- 'Sup you beautiful bastards.
Welcome back to "The Philip DeFranco Show"
and a quick announcement.
So, as some of you have already seen yesterday, I uploaded
a brand new bonus "Philip DeFranco Show" on a Sunday.
All new stories that are big and important ones.
I definitely recommend you check it out after today's show.
But I mentioned that because
it's a part of a new thing that I wanna test which is
a brand new video on this channel every single day.
I'm not promising we'll always do this
but this week, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
full "Philip DeFranco Show" as usual.
And then Friday, Saturday, and Sunday,
there will be a new video on the channel
where we talk about at least one or several stories,
all available for free as per usual,
though you can show that love by getting yourself some gear
over at beautifulbastard.com.
I love naps, emotionally exhausted, go easy on yourself.
But hey, with that said, let's jump into it,
starting with Scott Adams,
the creator of the Dilbert comic strip,
is, uh, he's havin' himself a week.
And that because he put out a YouTube video where
he responds to a Rasmussen poll where it found that
a quarter of Black Americans disagree with the statement
"It's okay to be white,"
with another 21% saying they're not sure.
And Scott shared his thoughts on the data.
- If, you know, nearly half of all Blacks
are not okay with white people, according to this poll,
not according to me, according to this poll,
that's a hate group.
That's a hate group.
And I don't want to have anything to do with them.
- Now also, to be clear here, in the wake of this
some have criticized the poll's methodology,
arguing, for example, that the question is loaded.
Because asking, "Do you agree with the statement
'it's okay to be white'" rather than just
"do you think it's okay to be white" frames it differently.
They're saying that it'd be like asking
"Do you agree with the statement 'all lives matter'
where people see it as politically loaded
and feel obliged to disagree.
So that's why you have people saying
"is it okay to be white?" could be met with
kind of a similar suspicion,
especially since today's right wing
often believes that white people are being persecuted,
with Adams seemingly among this group.
And in fact, he feels so under attack that he says this.
- The best advice I would give to white people is
to get the hell away from Black people.
Just get the fuck away.
Because there's no fixing this.
This can't be fixed.
So that's what I did.
I went to a neighborhood where, you know,
I have a very low Black population.
- With the creator of Dilbert going on to say that
neighborhoods with higher concentrations of Black people
have more problems and a lower quality of living.
Also saying that he's sick of seeing
videos of Black people beating up non-black people
and that every time he tries to help Black America
he just gets called a racist so he's done trying.
- So I think it makes no sense whatsoever
as a white citizen of America
to try to help Black citizens anymore.
- So all of that goes viral, and in response,
hundreds of Dilbert syndicators and major newspapers
from the Chicago Tribune and the LA Times
to the San Francisco Chronicle and the Washington Post,
they dropped the comic, and just like that,
(fingers snapping)
after three decades, done. Gone.
And in response to this, we saw the likes of Elon Musk
jumping into the mix, tweeting that
"US media, colleges, and high schools
were racist against non-whites before,
but now they're racist against white people and Asians."
Also agreeing with a tweet arguing that
Adams' comments weren't good,
but have the element of truth in them.
Also deleting a post where he asked
"What exactly are they complaining about?"
Also, as far as what Adams is doing now,
he's still speaking, putting out tweets this morning like
"I've lost three careers to direct racism so far:
Crocker Bank, Pacific Bell, and cartooning.
All three were perpetuated by white people
for their own gain.
No Black person has ever discriminated against me.
That's partly why I identified as Black for several years."
And I, I got, I don't know how to respond to that tweet.
So yeah, I guess we'll wait to see what happens from here.
And then, Adin Ross, the voice of a generation,
is being unjustly persecuted.
This according to the warped deluded brain inside of Adin.
So Adin, who has yet to be accused by anyone
for being too smart,
at least by people that do not have brain injuries,
he's been having himself a little time as of late.
He's an absolutely massive streamer.
