rule, it's believed
that this could hurt refugees fleeing the humanitarian
economic crisis under the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
According to the UN, more than four million
people have already left the country.
Right and so as far as what this means for everyone
else involved, the people, other countries,
well under the rule Hondurans and Salvadorans
are going to be required to seek asylum in Guatemala
or Mexico first, then be denied asylum in those places,
and then they can apply to the United States.
Guatemalans will have to seek
and be denied asylum in Mexico.
Also notably Guatemala and Mexico initially said
that they are not okay with this plan,
because basically it would take the asylum problems
the United States has and then kick them to them,
thus over burdening their asylum system.
But of note here, they have tentatively agreed,
although, as others have pointed out, it was only
after Trump had threatened both countries with tariffs.
Also, tentatively is a key word here.
While the United States has struck a deal with Guatemala
to take in more migrants, the country's constitutional court
has ruled that it needs further approval.
Additionally the Mexican government has recently pushed back
against the agreement that would force them
to take in asylum seekers from Guatemala.
But ultimately, that is where we are right now,
and it's gonna be very interesting to see what happens here,
and actually with these other countries.
But I mean, a big note here is that this situation
is also not done in the United States.
Right, technically the Supreme Court didn't agree one way
or another regarding the rule itself, it just means
that they decided that it can stay while the legal battles
progress through court, which could take months, and still
it's seen as a big win for the Trump administration.
Something Trump even noted on Twitter writing "big United
States Supreme Court win for the border on asylum."
Also tweeting "some really big
court wins on the border lately."
And he's really not wrong there, this most recent decision
follows another from the Supreme Court back in July,
and that was to allow the administration to use $2.5 billion
in Pentagon money for the construction
of a wall along the Mexican border.
But yeah, another day, another massive change,
and of course we pass the question off to you,
what are your thoughts regarding all of this?
And that's where we're going to end today's show.
Also if you're not 100% filled in,
maybe you missed yesterday's show, you wanna catch up,
or you wanna check out today's brand new podcast
with Casey Neistat, you can click or tap
right there to watch either of those.
But with that said, of course, as always,
my name's Philip DeFranco, you've just been Phil'd in,
I love yo faces and I'll see you next time.