He has also kind of become Andrew Tate's lackey
over the last several months or year.
And since his buddy got snatched up
by the Romanian authorities,
some have said he's gone off the deep end,
which in part has been seen as
why he is kind of testing out the waters
with this new streaming service, Kick.
He says they have more lax rules,
that he can stream pretty much anything,
and the form that has taken recently is pretty special.
For one, he live streamed the Super Bowl
to around a hundred thousand concurrent viewers,
talked about trying to get
his Nazi buddy Nick Fuentes over on the platform,
as well as deciding it'd just be fun to have
a watch party for porn.
- What do y'all wanna watch, bro? I don't support porn.
Like I don't, I don't support the shit.
What the fuck do y'all wanna watch on here, bro?
I don't support the shit.
I don't condone it, I don't support it.
- With an audience seemingly full of minors.
- Wait, how old are you guys in the chat, bro?
Jesus. I didn't know that.
- Right, he doesn't say it out loud, but it appears that
many in the chat answer his question
and they're well under the age of 18,
though also here some reports have claimed that
he turned on age restrictions for the stream.
That also resulted in the fun little moment where
he had people like Jake Lucky tweeting out the clip,
with Adin seemingly not happy about that
and a screenshot then going around
where Adin says, "Keep yourself safe," which some say
is a super ominous and threatening thing in its own right,
but others also noting, if you take the first letter,
it's KYS, kill your self.
And seemingly with this, Adin is moving over to Kick,
posting a video a few days ago announcing this
and then following that we saw that
Adin got banned from Twitch for the eighth time.
This time it reportedly being permanent,
which, if he was already leaving,
probably wouldn't bother him that much,
except no, he makes a very big deal about it.
- If I had blue hair and did my makeup,
would you have banned me, Twitch?
And also with this, saying if he was someone else,
this wouldn't have happened.
- I'm permanently banned on Twitch, it's done.
It's already done?
But I got permanently banned for no reason. At all.
- Though he did later say there was a reason,
he just didn't think that the reason made sense,
but declined then to go into further detail
for legal reasons.
You know, the biggest standout of the story is
just how he's victimizing himself in this.
Like, I think he's within 24 hours of
saying he's like MLK.
he's gonna drop his own "I Have a Dream" speech.
But also I will say,
this doesn't come at a great time for Twitch.
The reports coming out now saying that Twitch's viewership
has dropped around 10% in the past year.
While I think part of that can be connected
to viewership habits changing post-pandemic,
you do also have to consider new competitors like Kick
popping up as well,
as YouTube acquiring top talent over the past two years.
And some of that talent actually successfully
migrating their audiences and thriving.
Though I wouldn't say that's universal,
but it is very notable.
But ultimately, that's where we are
and we'll have to wait to see what happens.
And then, in entertainment news, Jake Paul took the L,
fighting with and losing two Tommy Fury over the weekend.
While the internet was celebrating what they saw as
the downfall of like a comic book villain,
I personally couldn't help but feel like
people were missing the forest for the trees.
That is, a lot of people missing the larger situation
because if you really look at this,
Jake Paul has set himself up in a situation where
he cannot lose even when he loses.
As far as ego, even though
Jake Paul was outboxed the entire fight,
he didn't get knocked out, he didn't even get knocked down,
and thanks to a last round knock down,
even though Fury was only down for a second
and I guess one of the judges smoking crack
so that he actually gave the fight to Jake Paul,
so it was a split decision rather than a unanimous decision.
He gets to save face some there.
But more importantly, Jake Paul understands
how many people hate him.
He understands that people want to see him fail,
they wanna see him get knocked out.
And that hate is so strong that
tons of people were willing to pay $50
to watch the pay-per-view,
which had Jake Paul getting a guaranteed $3.2 million
plus a reported 65% of the pay-per-view profits.
And so that's why you have some places estimating that
he made over 8 million from this fight.
Jake Paul even posting today that he made 30 million.
I don't know how much we can believe those numbers.
Which is why I've been saying since the beginning,
he is setting himself up for situations where
even when he loses, he wins massively.
I don't know about you, I would take 8 to 30 million
to take a public L,
'cause when I take public Ls,
I just have like a bad weekend or month
and everything else just stays the same.
Now as far as what happens next,
is there a rematch with Fury? I don't know.
Like, they might do it, I doubt it would be as successful.
It seemed like the big appeal with this fight
was the unknown, like, where are their skill levels at?
And then the other,
which I think is still interesting to a lot of people
even though Jake Paul lost,
would be Jake Paul versus KSI.
Because even though he lost here,
he's still widely seen as the best YouTube boxer.
And then, before we go any further,
let's talk about something very important to me:
your health.
Chances are you've woken up before
with a sore throat, rash, or other symptom,
and immediately head over to see what TikTok or Google says.
And before you know it, you're convinced "I'm dying."
Right? Because the Internet's just got too much information.
So why not talk to someone who is actually qualified?
And well, thanks to the sponsor of today's show,
Zocdoc, you can.
Zocdoc helps you find doctors, dentists,
and other medical professionals
that specialize in the care that you need.
And Zocdoc is the only free app that lets you find and book
doctors who are patient-reviewed,
take your insurance, are available when you need them,
and treat almost every condition under the sun.
It's so convenient
and it makes finding quality care so much easier,
saving you hours that you would've spent
trying to find the right doctor.
Zocdoc frees up even more of your time
by showing you when doctors are available.
No more running around and trying to
fit in your appointment during your lunch break.
So just go to zocdoc.com/Phil
and download the Zocdoc app for free.
And then just find and book a top-rated doctor today.
Many are available within 24 hours.
That's Z O C D O C.com/Phil, zocdoc.com/phil.
And then, "South Park" is at the center of
an absolutely massive lawsuit
between two major companies right now.
So for some background.
Back in 2019, the streaming rights for "South Park,"
a Comedy Central program owned by Paramount,
were up for grabs.
And HBO Max, which is owned by Warner Bros,
ended up getting the exclusive rights to stream "South Park"
as part of a $500 million deal.
And that HBO deal covered all 23 seasons of "South Park"
that were completed at the time,
as well as three new seasons set to be made in the future,
with those seasons each reportedly
supposed to be at least 10 episodes long.
But now we're seeing Warner Bros suing Paramount
for violating that half a billion dollar deal,
saying they didn't get what was promised,
claiming Paramount breached the contract
by putting "South Park" specials on
its own streaming service, Paramount Plus,
and adding that instead of getting 10 new episodes
for each of the three new seasons,
HBO Max only got a handful for each,
totalling 14 across all three.
And because new episodes are worth more than older ones,
Warner Bros says that
it's severely overpaid for the library.
Also, the lawsuit takes issue with
a massive $900 million deal
"South Park" creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone
signed with a Paramount subsidiary back in 2021,
with that deal including "South Park" spinoff movies
made for Paramount Plus,
and four of them are actually already on Paramount Plus,
with two aptly named:
"South Park: The Streaming Wars, Parts One and Two."
But Warner Bros argues that
this new content should have fallen under the HBO Max deal
and should have been streamed there, not on Paramount Plus.
And in fact, accusing Paramount of using verbal trickery
by classifying the new content as movies, films, or events
instead of episodes,
saying this was a deliberate effort to
weasel out of applying to the HBO Max deal.
Because new episodes would
very explicitly belong to HBO Max.
So you have HBO Max releasing a statement saying
"We believe that Paramount and South Park Digital Studios
embarked on a multi-year scheme of
unfair trade practices and deception,
flagrantly and repeatedly breaching our contract
which clearly gave HBO Max exclusive streaming rights to
the existing library and new content
from the popular animated comedy 'South Park.'"
Now for their part, Paramount says that
these allegations are without merit,
and adding that it's adhering to the contract,
"despite the fact that Warner Bros discovery has failed
and refused to pay license fees that it owes to Paramount
for episodes that have already been delivered
and which HBO Max continues to stream."
And understand, this isn't like some little small dispute.
Not only is it a massive property,
but this could impact future streaming licensing deals.
Right? If it goes in Paramount's favor,
do studios with existing deals try to use the same loophole?
If the contract specifically says
it has to produce 'episodes' for one streaming service,
will studios all of a sudden say,
"Hey, we're making movies or variety specials," for another.
And then, this could be the end of academic freedom
in Florida, or at least what's left of it.
Last week, Republicans pre-filed a bill, HB-999,
in the House,
before the legislative session begins next month,
and it's already shocking educators, with Jeremy C. Young
from the free speech advocacy group Pen America tweeting,
"HB-999 would enact the most draconian
and censorious restrictions on higher education
in the history of this country."
First off, it outright bans, quote,
"any major or minor in critical race theory,
gender studies or intersectionality,
or any derivative major or minor of these belief systems."
Next, it bans colleges and universities from
funding or supporting any programs or campus activities
that espouse diversity, equity, and inclusion
or critical race theory.
Then, general ed or core classes will be banned from
presenting American history, quote,
"contrary to the creation of a new nation
based on universal principles
stated in the Declaration of Independence,"
and adding that such course cannot feature, quote,
"identity politics such as critical race theory."
And to top it off, they also cannot have
a curriculum based on, quote,
"unproven theoretical or exploratory content,"
which is why you had people going, "Wait, so like, science?"
But also, very notably,
this bill doesn't just target content.
It will also put all hiring decisions
in the hands of each university's board of trustees,
which are predominantly appointed by
Ron DeSantis and his Republican allies.
And another key thing is that
any member of that board can also call for
the review of any faculty member's tenure
at any time for any reason.
With all that being the reason why Young went on to declare
"HB-999 would end academic freedom,
shared governance, and university independence
in Florida's public higher education
in favor of one man's authoritarian control
of public university decisions.
It would be the end of Florida higher ed
as a space of open inquiry and free expression."
You also saw resistance to the bill
and similar measures from students themselves,
with a statewide walkout late last week
at colleges across Florida.
You know, this is just the culmination of
a years-long plan by DeSantis
to reshape education in his image.
And it appears that schools have begun
buckling under the pressure,
with the University of Florida's president appearing to
warn faculty that violating the quote "stop woke act"
which severely curtails discussion of
race and gender in higher education,
it could cost the institution millions of dollars.
Right, that was last May, and not long afterward,
the state administered an ideological survey
to students, faculty, and staff
which critics called a political litmus test
that threatened academic freedom. And then this year we saw
the New College of Florida Board of Trustees
ousting its president in favor of
a former Republican politician,
with this capping off Ron's push
to transform the board itself
with 11 of the 13 seats now appointed either by him
or the Republican-led Florida Board of Governors.
With the other two left over
coming from the student body and the faculty.
Most recently, presidents from 28 state colleges
signed a joint letter promising to, quote,
"not fund or support any institutional practice, policy,
or academic requirement that compels
belief in critical race theory or related concepts."
And as for what's next here, we have to see
how future drafts of the legislation change.
Then if it passes,
it'll certainly get challenged in the courts.
But also it's important to remember that
this doesn't stop with Florida, right?
Ron's possibly running for president,
and even if he doesn't, he's setting the example
for conservative culture warriors across America.
And then, a bill targeting drag shows
just passed the state house in Tennessee,
and while it is in no way the only bill in the country
right now aimed at starting a war on drag shows,
it does stand out, and that's for a number of reasons,
so let's break it down.
So the Tennessee bill would ban what it calls
"adult-oriented" entertainment from public spaces
and limit it to age-restricted venues,
classifying male and female impersonators as
"adult cabaret" performers.
Also, notably, it could apply to other shows,
like lo-go dancing and stripping.
The first offense would be a misdemeanor crime
and a subsequent one would be a felony
punished by one to six years in prison,
with people pointing out
there could be wide ranging consequences to this,
including its ability to impact Pride celebrations,
or the ability for it to be used
against trans people in the state
doing any kind of performance, drag or not.
And as far as how this is being sold,
you have Republicans like Representative Chris Todd
claiming that this is a common sense child safety bill,
with Todd previously condemning what was advertised as
a "family-friendly" drag show that was part of a Pride event
as being a form of child abuse.
But with this, we've seen Democrats pushing back
essentially saying, "Have you fully lost your minds?"
Or at the very least saying that
this is kind of just about stoking the culture war,
that this doesn't actually do much
other than villainize the LGBTQ community,
the likes of representative Gloria Johnson noting that
the state already has obscenity laws in writing.
"We are wasting time and tax dollars
on this anti-drag bill.
They say it's protecting children, that's a lie.
We already have a law that makes it illegal
to be obscene in front of kids.
It applies no matter what you are wearing.
This bill is only to target LGBTQ individuals."
So just one of many saying this is redundant
and it could actually lead to further attacks and harassment
against the LGBTQ plus population in Tennessee,
with the legal director of the Human Rights Campaign saying,
"the Tennessee legislature has done nothing but
spread hate, misinformation, and extremism.
Drag is a longstanding celebratory form of entertainment
and a meaningful source of employment
for many across the state.
Yet rather than focus on
actual policy issues facing Tennesseeans,
politicians would rather spend their time and effort
misconstruing age-appropriate performances at a library
to pass as many anti-LGBTQ plus bills as they can.
Dangerous rhetoric like this has real consequences."
With the drag performer known as Peppermint
talking to Reuters and saying, "Bills like this,
they're based on false and dangerous rhetoric,"
and saying "It's a strawman, it's a boogie monster,
it's not really a thing so they make up stories,"
"they target us, dehumanize us, villainize us,
and then they pass legislation against us."
And this of course not just happening in Tennessee.
By mid-February, there were at least 14 states
with drag bills in the works.
And while the fact that there's a culture war around this
isn't surprising, what is very interesting is
this kind of legislation is getting a very big notable push
from conservative Christian lobbying groups
like Family Policy Alliance,
with some measures even modeled after the Texas abortion law
allowing citizens to sue venues that host drag shows
they believe violate state law.
And some are just written in ways that would ban
more than just drag shows, right?
They could broadly apply to a variety of performances,
with the director of
Pen America's US Free Expression Program saying,
"It's not clear to me that a trans man, for example,
who wrote a book, would be able to do a book reading
at a local bookstore under these bills.
A high school couldn't perform a Shakespeare play
like 'Twelfth Night' because 'Twelfth Night' explicitly
in its plot included a woman dressed as a man."
So they have the potential to create these gray areas
where even more totally non-offensive performances
could become illegal.
But also another thing we're seeing
with this rhetoric is that
it's kind of normalized the far-right targeting drag shows.
We've seen things like in November in North Carolina,
the Proud Boys disrupted a drag event
with the organizer of that event saying
they were very hostile and openly harassing patrons,
saying they were trying to intimidate everyone,
calling them 'groomers' among other names.
And throughout 2022, the Proud Boys are part of
dozens of anti-LGBTQ demonstrations,
several of which specifically targeted drag-related events,
and reports showing that weapons are
turning up at these protests more and more frequently.
And that's where today's show ends.
Thank you for watching, liking, being subscribed to
these daily dives into the news.
Remember this week, you can come back to the channel
every single day there's gonna be a brand new video for you.
So as always, my name's Philip DeFranco,
you've just been filled in.
I love your faces and I'll see you tomorrow.